9 year old kid graduates HS and starts college already

[jimnyc]

More power to the little Sheldon Cooper, or Doogie Howser!! I love reading these crazy kinds of stories.

-----

9-Year-Old Boy Graduates High School and Starts College, Wants to Become Astrophysicist: 'I Want to Prove That God Does Exist'

At 9 years old, William Maillis is like a lot of other boys his age, enjoying video games, knock-knock jokes, sports and hanging out with friends. But William is no ordinary kid when it comes to academics.

In May, he graduated from high school and is now a college student already working on his own theories of how the universe was created. Most other 9-year-olds are in fourth grade. William, who lives in Penn Township, Pennsylvania, is among the youngest people ever to attend college.

He's currently taking a full slate of classes at Community College of Allegheny County as a way to ease into life as a college student and plans to enroll next fall at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, according to his father, Peter Maillis, a Greek Orthodox priest. "It doesn't bother me" being the youngest student in class by far, William tells PEOPLE. "I'm used to it by now." William, who wants to study the physics and chemistry of space, earn a doctorate degree and work as an astrophysicist, is at ease tossing around concepts like "displacement of space-time" "singularity" and "pure gravity" as he patiently attempts to explain why black holes aren't "super massive" as theorized by such other brilliant minds as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

Bottom line, according to William: "I want to prove to everybody that God does exist," he says, by showing that only an outside force could be capable of forming the cosmos. Maillis said he and his wife, Nancy, who also are parents to a daughter, 29, and son, 26, – "[William] was our 17-year-surprise," Maillis says with a laugh – realized their young son was advanced when he started accurately identifying numbers at 6 months old and speaking in complete sentences at just 7 months old, he said.

"William was just very sharp," Maillis says. "William remembers everything he sees." He followed with a range of impressive academic feats, including doing addition at 21 months; multiplication, reading and writing at 2 years old; algebra, sign language and reading Greek at age 4; geometry at 5 and trigonometry at 7.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/9-old-boy-graduates-high-153130463.html

[Russ]

This kid is amazing, and he's already much wiser than Stephen Hawking.

[Abbey Marie]

How did I miss this great story?

I hope hope hope that the safe-space, we're offended, liberal, feminist college atmosphere of today doesn't ruin him.

[revelarts]

AMAZING KID


....
..Bottom line, according to William: "I want to prove to everybody that God does exist," he says, by showing that only an outside force could be capable of forming the cosmos. ...

Excellent!.
Here's something to add to that though , many think that it's already been done.

the fine-tuning of the universe and the fact that anything exist rather than nothing.
already says to anyone not committed to an atheistic view that God does in fact exist.

the Ad hoc alternatives to the intelligent fine tuning observed are mathematical gymnastic and theoretical mathematical physics pieces of art that purpose a multiverse so that they can dismiss with the "fine tuning" found in this one universe that we have ANY observable science/observation/facts to back up.
And even many prominent physicist complain that the multi-verse is nigh on impossible and/or a joke.
Plus they still can't account for the existent of anything/everything out of nothing in the 1st place.

But many have FAITH that they'll come up/find with something that will allow them to rule out God even if, based on all the advance data and knowns laws we have NOW that the universe looks like there's been an overseeing intellect messing with the gears over and over and over again. It's AGAINST what should be found randomly by factors that are off the charts.

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/34/06/73/340673ce0c39371d547c7cca8e0e4f2b.jpg

Arno Penzias won the Nobel prize for physics in 1978.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/87/66/44/876644437b1dfb9918c16b15f9a2631e.jpg

English physicist, Paul Davies, speaks of the overwhelmingly powerful evidence for a designer of the universe.

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/6d/c3/12/6dc312dce305f82a9b85267a3d2f63bf.jpg


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e5/93/46/e5934643c76b0ef8e82a019c5d25e967.jpg

I could be wrong but if i remember correctly he changed his mind based partly on the fine tuning of the universe discoveries and even more so on the nature of the INFORMATION found in living organisms. it defies any random creation. and is chicken and egg problem that has no escape.

atheism is running off of a lot of propaganda and faith that one day they'll figure out how informational codes just pop into existences and start telling matter how to make living systems. And a universe so organized that it's happened by a series of trillions of lottery ticket wins.

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/3e/9f/44/3e9f444d18c51fe1268401e20a688bdf.jpg

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/64/5d/3f/645d3ffd8c05ac6b39272fbc9ef6b083.jpg


Alan Sandage was known as the greatest living cosmologist. He won the Crawford prize in astronomy. He said, "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order ... is simply too well put together."

