Either way Michio Kaku is always interesting. I think what Carl Sagan was for Astronomy, and what I think Richard Dawkins is for Biology, I think Dr.Kaku is for Physics.
I wonder... maybe you can't teach an ape calculus, but could you teach an australopithecus?
I have no doubt that Neanderthals could learn calculus, and I think Homo Erectus probably could have to. But what about those Australopithecines? Would they have just that bit extra that does the trick? And if not, at what point did it start?
impossible to comprehend how nothing is something. Maybe anti-matter which seems nothing is the something from which matter and time was formed(?), The study of black holes seems important because matter seems to disappear (right?).
Perhaps the original state of the universe was "anti-matter" (non matter), but it was something and had potential matter. Like an empty huge tunnel, it looked empty and of nothing but the forces were around it and it led to matter - we are inside the tunnel now(?)
@WaitingToFade Because the god of harmony wouldn't ask us for donations on, or to kill people with different beliefs. It would also not speak through corrupt organizations that scam billions of dollars every year promising you eternal life only -after- you die.
Now, if you mean the personal god that saves you from a weird fall thanks to physics laws in place, or allows you to perceive a bit of the world around you using the light reflected by objects.Then maybe they are indeed one and the same.
What I find truly astounding is that noone has stopped and said ''I don't know''. Humans have existed for thousands of years. The Universe has existed for billions. Religion can give you an answer in a second. Science can give you an answer in a millenia. Religion is easy and simple and removes worry, fear and doubt. Science is difficult, terrifying and requires incredible patience. You can take the simple oppressive answer.. or wait for the discovery of truth.
we don't know the principal secret of the universe: where does energy and/or matter come from. It makes no sense to say it comes from nothing and that even nothing is something. Dr Michio is great but maybe needs to be humbler. I guess there are other dimensions of which we know nothing and maybe these gave raise to our matter universe. Also we still don't really know the nature of "string theory".Michio does well to research but the "secret" eludes us still and I think this should be admitted.
Quantum Physics?? Totally fake because if their is a river flowing the same way and than another surge of water come rushing the same way , water will clash but where would it go? At 500 MPH water surging the same way hitting each other creates a tornado due to moisture and heat retracted from the imapact, thus making wind to rise and cause a tornado, but if quantum physics was true than that pool was just clash and go seperate ways .
This is 8 months late, but this has to be the most ridiculous misunderstanding of something I have ever seen. The term quantum principle as used here isn't a physical "thing" that can exist or not exist. It's just a term to describe the path via which the universe came into existence to the best of our understanding given the empirical data we have to work from.
No one is assuming anything. These ideas are considered to be the best interpretation of the evidence and math that we have.
Thank you ScientiaMathema for your comments, nicely done. I enjoy Michio Kaku he can be exciting because he's cool and hip and isn't afraid to speculate about 'wild' things. But I am turned off by his frequent references to god. I think it's easily misconstrued and unnecessary. To me it represents the power of society's programming and conditioning in this matter. Our thoughts and language are permeated with these superstitions and delusions and one thing we do excel at is self delusion.
He's a nice guy but he's propounding a view of reality which is highy suspect. Like most physists he thinks that their equations are the working of the universe. They are not. They are models to describe the universe as best we can. But, there is always an error. There is always a better model over the horizon based on ideas we can't yet comprehend.
Newton (the greatest mind ever) knew this but modern physists with their absurd string theory seem to have lost the plot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In every atheistic explanation, there is an ASSUMPTION. In this video, you hear it: "We physicists believe that word is 'the quantum principle' ", from that ASSUMPTION they build everything.
At the beginning there was nothing... except the quantum principle of course, upon which we can build our theory. So how did the quantum principle come about?? Now sure, you say God is also an assumption, but then you also admitting that your theories amount to nothing more than FAITH in your own religion.
It's laws are not an assumption. Its existence in the beginning is an assumption. What I mean is, when theres nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, absolutely nothing, then there is also no quantum principle. Scientists are trying to explain how something came from absolutely nothing. When there's nothing, there's nothing, including no quantum principle & no science. Scientists assume the existence of science and its laws in the beginning, the same way theists start with the assumption of God.
At the quantum level, basic foundations in human perception - like cause and effect, the conservation of matter and energy, et cetera - do not apply. And the origin of the universe is necessarily a quantum phenomenon or manifestation thereof.
It is for this reasoning that "common sense" cannot be applied to theories that explain the origin of the universe.
Well explained, and very interesting. Then from my point of view, it would be just as acceptable and reasonable to go beyond "common sense" and logical science, to the concept of a "God" (i.e. something that doesn't adhere to logical science and common sense). Don't get me wrong, I don't care either way. I totally understand why many people don't believe in a personal God, just saying.
The issue is that this god - no matter what god(s) - has not been demonstrated; the quantum effects I mentioned have. For example, the violation of conservation is observable in the Casimir effect, which is caused by spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs. These pairs violate the conservation laws, but due to that, can only exist for a very short time, on the order of 10^-35 seconds. Similar things apply to all quantum phenomena. Surely a god is greater in influence than THAT.
