in ,

World renowned scientist claims to have proven the existence of God

The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that points to the existence of God.

The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered to be one of the most important scientists of our times. He is one of the key creators of the revolutionary String Theory.

To develop his theory, Kaku made use of what he calls “primitive semi-radius tachyons.”

Tachyons are theoretical particles that are capable to “unstick” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything else free from the influences of the surrounding universe.

After his tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he said. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

He continued:

“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

This led him to suggest:

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician. The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

Editor’s note: After publishing this article, one reader drew our attention to an article in Innovation & Tech Today where Michio Kaku explained that he was misquoted in claiming to have proven the existence of God. We’ll leave it to you the reader to watch the video above and evaluate his comments in the interview, which are published below.

(We just released a new eBook: The Art of Resilience: A Practical Guide to Developing Mental Toughness. We highlight 20 of the most resilient people in the world and break down what traits they have in common. We then equip you with 10 resilience-building tools that you can start using today–in your personal life or professional career. Check it out here.)

Over to Kaku:

There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. 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. 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.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

At that point, the conversation is over. You begin to realize that no matter how you falsify that statement they can come back and say, “No, no, no, the history books are wrong.” And, how do you falsify that? You cannot. So, there are certain statements that are not falsifiable.

Michio Kaku God, God Discovery Michio KakuSame thing with the existence of God. I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it’s not a falsifiable statement. You cannot create an experiment that disproves the existence of God. Therefore, it’s a non-falsifiable statement.

Personally, I think there’s much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.

The universe is gorgeous. The universe is very simple, and it didn’t have to be that way. The universe could have been random. It could have been ugly. It could have been a random collection of electrons and photons. No life, no vitality, nothing interesting at all. Just a random collection of a mist of electrons and photons. That could have been the universe, but it isn’t. Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant. And you can summarize most of the laws of physics on one sheet of paper. Amazing. In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long. That’s called the unified field theory. We want to summarize all of the laws of physics into one equation that is one inch long.

Now, one version of that is called string field theory, which is a branch of string theory. String field theory allows you to write this equation, this one inch equation. In fact, that’s my equation. I’m a co-founder of string field theory. Now, that’s not the final theory because now there are membranes, and things are more complicated. We have yet to create a one inch equation for strings and membranes. But just for strings we already have a theory that’s only one inch long that allows you to summarize the laws of nature. So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty,[the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.

If you’re an English major, you know that English literary criticism gets more complicated every year. Every time someone writes a PhD thesis on James Joyce or Hemingway, they say, “What did he really mean by that sentence?” Well, it gets more complicated every year! Physics is the opposite. It gets simpler and simpler every year. And ultimately we want to get it down to one inch.

There is a theory about whether or not the universe is a simulation of some sort, like the movie The Matrix. And then the question is how do you prove it? Or how do you disprove it? Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

Do you support independent media that helps people to think differently?

It takes hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to keep Ideapod alive. We're trying to build independent media that helps people to arrive at more balanced and nuanced perspectives. We believe this is a critical task when there is so much polarization in the media industry.

Your support makes a huge difference. If you find any joy or value in what we do, please support us by becoming a Prime member for less than $4 monthly. You can easily cancel at any time.

Find out more here.

How Celebrities Slow Down the Ageing Process Without the Use of Drugs, Backed by Science

If You’re Looking for The Formula for Happiness, Read This