Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[Kylie]

I agree with that scripture and also believe those who don't love God are responsible for causing evil, but that God can still bring good out of the evil actions of others, hence Jesus' death by the hands of sinners, but then resurrection by the hand of God.

There are many who don't love God who have done amazing things. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Alan Turing, there are countless people who do not worship a God and who have made important contributions to society, which you use every day.

And there are many devout Christians who have done horrible things.

When you say that those who don't love God are responsible for causing evil, your claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

Accurate information is a form of evidence.

Fine. Then show me that it is accurate to say that God is required for physics.

 

[Tanj]

Again most atheists still believe that human consciousness is nothing more and nothing less than a program running on a specific kind of computer...and therefore there is no reason that this program can't be transferred to a more durable kind of computer

Please stop mis representing us. The opinions of a bunch of talking head atheists is not representative of "most". The "computer" human consciousness runs on is unique to each individual. It will never be downloadable to a generic synthetic device regardless of what Ray or Allegedly Respected Sam think.

 

[Chriliman]

There are many who don't love God who have done amazing things. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Alan Turing, there are countless people who do not worship a God and who have made important contributions to society, which you use every day.

And there are many devout Christians who have done horrible things.

When you say that those who don't love God are responsible for causing evil, your claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

Ok, but none of that can mean God didn't come before and make all that is good. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

Fine. Then show me that it is accurate to say that God is required for physics.

It's accurate to say something supernatural is required for the laws of physics to exist. People can believe all sorts of things about that supernatural state of realty, but what matters to me is the truth.

Anyhow, you clearly see no reason to believe in God and, logically, only God Himself can give you a convincing reason, I'll leave it to Him.

 

[Tanj]

Anyhow, you clearly see no reason to believe in God and, logically, only God Himself can give you a convincing reason, I'll leave it to Him.

Would that other Christians follow your lead.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, but none of that can mean God didn't come before and make all that is good. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

But it does invalidate your point that "those who don't love God are responsible for causing evil."

After all, I gave example of people who don't love God and have not caused evil, and I can certainly give examples of those who DO love God and caused a great deal of evil.

It's accurate to say something supernatural is required for the laws of physics to exist.

Why?

People can believe all sorts of things about that supernatural state of realty, but what matters to me is the truth.

And how do you determine if something is the truth?

Anyhow, you clearly see no reason to believe in God and, logically, only God Himself can give you a convincing reason, I'll leave it to Him.

I won't hold my breath...

 

[white gardenia]

I read this book a while back, and it presents a far better discussion of the topic than I could give. A Universe from Nothing

Yes I've read that book...a lot of it went over my head but I'm pretty sure that krauss is actually explaining how "something" came from a quantum vacuum state...which, if I'm not mistaken, is different from "nothing" For example, I believe that a quantum vacuum is still inside of spacetime. ..in other words there was some small scale activity preceding the big bang......just as Roger Penrose believes that wmap seems to indicate pre- big bang activity on a much larger scale
But in the case of Lawrence krauss he is still not explaining what caused that pre- big bang activity to be set in motion... where did spacetime itself come from?
If anyone feels that I am misunderstanding krauss' book I would appreciate clarification..I am not a Christian who insists that my preconceived view of the universe has to be right... I always want to know what is actually physically true even if it seems at odds with what modern Christianity teaches

Oh BTW if you are a fan of Lawrence krauss you might be interested in this...

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If anyone feels that I am misunderstanding krauss' book I would appreciate clarification..I am not a Christian who insists that my preconceived view of the universe has to be right... I always want to know what is actually physically true even if it seems at odds with what modern Christianity teaches

But in the case of Lawrence krauss he is still not explaining what caused that pre- big bang activity to be set in motion... where did spacetime itself come from?

You're not misrepresenting his book. "Nothing" is a hard word to define when it comes to the beginning of the universe. We've never experienced what "nothing" actually is in that context. So it's difficult to say whether something can or cannot come from nothing.

To answer you question about where space time itself came from or what was before the big bang....I don't know. Maybe that question is unknowable. Every mystery about the natural world that has been solved had a natural explanation to it. I don't see why the beginning of the universe would be any different.