@ScientiaMathema to this entire string of replies lol .... didnt they use quantum physics to prove the existence of God or a supreme deity ?? this bicker seems kind of pointless bc both sides of the argument are intertwined, each proving the other to be true.
@ScientiaMathema Actually, while the description you gave can give quantitative results and is therefore predictive the preferred modern interpretation is that it's due to a quantized field (arises from the second quantization actually) and the plates represent a barrier to realizing all of the possible quantizations. I know it's not a big deal but just wanted to throw my hat in the ring. (See theists! Scientifically literate people disagree all the time) BTW subbing your channel. Cheers
Intelligent design by aliens huh? Where did the aliens come from? Yours & Richard Dawkins tactic is to remove your massive problem of having to admit to intelligent design by putting the problem on Mars (aliens) where we can't observe it. You're wrong, not to mention thick. And until you can come up with a remotely plausible explanation for how a big explosion creates all life on Earth when no explosions have EVER been observed to construct ANYTHING, then Intelligent Design by GOD it is. The End
Yeah, read my statements again and again if you don't understand them
"I compared intelligent design by aliens versus intelligent design by the "Christian god" and gave an opinion on which I thought was more likely."
What makes you so thick is that you don't grasp that whether life was seeded by aliens or not, you would still be obliged to explain where the aliens came from, who made them? I guess another alien race made those aliens hey? For not understanding that basic concept, you a moron
@gert123456 You are making an assumption that 'nothing' exists or has never existed, can you give me an example of 'nothing'? I think that 'nothing' is just the same as 'god'.
@UHAX101 Its not that I make the assumption that nothing exists or has ever existed. I make the assumption that without cause u cannot have effect. Therefore if something didn't cause something to come into existence, how can it exists? Did it create itself? Did science one day pop into existence and make the rules and create a big bang? God may not be a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe and its laws, but it's certainly better than saying, "it just exploded into existence"
@gert123456 Cause and effect are not valid in String Theory, or in Quantum Mechanics. In short, at a Quantum level cause and effect does not apply. For example a particle can change direction, appear, disappear without a cause, they can also exist in two places at the same time.
@UHAX101 Just cause we dont know the cause doesnt mean theres no cause. But no way u swing it, no amount of scientific wrangling and 'theorising' is going to make it plausible to believe that space, time, matter, laws of science, laws of logic, and laws of morality one day just came into existence, and science did it all. At least in my mind, you need to go outside the computer to explain where it came from the same way you need to get 'outside' science to explain how scientific laws came about.
@gert123456 Science is the method for finding out how true a hypothesis or theory is. I just want to make sure we are on the same page... I think you are now making the assumption that time had to have a beginning. Please watch this video > watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
@UHAX101 Yes, & the laws of science are what you use to reason through that process of discovering how true a theory is. Im not talking about science itself. Im talking about the laws of science, same as the concept of morality & logic. The video is VERY interesting, but whether time has a start/end or not, it doesnt change a thing. The endless loop of time would still have had to be placed into existence. To even hypothesize you must already assume time exists. Whether it has a start/end or not
@gert123456 there is a difference in assumptions. oe assumption is based on nothing except hear say, with no scientific evidece to validate it. the other assumption is made with hundreds of years of scientific advancement, and will be corrected if the evidence suggests it needs to be corrected.
You are almost correct but not quite there. Yes, every theory to a degree is an assumption in science, but we DO NOT place faith in the assumption. We study and observe and try to build the best possible explanation (AKA scientific theory). All scientific theories are based on evidence for the theory, not faith. Do not compare science to a religion, they are 2 completely different things.
@gert123456 There's a twist in your logic that you missed, which i can't say if on purpose to support your thought or by accident. The last paragraph says "How did the quantum principle come about?" and it's a good argument. But after that, one could also ask "Yes, and how did God come about?".
@sagan1976 You right, but only when you take God as the end-result of a scientific process, which he isn't. God created the laws of science, morality & logic without which you couldnt even have this debate. Science cant explain laws of science, morality, and logic, yet it uses them to reason about the world. Only with God as your starting point does the laws of science make sense. Unless of course science created itself. Since God exists outside of space and time, he has no beginning and no end.
@gert123456 I don't understand the need to input God in every field of human knowledge. Maybe science is our way to interpret God's work and His actions, through mathematics and logical reasoning. Why are believers so afraid? Afraid that science will explain God or substitute Him (or Her)? If you believe, good for you. Good for those who believe. But do you accept everything in your life "as is" and as such have no curiosity about the surrounding world? I think not. Curiosity is a human trait.