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/57/62/f9/5762f92e9a90ee984338c0e6a6734b31.jpg


So yeah basically, the Kid is on the right track.
maybe he can help seal up what's left of loopholes. and deal with the new one that will likely arise.

[Noir]

All very nice quotes Rev, but they all omit the question of the complexity of a creator God, and it's origins.
To say 'the math is too complex' is one thing, but what is the math behind the god that 'created' the complex math? You end up with a sort of complexity regression that doesn't get better the further you go.

[sundaydriver]

Have to check his focus after a few frat parties & some coed steals his virginity!

[Russ]

All very nice quotes Rev, but they all omit the question of the complexity of a creator God, and it's origins.
To say 'the math is too complex' is one thing, but what is the math behind the god that 'created' the complex math? You end up with a sort of complexity regression that doesn't get better the further you go.

I'm not sure why we would need to understand the complexity of a Creator God, we just need to decide if we believe in the Creator God.

And speaking of omitting questions, I've never understood how atheists can omit these 3 basic questions from their discussions:
1. How was the universe created, if not by God?
2. How was life created from non-life, if not by God?
3. How do macroscopic changes in life evolve, if not by God?

[Noir]

I'm not sure why we would need to understand the complexity of a Creator God

Becuase the question that the God is suppose to be the answer for is one of complexity.

[Perianne]

I'm not sure why we would need to understand the complexity of a Creator God, we just need to decide if we believe in the Creator God.

And speaking of omitting questions, I've never understood how atheists can omit these 3 basic questions from their discussions:
1. How was the universe created, if not by God?
2. How was life created from non-life, if not by God?
3. How do macroscopic changes in life evolve, if not by God?

Which macroscopic changes?

[Abbey Marie]

Have to check his focus after a few frat parties & some coed steals his virginity!

You should not transfer your values to him. If his goal with his genius is to prove God, I suspect he is already operating at a much higher moral and maturity level than any frat boy.
In addition, the point of the article is that he is starting college at 9 years old. 9.
Still want to imagine him getting drunk/high and having sex?

[Russ]

Which macroscopic changes?

By macroscopic changes, I'm talking about complex evolutionary improvements, like growing a wing or an organ, that couldn't evolved into in stages because intermediate stages would not be an advantage, but are too complex to happen within one generation.

[Perianne]

By macroscopic changes, I'm talking about complex evolutionary improvements, like growing a wing or an organ, that couldn't evolved into in stages because intermediate stages would not be an advantage, but are too complex to happen within one generation.

I've wondered about that, too.

FWIW, I have never claimed myself to be a Christian. But I believe in God 100%.

[revelarts]

All very nice quotes Rev, but they all omit the question of the complexity of a creator God, and it's origins.
To say 'the math is too complex' is one thing, but what is the math behind the god that 'created' the complex math? You end up with a sort of complexity regression that doesn't get better the further you go.


Becuase the question that the God is suppose to be the answer for is one of complexity.

2 things

1st the SETI project (scientist looking for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life) is based on the idea that if they discover a signal from space which is a highly complex pattern, an intelligent pattern, a pattern that we understand by experience connotes more that nature produces, that basically connotes a language/message. Then that would PROVE an intelligent life form had sent it. But we could question the origin of that extraterrestrial sender if we like but it doesn't make the sender nonexistent because we don't know his origin.

Secondly, and more important I think, infinite regression is not answer anyone wants or that makes sense.
But here's the thing, to stop it you need a 1st cause.
the question is which 1st cause fits the known data better.
It's either,
Nothing becoming everything then transforming into super complex everything, and creating MORE complexity as it rambles along... until now where it seems nothing self creates and never could and everything is running down ... entropy to eventual heat death.

Or God, an ever present, always existing super intellect, outside of space time, with the ability to start a complex universe, fill it with complexity but is obviously running down.

Neither option is one that "makes sense" in the way we think of cause and effect on an routine basis.
But when we try to go back and get to a 1st cause, at that point one fits the facts far better than the other.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

2 things

1st the SETI project (scientist looking for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life) is based on the idea that if they discover a signal from space which is a highly complex pattern, an intelligent pattern, a pattern that we understand by experience connotes more that nature produces, that basically connotes a language/message. Then that would PROVE an intelligent life form had sent it. But we could question the origin of that extraterrestrial sender if we like but it doesn't make the sender nonexistent because we don't know his origin.

Secondly, and more important I think, infinite regression is not answer anyone wants or that makes sense.
But here's the thing, to stop it you need a 1st cause.
the question is which 1st cause fits the known data better.
It's either,
Nothing becoming everything then transforming into super complex everything, and creating MORE complexity as it rambles along... until now where it seems nothing self creates and never could and everything is running down ... entropy to eventual heat death.

