Since the posts about whether Kaku has proven God's existence or not are still around, I will add my entirely speculative guess at what is happening.

Thomas Aquinas wrote the 'Quinque viae', which were five proofs of God's existence. Outside religion, I don't think anyone accepts any of them as proof these days, and it is quite a common thing to give identifying the flaws in the argument to philosophy undergraduates. Now my guess is that Kaku has taken, for example, the proof that says 'Since every effect has a cause, there must be a first cause, which is God' and changed it from a *proof* to a *definition*: If there is a first cause I will label that 'God'. This is totally valid, and merely suffers from the problem that God-as-so-defined bears little or no relationship to what people commonly mean by God. [But, as Amos says, there is very little commonality in the first place].

Now, has a first cause been proven? Possibly: more skilled physicists that me will have to check that. Would that prove God-as-so-defined exists? Yes, it is a mere label. Does that say anything about God as generally used? Not a jot.


And is self publicity behind this? Quite possibly.