@sagan1976 Yes, we are in agreement about that. I'm not against exploring & finding out how things came about & how they work. But I do hold fast that it's impossible to explain the existence of the universe, its laws, and all it contains without God and going outside the boundaries of scientific laws. This is what hard core atheists try to do & I think its absurd & I like showing them the folly of their ways. Its a fun hobby really. Im not against science. Science is exactly what you described.
@gert123456 It's, as one might say, your prerogative. And as such, mine also. And i have to disagree with what you say. I think God is a human construct. Faith is as human as curiosity and i have nothing against faith, for it's (i believe) a private thing. Any attempt to encapsulate something that we are a part of and yet it's bigger than the sum of everything it contains( as the Universe is) as the result of the actions of a human construct is diminishing of the universe itself.
@sagan1976 You're right it's each ones prerogative to believe what they want. It's your right to believe that science appeared out of nothing and that science can explain how science can create itself and it's own laws. It's my right to believe that science cannot and does not account for the very laws it follows in the very search for it's origins. If humans created God, then that leaves the question, who created science? And that's a questions that science itself will never be able to answer.
@gert123456 I don't understand what you mean with "science created itself" ans "science appeared out of nothing". Science didn't appear out of nothing. It appeared long after we came, as an attempt to explain that which had no explanation and was left to interpretation, some of which were absurd. And of course, humans created science when they attempted said explanation. What, you mean God created science? As what, as a test of faith? Like, i know atoms and cells but it all comes down to You?
@sagan1976 When I say science created itself, I'm referring to the laws of science that govern everything. Saying that science appeared long after we came isn't true. Science and scientific laws existed since the beginning. We only started discovering them long after. The point I'm making is that it's easy to try make God obsolete by trying to prove science can explain everything, but those very explanations would be based on laws of logic that couldn't have come from nowhere.
@sagan1976 Further more- I respect Michio Kaku and love his documentaries, but while he's saying that a new set of discoveries makes the need for a God obsolete, he firstly assumes that science exists to prove God. It doesn't. How arrogant. And secondly, I know of at least 1 respected 'atheist' who travels in the same intellectual circles of Kaku who recently became theist (note, not a Christian specifically) saying the latest scientific discoveries support intelligent design overwhelmingly.
@sagan1976 Further more- I respect Michio Kaku and love his documentaries, but while he's saying that a new set of discoveries makes the need for a God obsolete, he firstly assumes that science exists to prove God. It doesn't. How arrogant. And secondly, I know of at least 1 respected 'atheist' who travels in the same intellectual circles of Kaku who recently became theist (note, not a Christian specifically) saying the latest scientific discoveries support intelligent design overwhelmingly.
@PET3RRULEZ Nope, but I'd believe that the earth came from a giant butthole long before I believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. I know you think it's crazy to believe in a God, but that's a whole lot less insane than the atheism world view.
@buttholeboy 1st: God is CreaTOR not CreaTION, hence He's not "created from" anything. 2nd: The concept of length width depth and time and the rest of the dimensions are physical world concepts. You're assuming that God is bound by time and that he therefore requires a starts and an end. As your question proves, you believe a start is required but "God existing outside of time" is a better explanation than the crap your atheistic worldview can come up with (e.g. perpetual universe etc).
1st: God is CreaTOR not CreaTION, hence He's not "created from" anything. 2nd: The concept of length width depth and time and the rest of the dimensions are physical world concepts. You're assuming that God is bound by time and that he therefore requires a starts and an end. As your question proves, you believe a start is required but "God existing outside of time" is a better explanation than the crap your atheistic worldview can come up with (e.g. perpetual universe etc).
@gert123456 see, you believe in religious stuff that cannot be prove. Then again, if god is a creator, someone or something have to create god isnt that true? right now you are pretty much saying god is created out of nothing, he is just there.
@PET3RRULEZ and you believe that science, time, space & matter came out of nothing, it was just there... and you're looking at me funny? the difference being that with science, something cannot come into existence from nothing, never has never will. The spiritual doesn't have that problem. Where did science come from? Where did the big bang come from? Not so clever when you on the receiving end of your own line of reasoning hey?
@gert123456 then again, if time, space, and matter come out of noting. then what is god, something that is not real, if it is real it must be have come from something. perhaps his/her parents.
@PET3RRULEZ Yeah I'll just go ahead and leave you to wrestle with that... if there's no God operating on a higher spiritual level, where could time, space and matter have come from? I don't envy atheists' predicament.
@gert123456 :) i think you should think alittle bit more about this. God, prehaps is real but no for me. You must also remeber that god didnt save anybody, science did, well sort off
@PET3RRULEZ Thing is, you don't know that God didn't save anybody. Without God there is no science to supposedly save you. God is right when he says in the Bible that there is no such thing as an atheist, because it's clear that science is your God, you speak of it as if it's a person. And funny enough, you hit the nail on the head. God is indeed real, but the problem is He isn't real for you. But He is there to be found, just not if you arrogantly trying to disprove His existence.
@gert123456 then again, have you met god ? how do you know he exist ? By the way, what is wrong with beening atheist ? oh yea, by the way if god exist then why isnt he here?
