http://conservativetribune.com/physicist...2016-12-13

Quote:Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku recently claimed that he found proof that God exists, and his reasoning has caused a stir in the scientific community.

In short, he says that the order we see in the universe is proof of intelligent design.

The science on this is, how do we say, not settled.

Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' that our universe is a simulation... IOW he believes it's very possible that there is some intelligence that set this thing going.

"if we take it as read that it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe."

(12-14-2016 04:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' that our universe is a simulation... IOW he believes it's very possible that there is some intelligence that set this thing going.

"God Did It" holds as much information as "We Don't Know". Which sort of puts everything back at square one, no?

(12-14-2016 04:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' that our universe is a simulation... IOW he believes it's very possible that there is some intelligence that set this thing going.

"God Did It" holds as much information as "We Don't Know". Which sort of puts everything back at square one, no?

I think so...

I'm one of those crazy creationist christians but I beleve God created the universe with a hard set of rules and the study of physics is to understand those rules

From a *practical* point of view my view of science should be no different than that of an atheist. I hate that we have so much derision and dismissal on what should be common ideas..

(12-14-2016 04:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 04:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' that our universe is a simulation... IOW he believes it's very possible that there is some intelligence that set this thing going.

"God Did It" holds as much information as "We Don't Know". Which sort of puts everything back at square one, no?

until you add a little faith into the mix.

If order is indicative of intelligent design, then the 'evidence' is all around us and in everything we have learned about physics and mathematics, despite all that we don't know regarding the hows and whys. It will always require a bit of faith, and that is what separate the "God Did It" from the "We Don't Know".

I have always thought this.

To me, the question remains is how much God intervenes in the world. At the very least, one should be a Deist.

Just the idea of how magnificent our bodies are and how it works is proof that God created us. Just the idea of how our moon and our son is to earth proves God created them. At least two things in His grand scheme of things. Believe me there are more. I've posted links to scientific fact that no one watches or don't want to believe.

This is the type of stuff that actually made me strongly question my belief in God. This article is going to be used as a means to bolster the belief in the "God of the bible". Next you'll see the obligatory claim that "Einstein believes in God". It's not true. I don't know what Michio's spiritual claims are; however, I did study Einstein's views. His views are well in line with Spinoza's beliefs - which is Pantheism. IOW, the belief is in a being who has no connection to any religious system on earth and whose only goal was to "create it and observe". No intervention, no special people, no religious doctrine, etc. A number of Pantheists have the belief that god is dead and that we are living in his carcass.

It's silly when apologetics is pushed to the limits that it has to go into the realm of astrophysics to prove creation. Because once you have to get to that point, the apologetics argument is all but lost because it becomes: "There is a chance that some being created the universe. If so, then why not assume it's the God of the bible"? Very weak.

(12-14-2016 04:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Just the idea of how magnificent our bodies are and how it works is proof that God created us.

I disagree.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution and it is not just speculation. Evolution a productive framework for lots of biological research and it has amazing scientific explanatory power. There has really been no concern with evolution as a scientific theory to explain the magnificence of the human body.

The theory of scientific evolution works, and it works well.

(12-14-2016 04:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Just the idea of how our moon and our son is to earth proves God created them.

There is no failure of physics as a scientific theory to explain the moon and the sun and its relationship with earth. Physics also works, and it works well.

I like being a Deist. Somewhat altruistic humanism, longing and admiration for greater knowledge of the cosmos, and pragmatism all around. Not going to lie, the hedonistic moments are great too

(12-14-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Evolution a productive framework for lots of biological research and it has amazing scientific explanatory power.

See I actually agree with this even though I don't believe in evolution. I believe God, for lack of a better term "reused code" so studying one animal and it's genetic makeup gives us information about ourselves.

Quote:The theory of scientific evolution works, and it works well.

So did the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even though it had no resemblance at all to reality. But as a model it worked, and it worked well for a good long time.

(12-15-2016 12:00 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Evolution a productive framework for lots of biological research and it has amazing scientific explanatory power.

See I actually agree with this even though I don't believe in evolution. I believe God, for lack of a better term "reused code" so studying one animal and it's genetic makeup gives us information about ourselves.

Quote:The theory of scientific evolution works, and it works well.

So did the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even though it had no resemblance at all to reality. But as a model it worked, and it worked well for a good long time.

A geocentric model for the solar system is a scientific model. It's bad science today, but at least it could be tested and conclusions drawn from the model. Contrast that with trying to build a scientific model based on creationism. You can't do anything with that. You couldn't test it. It's not science.

(12-15-2016 08:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:00 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Evolution a productive framework for lots of biological research and it has amazing scientific explanatory power.

See I actually agree with this even though I don't believe in evolution. I believe God, for lack of a better term "reused code" so studying one animal and it's genetic makeup gives us information about ourselves.

Quote:The theory of scientific evolution works, and it works well.

So did the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even though it had no resemblance at all to reality. But as a model it worked, and it worked well for a good long time.

A geocentric model for the solar system is a scientific model. It's bad science today, but at least it could be tested and conclusions drawn from the model. Contrast that with trying to build a scientific model based on creationism. You can't do anything with that. You couldn't test it. It's not science.

That can be said in the definitionary manner that a scientific theory/model must be falsifiable.

For example string theory, in its current manifestations, are not scientific theories.

i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

We can call that the "St Elsewhere Hypothesis."

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Both are speculations, but both are not on the same level either. Speculating that we are nothing but a very complex computer program is surely spitballing; however, there are degrees of freedom to do so because the assumption would be an unknowable, impersonable being who created it.

Young earth creationists - OTOH - are constrained by their choice in religious systems (Christianity/Judaism, Islam and other religions with creation myths). In particular a young earth creationist who is a Christian is constrained by the Genesis myths in the bible. So he/she has to accept a 6000 year old earth, people who lived for several hundreds of years, "the firmament", the Tower of Babel explanation for language despite the scientific discoveries in physics, astronomy, archaeology, biology, etc showing otherwise.

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

(12-15-2016 10:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:44 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  i find it interesting that young earth creationists are derided, but the notion that we are in a simulation where the physical world and our memories could be fabricated, as early as a moment ago are deemed within the realm of possibility

Yea, its funny how some will chide creationism, even though thousands of years ago the bible laid out creation as a big bang type event that science now agrees with. Yet, some of those same people who deny the existence of God will cling to a totally ridiculous theory that someone literally pulled out of their ass.

No it doesn't.

i mean i'm probably in the camp where I can firmly say I dont know the genesis of the earth. It could be some kind of alegory and creation was a long process that came together through natural processes, or if it happened 6,000 years ago. I wouldnt say young earth creation is impossible, nor evolution. Pretty interesting to see similar conclusions by very different people.