Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: “That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.”
“Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable,” Kaku says. “That’s called ‘science.’ However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.” He’s noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such ‘non-falsifiable’ problem.
This, dear reader, is what sceptics and Atheists cling to when they refuse to make the final step.
- Scientist agree: The universe is “impossibly” finely tuned
- Can’t create an experiment that proves the existence of the entity (thing) who/that tuned it in a fashion that is testable and repeatable
- Ergo, there is no God (creator, first mover, etc)
No, it proves that science isn’t a suitable mechanism to prove the existence (or otherwise), of the “creator of everything”.
So why would the most intelligent, accomplished, and respected scientists not allow themselves another tool? Why do scientists believe that science measures everything inside of, outside of, or related to our universe?
Scientists (sceptics / Atheists) need to accept that science fails them. And the proof God exists lies outside of science.
Best scientific explanation using science of our own existence?
Source: of screen images J. Warner Wallace video.