@PET3RRULEZ Yes I've met God. He doesnt meet u in science text books but in the quiet of a humble heart thats not trying its best to disprove Him. I know He exists not only because of my own experience of Him but cause science has failed to prove how massive explosions (big bang) can construct anything; it only ever destroy things. Thats the real observed science. Why isn't God here? Thats a logical fallacy called a red herring. Whether Gods here or not has no bearing on the fact that He exists
Just cause He's not physically visible, doesn't mean He's not here and doesn't exist, in the same way that air and gravity is invisible but its effects are clearly visible. By your logic those shouldn't exist cause you can't see them.
@ScientiaMathema There's also the issue that there's probably a dozen or so people on Earth that know the mathematics of String theory well enough to explain it. String theory, as far as most physicists can tell, is a branch of mathematics, not physics.
@ScientiaMathema it's about something personal he mentioned about how he is Japanese and well...during WWII well that is shinning point of American history correct.
nature is my religion, nature is my direct creator, but what created nature , i dont know. im in pursuit of the secrets of the universe. only time will tell.
Yes, they can. Just because it is not yet understood does not mean it ever will.
For example, a few hundred years ago, there were a great many who said that it is impossible to understand the motion of the planets. Now humans know, and it is a very simple set of laws, too.
Either way Michio Kaku is always interesting. I think what Carl Sagan was for Astronomy, and what I think Richard Dawkins is for Biology, I think Dr.Kaku is for Physics.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
I wonder... maybe you can't teach an ape calculus, but could you teach an australopithecus?
I have no doubt that Neanderthals could learn calculus, and I think Homo Erectus probably could have to. But what about those Australopithecines? Would they have just that bit extra that does the trick? And if not, at what point did it start?
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
impossible to comprehend how nothing is something. Maybe anti-matter which seems nothing is the something from which matter and time was formed(?), The study of black holes seems important because matter seems to disappear (right?).
Perhaps the original state of the universe was "anti-matter" (non matter), but it was something and had potential matter. Like an empty huge tunnel, it looked empty and of nothing but the forces were around it and it led to matter - we are inside the tunnel now(?)
enniopat 5 months ago
Why couldn't the God of harmony and order be the one and the same God that gives us personal miracles everyday?
WaitingToFade 6 months ago
@WaitingToFade Because the god of harmony wouldn't ask us for donations on, or to kill people with different beliefs. It would also not speak through corrupt organizations that scam billions of dollars every year promising you eternal life only -after- you die.
Now, if you mean the personal god that saves you from a weird fall thanks to physics laws in place, or allows you to perceive a bit of the world around you using the light reflected by objects.Then maybe they are indeed one and the same.
Raydeus 6 months ago
Nothing is something so if nothing exists that is something right?
hispanicmagic 7 months ago
What I find truly astounding is that noone has stopped and said ''I don't know''. Humans have existed for thousands of years. The Universe has existed for billions. Religion can give you an answer in a second. Science can give you an answer in a millenia. Religion is easy and simple and removes worry, fear and doubt. Science is difficult, terrifying and requires incredible patience. You can take the simple oppressive answer.. or wait for the discovery of truth.
Falchorn585 7 months ago
it's all about the theory of everything see the formula on theoreticalphysics.webs.com
paginipro 9 months ago
Comment removed
ThleTruth 9 months ago
so nothing produces bubbles in a lake of nothing? :\ GOD
ThleTruth 9 months ago
god is logic see my discovery theoreticalphysics.webs.com open your mind to logic
paginipro 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he is without a doubt my favorite human being
SteadeeB 9 months ago
we don't know the principal secret of the universe: where does energy and/or matter come from. It makes no sense to say it comes from nothing and that even nothing is something. Dr Michio is great but maybe needs to be humbler. I guess there are other dimensions of which we know nothing and maybe these gave raise to our matter universe. Also we still don't really know the nature of "string theory".Michio does well to research but the "secret" eludes us still and I think this should be admitted.
enniopat 10 months ago
Quantum Physics?? Totally fake because if their is a river flowing the same way and than another surge of water come rushing the same way , water will clash but where would it go? At 500 MPH water surging the same way hitting each other creates a tornado due to moisture and heat retracted from the imapact, thus making wind to rise and cause a tornado, but if quantum physics was true than that pool was just clash and go seperate ways .
MrMarket24 10 months ago
remember techtv? yea...fuck g4 nowadays
codemonkeyslikeme 10 months ago
first minute blew my mind!!
josapology 10 months ago
i cant understand calculus.. :s
MrManwithoutass 11 months ago
The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything is....... 42
Haxsalot 1 year ago 6
@Haxsalot i bet you're a hitchhiker.
fell0wbaby 10 months ago
@Haxsalot i bet you're a hitchhiker
fell0wbaby 10 months ago
I think I'm more impressed that this is from TechTV, I miss TechTV. the screen savers, and Chris Pirillo on call for help
samgurl85 1 year ago
This is 8 months late, but this has to be the most ridiculous misunderstanding of something I have ever seen. The term quantum principle as used here isn't a physical "thing" that can exist or not exist. It's just a term to describe the path via which the universe came into existence to the best of our understanding given the empirical data we have to work from.
