Sad how this faith--except based on more speculative theoretical math--is seen as more scientific than a Creator.
A major flaw in science, as I see it, is that there must not be any supernatural forces if they are judging or intelligent, but there can be supernatural forces if they are dumb. Problem is, even the Kaku's fantasies run into First Cause problems. That is even assuming the theoretical math that allows for the theory is even possibly true.
I deal with these fantasies in my website:
http://jdhighness.tripod.com
> A major flaw in science, as I see it, is that there must not be any supernatural forces if they are judging or intelligent, but there can be supernatural forces if they are dumb.
Untrue. The supernatural, whether smart like a monkey or dumb like a chimp, is not *precluded* in science. It is, however, not a good answer for things that can be answered as well with purely natural forces.
What makes your car go? The expansion of combusted gasses pushing on pistons? Or little invisible demons? Science does not say the latter is impossible, just that the former is vastly more likely.
Cosmology theory is getting to the point of combining Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian/Islamic/Jewish cosmology in a general cosmological proof. A Grand Unified Theory of everything--everybody is partially right.
Wrong.
It's not a flaw, it's the definition of science.
Science is the study of what happens when there are no supernatural forces involved.
If supernatural forces are involved, then it is Theology.
So9
A major flaw in science, as I see it, is that there must not be any supernatural forces if they are judging or intelligent, but there can be supernatural forces if they are dumb. Problem is, even the Kaku's fantasies run into First Cause problems.
I agree: Problems of First Cause, but that doesn't keep the scientists (I do not use the term perjoratively) from cheating rhetorically.
Scientists, it seems just aren't bound by the same rules when arguing about invisible, hard-to-prove things.
They aren't bound by the same debating rules that a Christian is held to: They can appeal to "brane theory," or "string theory," both of which have ZERO tangible proof (and are, in fact, quite laughable), but we cannot do the same, using the same reasoning (and a lot more proof--we're obviously living in a DESIGNED universe).
Christians can't appeal to God, but they can appeal to queer theories, none of which have any physical evidence to support them. UNFAIR. We should be able to debate using the same rules.
Just proves the bias that exists against Christians.
Interesting thoughts on your site. Thanks for posting.
He just proposed a Creator as first cause though simply by postulating an advanced civilization might accomplish what might already have been done.