Or God, an ever present, always existing super intellect, outside of space time, with the ability to start a complex universe, fill it with complexity but is obviously running down.

Neither option is one that "makes sense" in the way we think of cause and effect on an routine basis.
But when we try to go back and get to a 1st cause, at that point one fits the facts far better than the other.

We live in a Universe created by God. As we blindly go about thinking we are superior beings,the universe continues on in exactly the way its Creator intended- WHETHER IT BE EXPANSION, REGRESSION OR SOMETHING ELSE.
Consider this- TIME as we perceive it is only a way for us to relate to our existence and eventual demise.

The trillions of trillions of trillions of things we have no clue about AND NO ABILITY WHILE IN HUMAN FORM TO EVER KNOW ABOUT, STAGGER THE MIND.

IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS--
1. EITHER EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING.
OR ELSE
2. EVERYTHING ALWAYS WAS IN EXISTENCE.

NOW IF EVERYTHING ALWAYS WAS--THEN EITHER TIME AND THE DESTRUCTION WE SEE FROM IT IS AN ILLUSION OR ELSE
EVERYTHING IS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT CHANGE DUE TO UNIVERSAL LAWS.

IF ONE THINKS DEEP ENOUGH INTO ETERNITY AND THIS UNIVERSE THEY FIND THAT ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY A SUPERIOR BEING..
Science is merely mankind finding a few grains of sand on a galaxy size beach and then foolishly thinking he can in his weak and infinitely limited form(human body and brain) - because of that find, go on to create such himself.

By the way Rev, nothing in the bible excludes the possibility of the Multi-Verse and/or AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.
AS NONE OF THAT LIMITS OR PROVES THERE IS NO GOD. -Tyr

[revelarts]

We live in a Universe created by God. As we blindly go about thinking we are superior beings,the universe continues on in exactly the way its Creator intended- WHETHER IT BE EXPANSION, REGRESSION OR SOMETHING ELSE.
Consider this- TIME as we perceive it is only a way for us to relate to our existence and eventual demise.

The trillions of trillions of trillions of things we have no clue about AND NO ABILITY WHILE IN HUMAN FORM TO EVER KNOW ABOUT, STAGGER THE MIND.

IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS--
1. EITHER EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING.
OR ELSE
2. EVERYTHING ALWAYS WAS IN EXISTENCE.

NOW IF EVERYTHING ALWAYS WAS--THEN EITHER TIME AND THE DESTRUCTION WE SEE FROM IT IS AN ILLUSION OR ELSE
EVERYTHING IS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT CHANGE DUE TO UNIVERSAL LAWS.

IF ONE THINKS DEEP ENOUGH INTO ETERNITY AND THIS UNIVERSE THEY FIND THAT ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY A SUPERIOR BEING..
Science is merely mankind finding a few grains of sand on a galaxy size beach and then foolishly thinking he can in his weak and infinitely limited form(human body and brain) - because of that find, go on to create such himself.

By the way Rev, nothing in the bible excludes the possibility of the Multi-Verse and/or AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.
AS NONE OF THAT LIMITS OR PROVES THERE IS NO GOD. -Tyr

cool,

And yes nothing in the Bible excludes the possibility of God creating a multi-verse.
But what rules it out from our perspective is observations of the data, physics and the unlikely nature of the math. it's not really even considered a solid theory at this point, some scientist think it's a joke.

And there are 2 other large things that seem to be problem with using the multi-verse idea AGAINST the idea of God.
1st ...again bases on what i've read... the scientist say that there no way to prove them observably. So by default we could never see another 'universe'. It's based on faith. Universes coming into being and/or existing that we just have to believe are there based on the authority/word of the high priest... I mean scientist.

2nd since the multi-verse prepossess that an infinite # of universes have in fact come into existence ...somehow .... with every/infinite possibility from the supremely complex to the dead simply.... then it almost goes without saying that at least one would spawn a being(s) so complex that he could/would create universes as well. So the multi-verse does not exclude the existence of God or even many 'gods' at all. In fact it must assume them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

cool,

And yes nothing in the Bible excludes the possibility of God creating a multi-verse.
But what rules it out from our perspective is observations of the data, physics and the unlikely nature of the math. it's not really even considered a solid theory at this point, some scientist think it's a joke.