No one is assuming anything. These ideas are considered to be the best interpretation of the evidence and math that we have.
crystalschambers 1 year ago
lol at the dramatic asian music when Michio was dressing up. you know when the video is american.
sushanalone 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThleTruth 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThleTruth 1 year ago
I can't believe it, under 8000 views. This is so interesting, way better than Judge Judy.
SmoothGroove45 1 year ago 12
Thank you ScientiaMathema for your comments, nicely done. I enjoy Michio Kaku he can be exciting because he's cool and hip and isn't afraid to speculate about 'wild' things. But I am turned off by his frequent references to god. I think it's easily misconstrued and unnecessary. To me it represents the power of society's programming and conditioning in this matter. Our thoughts and language are permeated with these superstitions and delusions and one thing we do excel at is self delusion.
scotty 1 year ago
wow, geniuses. I just wanna know how to cook rice.
bastardjustice 1 year ago
the background music is just too loud, cut the music to god sake
mariamik104 1 year ago
He's a nice guy but he's propounding a view of reality which is highy suspect. Like most physists he thinks that their equations are the working of the universe. They are not. They are models to describe the universe as best we can. But, there is always an error. There is always a better model over the horizon based on ideas we can't yet comprehend.
Newton (the greatest mind ever) knew this but modern physists with their absurd string theory seem to have lost the plot.
pigsbishop99 1 year ago
I'd like to see what Michiou Kaku would say about Tesla..
neuspeed79 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In every atheistic explanation, there is an ASSUMPTION. In this video, you hear it: "We physicists believe that word is 'the quantum principle' ", from that ASSUMPTION they build everything.
At the beginning there was nothing... except the quantum principle of course, upon which we can build our theory. So how did the quantum principle come about?? Now sure, you say God is also an assumption, but then you also admitting that your theories amount to nothing more than FAITH in your own religion.
gert123456 1 year ago
How is quantum mechanics an assumption? It has been experimentally observed.
Ever hear of the LHC? It and accelerators like it have been used to prove much of quantum mechanics true.
ScientiaMathema 1 year ago 14
It's laws are not an assumption. Its existence in the beginning is an assumption. What I mean is, when theres nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, absolutely nothing, then there is also no quantum principle. Scientists are trying to explain how something came from absolutely nothing. When there's nothing, there's nothing, including no quantum principle & no science. Scientists assume the existence of science and its laws in the beginning, the same way theists start with the assumption of God.
gert123456 1 year ago
At the quantum level, basic foundations in human perception - like cause and effect, the conservation of matter and energy, et cetera - do not apply. And the origin of the universe is necessarily a quantum phenomenon or manifestation thereof.
It is for this reasoning that "common sense" cannot be applied to theories that explain the origin of the universe.
ScientiaMathema 1 year ago
Well explained, and very interesting. Then from my point of view, it would be just as acceptable and reasonable to go beyond "common sense" and logical science, to the concept of a "God" (i.e. something that doesn't adhere to logical science and common sense). Don't get me wrong, I don't care either way. I totally understand why many people don't believe in a personal God, just saying.
gert123456 1 year ago
The issue is that this god - no matter what god(s) - has not been demonstrated; the quantum effects I mentioned have. For example, the violation of conservation is observable in the Casimir effect, which is caused by spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs. These pairs violate the conservation laws, but due to that, can only exist for a very short time, on the order of 10^-35 seconds. Similar things apply to all quantum phenomena. Surely a god is greater in influence than THAT.
ScientiaMathema 1 year ago 2
Point taken.
gert123456 1 year ago
@ScientiaMathema to this entire string of replies lol .... didnt they use quantum physics to prove the existence of God or a supreme deity ?? this bicker seems kind of pointless bc both sides of the argument are intertwined, each proving the other to be true.
jman5290 10 months ago
@ScientiaMathema Actually, while the description you gave can give quantitative results and is therefore predictive the preferred modern interpretation is that it's due to a quantized field (arises from the second quantization actually) and the plates represent a barrier to realizing all of the possible quantizations. I know it's not a big deal but just wanted to throw my hat in the ring. (See theists! Scientifically literate people disagree all the time) BTW subbing your channel. Cheers
wkrepelin 6 months ago
@ScientiaMathema It all started with a thought. Deep space is deep thought :)o*o
TimeTravelTruther 1 year ago
@ScientiaMathema Woah, somebody lied to you about Quantum Theory!
wkrepelin 6 months ago
@gert123456
Yes but the assumption on the side of science is a much more compelling argument.
