• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics website.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

See also the below resources for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website at 110mb.com).

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008.

"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009.

Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on pg. viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. On pg. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. Available on the Theophysics website.

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 49 and 279, "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.
 

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Regarding the equivalence of God and the Omega Point, Prof. Tipler has published on this equivalence in a peer-reviewed academic science journal. See Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x; available on the Theophysics website.

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-part structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

So to recapitulate:

1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise.
2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.
5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component.
6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.
7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity.
8.) The Omega Point creates the universe and all of existence.

Those are all the physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. There are many other congruities between the Omega Point cosmology and Christianity. Below are listed just some of them:

1.) We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
2.) We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
3.) We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
4.) God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24.
5.) We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
6.) We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
7.) God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
8.) God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
9.) We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
10.) Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8.
11.) The reality of multiple worlds: Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
12.) God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew, althought he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)

How item Nos. 9 and 10 relate is that within Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory the universe is brought into being by the Omega Point, as the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity). Another way of stating it is that in the Omega Point cosmology, the Omega Point is the fundamental existential and mathematical entity, from which all of reality derives. Indeed, within the Omega Point Theory, the Big Bang singularity and the Omega Point singularity are actually just different functions of the same singularity. Further, anything which at any time will exist will simply be a subset of what is rendered in the Omega Point.
 
Upvote 0

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nor does the fact that God has been proven to exist according to the known laws of physics leave no room for faith. Recall that Jesus Christ in part defined Himself as the truth (John 14:6). Hence, truth, particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of God and Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth (i.e., equivalently, trust in Jesus Christ), even when things seem hopeless. It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God:

""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
""

After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or false reason--but some process of reasoning must be involved.

Having faith in God is having trust in the truth, since the Godhead in all its fullness is the highest obtainment of truth: said state is the perfection of all knowledge.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community regarding it as lending credence to the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to a singularity itself. The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang, in an article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:

""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort." [My emphasis--J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003); available at iscid.org. Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), pg. 62, Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
""

On pg. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pg. 113:

""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
""

For more quotes by Robert Jastrow on this, see:

John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, "Science and Discomfiting Discoveries" in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United Church of God, 2000); available at gnmagazine.org.

For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below article:

Mariano, "In the Beginning… Cosmology, Part I - The Pre Big Bang Scenario," Atheism is Dead, February 11, 2009; available at atheismisdead.blogspot.com.

Again, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Contrast that ad libitum approach to doing physics with that of Prof. Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work). They both believe we have to take the known laws of physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
The entire problem with this whole thing is going from this:

the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity

to this:

identified as being God

Further linking this to the Judeo-Christian God, ressurrection of human consciousness, the afterlife, etc, is all speculative fiction on his part.
 
Upvote 0

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The entire problem with this whole thing is going from this:

to this:

Further linking this to the Judeo-Christian God, ressurrection of human consciousness, the afterlife, etc, is all speculative fiction on his part.

Your objection was already answered in my second post above.

The Omega Point meets all the traditional quidditative definitions of God given by a number of the world's leading religions, particularly of the Abrahamic traditions, so by definition the Omega Point is God.

To maintain otherwise violates the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity, as such an assertion maintains that A is not-A.

Christian theology is preferentially selected by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Omega Point cosmology and due to existence having come into being a finite time in the past (i.e., the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo).

Regarding the resurrection of the flesh, given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Your objection was already answered in my second post above.

The Omega Point meets all the traditional quidditative definitions of God given by a number of the world's leading religions, particularly of the Abrahamic traditions, so by definition the Omega Point is God.

Meeting a partial definition of a concept (which is arbritrary to begin with) and actually being that thing in question are two different things.

I could define any philosophical concept similarily and then turn around and claim the Omega Point is that concept because it meets the definition. It's circular reasoning.

Likewise, I could define God as having any number of attributes and turn around and claim anything that meets those attributes is God.

Christian theology is preferentially selected by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Omega Point cosmology and due to existence having come into being a finite time in the past (i.e., the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo).

This is just convenient cherry-picking.

Regarding the resurrection of the flesh, given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial

The problem is going from "this is possible" or even "trivial" to "this is what is going to happen". Like I said, it's speculative fiction at best.
 