And there are 2 other large things that seem to be problem with using the multi-verse idea AGAINST the idea of God.
1st ...again bases on what i've read... the scientist say that there no way to prove them observably. So by default we could never see another 'universe'. It's based on faith. Universes coming into being and/or existing that we just have to believe are there based on the authority/word of the high priest... I mean scientist.

2nd since the multi-verse prepossess that an infinite # of universes have in fact come into existence ...somehow .... with every/infinite possibility from the supremely complex to the dead simply.... then it almost goes without saying that at least one would spawn a being(s) so complex that he could/would create universes as well. So the multi-verse does not exclude the existence of God or even many 'gods' at all. In fact it must assume them.

I disagree, with it having any evidence to support a theory that it would assume/prove existence of---many gods.
God-if he exists as we Christians believe(and He does exist in that Power) --is unlimited and thus given that state of being would need no other-"gods"- TO CREATE OTHER DIMENSIONS/UNIVERSES, ETC..

This- "other gods crap"- IS TOSSED OUT(BY UNBELIEVERS AND RELIGIOUS HATERS) TO CONFUSE, CONFLICT AND MUDDY THE WATERS AMONG WE BELIEVERS.
God exists and the universe exists to serve his design--not the other way around my friend.
Thus the "laws"/reality existing in this universe/dimension-obeys His decrees.

NON-BELIEVERS LOVE TO SPEAK IN TERMS, THAT DENY THE FACT THAT GOD IS INFINITELY POWERFUL....
-TYR

[revelarts]

I disagree, with it having any evidence to support a theory that it would assume/prove existence of---many gods.
God-if he exists as we Christians believe(and He does exist in that Power) --is unlimited and thus given that state of being would need no other-"gods"- TO CREATE OTHER DIMENSIONS/UNIVERSES, ETC..

This- "other gods crap"- IS TOSSED OUT(BY UNBELIEVERS AND RELIGIOUS HATERS) TO CONFUSE, CONFLICT AND MUDDY THE WATERS AMONG WE BELIEVERS.
God exists and the universe exists to serve his design--not the other way around my friend.
Thus the "laws"/reality existing in this universe/dimension-obeys His decrees.

NON-BELIEVERS LOVE TO SPEAK IN TERMS, THAT DENY THE FACT THAT GOD IS INFINITELY POWERFUL....
-TYR
I agree with you about God. But the whole multi-verse thing is of itself a desperate dodge to try and escape God as a needed entity in origins.
Because what we observe in OUR universe makes no sense without him.
The fact that the universes fine tuning and other factors agrees with what's revealed and confirmed by scripture is the maddening thing to some atheist and scientist.
ANYTHING but God.

But my point about other gods is that they are a necessary BY PRODUCT of the multi-verse theory/hypothesis/speculation.
when atheist assume the multi-verse is/has produced an infinite variety of universes they seem to fail to see that they've by default inventing God and various gods of in various universes as well. IF the multi-verse speculation were true that is.
Every brand of 'god' 'dragon' 'centaur' 'alien' ever imagined by anyone and more would be real since there'd be an INFINITE number of universes with EVERY variable played out.... with every "law" of nature different in every universe.

if EVERYTHING is an option then SO IS GOD ...and Apollo and Krishna and reincarnation and ghost etc etc.. LAWS no longer apply across the board for other universes.


And again the fact is the multiverse is not even a serious hypothesis... It's a shot in the dark option because the other is simply distasteful.

New Scientist's mag
Marcus Chown explains:
Should the fine-tuning turn out to be real, what are we to make of it? There are two widely-discussed possibilities: either God fine-tuned the universe for us to be here, or there are (as string theory implies) a large number of universes, each with different laws of physics, and we happen to find ourselves in a universe where the laws happen to be just right for us to live. After all, how could we not?
CultureLab: A physicist finds God in cosmic harmonies (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/05/looking-for-god-in-the-cosmic-details.html)
A physicist finds God in cosmic harmonies
12:24 19 May 2010
...
Another New Scientist writer has explained:
"But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely turned for our existence ... This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes -- a multiverse."

Evolution - June 1998: Re: Anything goes? (http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199806/0130.html)
Discover Magazine offers the multiverse as "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator" (2008).
... Quote:

<tbody>
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory | DiscoverMagazine.com (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator)
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.
By Tim Folger|Monday, November 10, 2008

</tbody>




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

just for the comments about the multi-verse skip to the 9 minute mark and watch from there.


http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-for-the-scientist-who-has-lived-by-his-faith-in-the-power-of-reason-the-story-ends-like-robert-jastrow-60-51-60.jpg
American astronomer and planetary physicist and a leading NASA scientist.