Some evidence is better than NO evidence
stalinprodigy 8 months ago
In your opinion. Not mine.
gert123456 8 months ago
@gert123456
Yes you are correct. My opinion is some evidence is better than none.
Intelligent design by aliens is more plausible than some jerk off sitting in the clouds watching my every move.
stalinprodigy 8 months ago
@stalinprodigy
Until you can tell me what happened before the Big Bang, this conversation is over. Period.
gert123456 8 months ago
Intelligent design by aliens huh? Where did the aliens come from? Yours & Richard Dawkins tactic is to remove your massive problem of having to admit to intelligent design by putting the problem on Mars (aliens) where we can't observe it. You're wrong, not to mention thick. And until you can come up with a remotely plausible explanation for how a big explosion creates all life on Earth when no explosions have EVER been observed to construct ANYTHING, then Intelligent Design by GOD it is. The End
gert123456 8 months ago
@gert123456
An obvious bible thumper. I never mentioned Mars where did that come from? or Richard Dawkins?
The remotely plausible explanation is that its a pinch from 2 other universes pushing together, not an "explosion".
Did I say I don't believe in intelligent design?
I compared intelligent design by aliens versus intelligent design by the "Christian god" and gave an opinion on which I thought was more likely.
You are an idiot, assume too much an know too little. The End.
stalinprodigy 8 months ago
Yeah, read my statements again and again if you don't understand them
"I compared intelligent design by aliens versus intelligent design by the "Christian god" and gave an opinion on which I thought was more likely."
What makes you so thick is that you don't grasp that whether life was seeded by aliens or not, you would still be obliged to explain where the aliens came from, who made them? I guess another alien race made those aliens hey? For not understanding that basic concept, you a moron
gert123456 8 months ago
@gert123456
Lol ya I don't need to read your posts more than once, I think you may need to reread a post.
I will state again...
DID I SAY I DON'T BELIEVE IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
You are so foolish you can take one comment and run with it to make it fit for whatever you want to believe about someone or something.
I did not state an opinion on my thoughts of Intelligent design, yet your entire post is based on the assumption that I don't believe.
I spoke solely on Human creation not aliens
stalinprodigy 8 months ago
@stalinprodigy
Ok. My apologies. I'm in the wrong frame of mind cause before you I had a long debate with someone who was on that track.
gert123456 8 months ago
@gert123456 You are making an assumption that 'nothing' exists or has never existed, can you give me an example of 'nothing'? I think that 'nothing' is just the same as 'god'.
UHAX101 5 months ago
@UHAX101 Its not that I make the assumption that nothing exists or has ever existed. I make the assumption that without cause u cannot have effect. Therefore if something didn't cause something to come into existence, how can it exists? Did it create itself? Did science one day pop into existence and make the rules and create a big bang? God may not be a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe and its laws, but it's certainly better than saying, "it just exploded into existence"
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 Cause and effect are not valid in String Theory, or in Quantum Mechanics. In short, at a Quantum level cause and effect does not apply. For example a particle can change direction, appear, disappear without a cause, they can also exist in two places at the same time.
UHAX101 5 months ago
@UHAX101 Just cause we dont know the cause doesnt mean theres no cause. But no way u swing it, no amount of scientific wrangling and 'theorising' is going to make it plausible to believe that space, time, matter, laws of science, laws of logic, and laws of morality one day just came into existence, and science did it all. At least in my mind, you need to go outside the computer to explain where it came from the same way you need to get 'outside' science to explain how scientific laws came about.
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 Science is the method for finding out how true a hypothesis or theory is. I just want to make sure we are on the same page... I think you are now making the assumption that time had to have a beginning. Please watch this video > watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
UHAX101 5 months ago
@UHAX101 Yes, & the laws of science are what you use to reason through that process of discovering how true a theory is. Im not talking about science itself. Im talking about the laws of science, same as the concept of morality & logic. The video is VERY interesting, but whether time has a start/end or not, it doesnt change a thing. The endless loop of time would still have had to be placed into existence. To even hypothesize you must already assume time exists. Whether it has a start/end or not
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 there is a difference in assumptions. oe assumption is based on nothing except hear say, with no scientific evidece to validate it. the other assumption is made with hundreds of years of scientific advancement, and will be corrected if the evidence suggests it needs to be corrected.
Buyakaasha 1 year ago
@Buyakaasha Look up Antony Flew. Latest scientific evidence points to Intelligent Design and even heavy weight atheist Richard Dawkins admits it.
gert123456 8 months ago
@gert123456 proven science?
Shockszzbyyous 1 year ago
@gert123456
You are almost correct but not quite there. Yes, every theory to a degree is an assumption in science, but we DO NOT place faith in the assumption. We study and observe and try to build the best possible explanation (AKA scientific theory). All scientific theories are based on evidence for the theory, not faith. Do not compare science to a religion, they are 2 completely different things.
subzero961 1 year ago
@gert123456 Why don't you watch Tom Minchin's Storm and I'll continue to read the bible?