Upvote 0

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Meeting a partial definition of a concept (which is arbritrary to begin with) and actually being that thing in question are two different things.

I could define any philosophical concept similarily and then turn around and claim the Omega Point is that concept because it meets the definition. It's circular reasoning.

Likewise, I could define God as having any number of attributes and turn around and claim anything that meets those attributes is God.

Hence why I said the traditional "quidditative definitions" of God. Quidditative means the essential differentiating features of a thing, i.e., the distinguishing characteristics of a thing which differentiates it from all other things that are not that thing.

The Abrahamic religions, and many of the world's other leading religions, are in agreement in definining a number of the same quidditative physical attributes of God, such as being infinite in its omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence; as being transcendent beyond the world; and as being the only actually existing infinity.

So if a physically-existing object has all these attributes, then by definition it is God. To maintain otherwise violates the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity, as such an assertion maintains that A is not-A.

This is just convenient cherry-picking.

That statement by you is the logical fallacy of bare assertion, as you haven't demonstrated how anything has been cherry-picked, because indeed nothing has been. I've read the bible front to back while taking copious notes. God, as particularly as described in the New Testament, is none other than the Omega Point (i.e., the actual Omega Point being God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity), and the eschatology described is none other than the Omega Point cosmology.

Nor did Prof. Tipler set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point Theory which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [pg. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, Issue 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460; available at aleph.se).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (pg. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

The problem is going from "this is possible" or even "trivial" to "this is what is going to happen". Like I said, it's speculative fiction at best.

In fact, you have it precisely in reverse: one has to engage in fanciful and anti-rational speculation to avoid the Omega Point cosmology.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics website.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, in additon to my original three posts in this thread, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website at 110mb.com).

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
 
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟52,995.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise.

And what about heaven in the past and present?

2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.

Ok. That fits many religions' definition of God.

5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component.

And is nothing like the Trinity described in the Bible. This is a stretch. The trinity is extant throughout eternity.

6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

God is entirely transcendent of his creation the last time I checked. He came fully into the world as Jesus, though.

7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity.

What's your definition of "exist?" Infinite sums "exist" in a sense...

8.) The Omega Point creates the universe and all of existence.

As do plenty of other deities...
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Hence why I said the traditional "quidditative definitions" of God. Quidditative means the essential differentiating features of a thing, i.e., the distinguishing characteristics of a thing which differentiates it from all other things that are not that thing.

The Abrahamic religions, and many of the world's other leading religions, are in agreement in definining a number of the same quidditative physical attributes of God, such as being infinite in its omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence; as being transcendent beyond the world; and as being the only actually existing infinity.

The problem is not everyone does agree (regarding wordly religions) nor do they even agree on the way the concepts are applied. And therein lies the problem; religion is essentially coming at the idea of god from a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one. So the inclusion of attributes is essentially arbitrary.

That statement by you is the logical fallacy of bare assertion, as you haven't demonstrated how anything has been cherry-picked, because indeed nothing has been. I've read the bible front to back while taking copious notes. God, as particularly as described in the New Testament, is none other than the Omega Point (i.e., the actual Omega Point being God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity), and the eschatology described is none other than the Omega Point cosmology.

It's cherry-picking because not everyone who has "read the bible front to back while taking copious notes" agrees with the concept of the Holy Trinity. And if you look at other Abrahamic faiths (i.e. Judism and Islam), they don't either. So Tipler is picking this out of convienence.

Further to that, in doing some more reading, the actual linking of the Holy Trinity to the Omega Point is just a giant non-sequitur. It's so utterly arbitrary that's just absurd.

In fact, you have it precisely in reverse: one has to engage in fanciful and anti-rational speculation to avoid the Omega Point cosmology.

Or one just has to not immediately subscribe to every crackpot theory that comes down the pipe.

Do you not honestly see how utterly arbitrary this linking of the Omega Point as a physics concept (leaving aside the problems with it in physics) with religion? In fact, the more I read about it, the more I think if anything, it would be better linked with Eastern philosophy than with Western Judeo-Christian theology (and the host of theological baggage that brings along).
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
He addressed the above. Did you read all of his posts?