EnragedSephiroth 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gert123456 Why don't you watch Tim Minchin's Storm and I'll continue to read the bible?
EnragedSephiroth 9 months ago
@gert123456 There's a twist in your logic that you missed, which i can't say if on purpose to support your thought or by accident. The last paragraph says "How did the quantum principle come about?" and it's a good argument. But after that, one could also ask "Yes, and how did God come about?".
sagan1976 5 months ago
@sagan1976 You right, but only when you take God as the end-result of a scientific process, which he isn't. God created the laws of science, morality & logic without which you couldnt even have this debate. Science cant explain laws of science, morality, and logic, yet it uses them to reason about the world. Only with God as your starting point does the laws of science make sense. Unless of course science created itself. Since God exists outside of space and time, he has no beginning and no end.
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 I don't understand the need to input God in every field of human knowledge. Maybe science is our way to interpret God's work and His actions, through mathematics and logical reasoning. Why are believers so afraid? Afraid that science will explain God or substitute Him (or Her)? If you believe, good for you. Good for those who believe. But do you accept everything in your life "as is" and as such have no curiosity about the surrounding world? I think not. Curiosity is a human trait.
sagan1976 5 months ago
@sagan1976 Yes, we are in agreement about that. I'm not against exploring & finding out how things came about & how they work. But I do hold fast that it's impossible to explain the existence of the universe, its laws, and all it contains without God and going outside the boundaries of scientific laws. This is what hard core atheists try to do & I think its absurd & I like showing them the folly of their ways. Its a fun hobby really. Im not against science. Science is exactly what you described.
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 It's, as one might say, your prerogative. And as such, mine also. And i have to disagree with what you say. I think God is a human construct. Faith is as human as curiosity and i have nothing against faith, for it's (i believe) a private thing. Any attempt to encapsulate something that we are a part of and yet it's bigger than the sum of everything it contains( as the Universe is) as the result of the actions of a human construct is diminishing of the universe itself.
sagan1976 5 months ago
@sagan1976 You're right it's each ones prerogative to believe what they want. It's your right to believe that science appeared out of nothing and that science can explain how science can create itself and it's own laws. It's my right to believe that science cannot and does not account for the very laws it follows in the very search for it's origins. If humans created God, then that leaves the question, who created science? And that's a questions that science itself will never be able to answer.
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 I don't understand what you mean with "science created itself" ans "science appeared out of nothing". Science didn't appear out of nothing. It appeared long after we came, as an attempt to explain that which had no explanation and was left to interpretation, some of which were absurd. And of course, humans created science when they attempted said explanation. What, you mean God created science? As what, as a test of faith? Like, i know atoms and cells but it all comes down to You?
sagan1976 5 months ago
@sagan1976 When I say science created itself, I'm referring to the laws of science that govern everything. Saying that science appeared long after we came isn't true. Science and scientific laws existed since the beginning. We only started discovering them long after. The point I'm making is that it's easy to try make God obsolete by trying to prove science can explain everything, but those very explanations would be based on laws of logic that couldn't have come from nowhere.
gert123456 5 months ago
@sagan1976 Further more- I respect Michio Kaku and love his documentaries, but while he's saying that a new set of discoveries makes the need for a God obsolete, he firstly assumes that science exists to prove God. It doesn't. How arrogant. And secondly, I know of at least 1 respected 'atheist' who travels in the same intellectual circles of Kaku who recently became theist (note, not a Christian specifically) saying the latest scientific discoveries support intelligent design overwhelmingly.
gert123456 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sagan1976 Further more- I respect Michio Kaku and love his documentaries, but while he's saying that a new set of discoveries makes the need for a God obsolete, he firstly assumes that science exists to prove God. It doesn't. How arrogant. And secondly, I know of at least 1 respected 'atheist' who travels in the same intellectual circles of Kaku who recently became theist (note, not a Christian specifically) saying the latest scientific discoveries support intelligent design overwhelmingly.
gert123456 5 months ago
@gert123456 so you belive earth was created out of a giant butthole ?
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@PET3RRULEZ Nope, but I'd believe that the earth came from a giant butthole long before I believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. I know you think it's crazy to believe in a God, but that's a whole lot less insane than the atheism world view.
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 but then, where is god created from, another giant butthole ?
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@buttholeboy 1st: God is CreaTOR not CreaTION, hence He's not "created from" anything. 2nd: The concept of length width depth and time and the rest of the dimensions are physical world concepts. You're assuming that God is bound by time and that he therefore requires a starts and an end. As your question proves, you believe a start is required but "God existing outside of time" is a better explanation than the crap your atheistic worldview can come up with (e.g. perpetual universe etc).
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 But who created god ? and who created god that created god and so forth.
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@PET3RRULEZ Refer to previous reply. Already answered that one. Thanks.
gert123456 4 months ago
1st: God is CreaTOR not CreaTION, hence He's not "created from" anything. 2nd: The concept of length width depth and time and the rest of the dimensions are physical world concepts. You're assuming that God is bound by time and that he therefore requires a starts and an end. As your question proves, you believe a start is required but "God existing outside of time" is a better explanation than the crap your atheistic worldview can come up with (e.g. perpetual universe etc).
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 see, you believe in religious stuff that cannot be prove. Then again, if god is a creator, someone or something have to create god isnt that true? right now you are pretty much saying god is created out of nothing, he is just there.
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@PET3RRULEZ and you believe that science, time, space & matter came out of nothing, it was just there... and you're looking at me funny? the difference being that with science, something cannot come into existence from nothing, never has never will. The spiritual doesn't have that problem. Where did science come from? Where did the big bang come from? Not so clever when you on the receiving end of your own line of reasoning hey?
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 then again, if time, space, and matter come out of noting. then what is god, something that is not real, if it is real it must be have come from something. perhaps his/her parents.
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@PET3RRULEZ Yeah I'll just go ahead and leave you to wrestle with that... if there's no God operating on a higher spiritual level, where could time, space and matter have come from? I don't envy atheists' predicament.
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 :) i think you should think alittle bit more about this. God, prehaps is real but no for me. You must also remeber that god didnt save anybody, science did, well sort off
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@PET3RRULEZ Thing is, you don't know that God didn't save anybody. Without God there is no science to supposedly save you. God is right when he says in the Bible that there is no such thing as an atheist, because it's clear that science is your God, you speak of it as if it's a person. And funny enough, you hit the nail on the head. God is indeed real, but the problem is He isn't real for you. But He is there to be found, just not if you arrogantly trying to disprove His existence.
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 Science is a method, not an entity.
danielmalpollitt 4 months ago
@danielmalpollitt I know, don't tell me, tell the people who speak of science as though it was a living entity.
gert123456 4 months ago
@gert123456 then again, have you met god ? how do you know he exist ? By the way, what is wrong with beening atheist ? oh yea, by the way if god exist then why isnt he here?
PET3RRULEZ 4 months ago
@PET3RRULEZ Yes I've met God. He doesnt meet u in science text books but in the quiet of a humble heart thats not trying its best to disprove Him. I know He exists not only because of my own experience of Him but cause science has failed to prove how massive explosions (big bang) can construct anything; it only ever destroy things. Thats the real observed science. Why isn't God here? Thats a logical fallacy called a red herring. Whether Gods here or not has no bearing on the fact that He exists
gert123456 4 months ago
Just cause He's not physically visible, doesn't mean He's not here and doesn't exist, in the same way that air and gravity is invisible but its effects are clearly visible. By your logic those shouldn't exist cause you can't see them.
gert123456 4 months ago
its sad how not many people are interested in this mind bending theory
Themightstealth 1 year ago
A Wolfgang Pauli said: "It's not even wrong."
ScientiaMathema 1 year ago
@ScientiaMathema There's also the issue that there's probably a dozen or so people on Earth that know the mathematics of String theory well enough to explain it. String theory, as far as most physicists can tell, is a branch of mathematics, not physics.
Zubinen 1 year ago
MIchio Kaku: the only man on Earth that i wanted to be my grand dad.
UnforgivingCritic 2 years ago
Michio, real shows our "rights" when at any moment someone can take them away and through you in a camp.
brandtaylor93 2 years ago
I am confused as to what you mean, and why it is posted on this video, a science video, when it appears political in nature.
ScientiaMathema 2 years ago
@ScientiaMathema it's about something personal he mentioned about how he is Japanese and well...during WWII well that is shinning point of American history correct.
brandtaylor93 2 years ago
@4:27 , michio, i want to know too!!!
anjundoobies89 2 years ago
nature is my religion, nature is my direct creator, but what created nature , i dont know. im in pursuit of the secrets of the universe. only time will tell.
anjundoobies89 2 years ago
i hear what you're saying.
wirechair 2 years ago
they're making some progress, but no one can ever explain why we have that ability. i don't think you even understand what understanding is.
wirechair 2 years ago
Yes, they can. Just because it is not yet understood does not mean it ever will.
For example, a few hundred years ago, there were a great many who said that it is impossible to understand the motion of the planets. Now humans know, and it is a very simple set of laws, too.
ScientiaMathema 2 years ago
science demonstrates God's wonder..n the words of Newton.
the ability to understand is not understandable. it is simply mind blowing.
wirechair 2 years ago
"The ability to understand is not understandable"
Yes it is. Leaps and bounds are being made in that field of neuropsychology.
ScientiaMathema 2 years ago
yeah, me too.. I can't be certain that synapses passes these "chemical" information through our brain nerves then we could perceive thoughts.
Its just too crazy.. like, why the fuck? I can't find the answer!
UnforgivingCritic 2 years ago
hahaha! i know right! glad to meet someone who can appreciate and respect the concept of understanding...!
wirechair 2 years ago