Doesn't matter - once it becomes illogical to NOT believe in God, it becomes more about compulsion than choice.

If the question of God's existence is reduced to a logical statement like 2+2=4 then then people who accept science theories would end up accepting God because they had to, not because they chose to, out of love and a feeling of conviction, the way conversion happens typically.

This kind of logic is straight out of the textbook of those who insist upon calling acceptance of scientific theories "faith". For the record - it isn't.
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Site Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
249,088
114,505
✟1,373,222.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Doesn't matter - once it becomes illogical to NOT believe in God, it becomes more about compulsion than choice.

If the question of God's existence is reduced to a logical statement like 2+2=4 then then people who accept science theories would end up accepting God because they had to, not because they chose to, out of love and a feeling of conviction, the way conversion happens typically.

This kind of logic is straight out of the textbook of those who insist upon calling acceptance of scientific theories "faith". For the record - it isn't.

Did you read all of his posts?
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Site Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
249,088
114,505
✟1,373,222.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Doesn't matter - once it becomes illogical to NOT believe in God, it becomes more about compulsion than choice.

If the question of God's existence is reduced to a logical statement like 2+2=4 then then people who accept science theories would end up accepting God because they had to, not because they chose to, out of love and a feeling of conviction, the way conversion happens typically.

This kind of logic is straight out of the textbook of those who insist upon calling acceptance of scientific theories "faith". For the record - it isn't.

Not so. God states in His Word, there will be those, who after seeing blazing truth that GOd exists, will raise their fists, cursing God.
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Not so. God states in His Word, there will be those, who after seeing blazing truth that GOd exists, will raise their fists, cursing God.

But not all of those who don't accept God don't accept him purely because they don't want to.

As long as such a subset of people that I described exists, the notion of proving God will destroy the notion of faith and choosing to believe for them, which I don't think He would allow.
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Site Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
249,088
114,505
✟1,373,222.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
But not all of those who don't accept God don't accept him purely because they don't want to.

As long as such a subset of people that I described exists, the notion of proving God will destroy the notion of faith and choosing to believe for them, which I don't think He would allow.

Not all, but some, yes.

Are you claiming to know how God thinks?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Not all, but some, yes.

Are you claiming to know how God thinks?

I sort of agree with Cabel on this (even as a non-believer) because of this:

1) If I assume God wants me to believe in Him, and 2) God is omniscient and omnipotent, therefore God would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me. Thus God could simply present that evidence (whatever it is). However this would completely destroy the very notion of faith and for that matter, free will.

Therefore, the only logical outcome is that either God doesn't exist, is not omniscient and/or omnipotent, or God doesn't actively desire people's belief in a way in which making it compulsory is necessary. Hence proving God's existence (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) is an exercise in futility.
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Site Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
249,088
114,505
✟1,373,222.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
I sort of agree with Cabel on this (even as a non-believer) because of this:

1) If I assume God wants me to believe in Him, and 2) God is omniscient and omnipotent, therefore God would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me. Thus God could simply present that evidence (whatever it is). However this would completely destroy the very notion of faith and for that matter, free will.

Therefore, the only logical outcome is that either God doesn't exist, is not omniscient and/or omnipotent, or God doesn't actively desire people's belief in a way in which making it compulsory is necessary. Hence proving God's existence (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) is an exercise in futility.

Faith is a "gift". It comes from God. It is given to those that genuinely seek God from their hearts. Evidence that God exists is a given. It will be blazingly clear at His appointed time. In spite of it, there are those who will raise their fists in God's face and curse Him.

In the meantime, evidence will present itself, to the chagrin of many, who will scramble to slam it away.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Faith is a "gift". It comes from God. It is given to those that genuinely seek God from their hearts.

This is circular. You might as well just say "you'll believe in God when you believe in God".

Evidence that God exists is a given.

Except it's not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It will be blazingly clear at His appointed time. In spite of it, there are those who will raise their fists in God's face and curse Him.

This is just an appeal to future events. You have no idea what is going to happen any more than I do.

In the meantime, evidence will present itself, to the chagrin of many, who will scramble to slam it away.

Chagrin? Hardly. More like amusement.
 
Upvote 0