 

[Kylie]

But in the case of Lawrence krauss he is still not explaining what caused that pre- big bang activity to be set in motion...

Of course, since time is a property of our universe, not something separate from it, it makes no sense to speak of a time before the universe.

 

[white gardenia]

You're not misrepresenting his book. "Nothing" is a hard word to define when it comes to the beginning of the universe. We've never experienced what "nothing" actually is in that context. So it's difficult to say whether something can or cannot come from nothing.

To answer you question about where space time itself came from or what was before the big bang....I don't know. Maybe that question is unknowable. Every mystery about the natural world that has been solved had a natural explanation to it. I don't see why the beginning of the universe would be any different.

I agree... And i also think that if scientists do find empirical evidence for a natural first cause...then Christians need to accept it....we need to look at what is actually , physically real and then deal with it from that vantage point...

 

[white gardenia]

Of course, since time is a property of our universe, not something separate from it, it makes no sense to speak of a time before the universe.

Well there had to be a starting point for space and time just as most scientists believe there will be an ending point....unless of course guys like Roger Penrose are right, and we live in a cyclical universe...

 

[Kylie]

Well there had to be a starting point for space and time just as most scientists believe there will be an ending point....unless of course guys like Roger Penrose are right, and we live in a cyclical universe...

It doesn't follow that this starting point must be God.

 

[morse86]

$cientists don't want to answer origin.

Real scientists do, the ones not "tax payer" funded. Real scientists do not work for universities and tax payer funded grants, they are independent, verifiable, testable, observable experiments.

Evolution and big bang theory are tied in. They must both answer origin.

In the end you have 2 theories, which do you believe?
1) God's creation
2) Everything coming from nothing

That's what it all boils down to. Don't let anyone deceive you. Both theories are by faith. Look around the world, observe nature, what is observable and testable...there is more evidence for God than evolution and big bang theory.

 

[sjastro]

Real scientists do, the ones not "tax payer" funded. Real scientists do not work for universities and tax payer funded grants, they are independent, verifiable, testable, observable experiments.

Try checking your grammar before posting.......

 

[Kylie]

$cientists don't want to answer origin.

What's with the $? Are you trying to imply that science is done only out of greed? That's not very nice, is it?

Real scientists do, the ones not "tax payer" funded. Real scientists do not work for universities and tax payer funded grants, they are independent, verifiable, testable, observable experiments.

And who pays them?

Evolution and big bang theory are tied in. They must both answer origin.

No they aren't and no they don't. Evolution deals with changes to life forms that already exist.

In the end you have 2 theories, which do you believe?
1) God's creation
2) Everything coming from nothing

The one with supporting evidence from the real world.

That's what it all boils down to. Don't let anyone deceive you. Both theories are by faith. Look around the world, observe nature, what is observable and testable...there is more evidence for God than evolution and big bang theory.

You don't understand what "theory" means, do you?

 

[James Redford]

I don't know how many of you are familiar with writings of Frank Tipler Frank J. Tipler - Wikipedia but his Omega Point Theory has been really important to me when it comes to understanding the Bible from a strictly scientific perspective. I tell as many people as I can about Tipler because, in a way, his books give you all the information you need to refute the tired old atheist talking points. Some of it gets sort of complicated (especially when he gets into quantum theory and the vagaries of cosmic expansion rates) but the core premise behind the OPT theory is actually fairly simple....If you get a chance please listen to this interview that we did with Frank Tipler from back in 2015...

Hi, White Gardenia. Thank you for your present post pertaining to physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology.

For those unfamiliar with it:

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi, White Gardenia. Thank you for your present post pertaining to physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology.

For those unfamiliar with it:

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

Even Tipler does not appear to make the error of calling his WAG a theorem. You can probably show that it is not one yourself. Tell me, what reasonable test could show it to be wrong?

At any rate his idea is not well received. In fact one scientist claimed it was the Completely Ridiculous Anthropomorphic Principle:

Frank J. Tipler - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

Ok, but

'Nuff said...

 

[tas8831]

What's with the $? Are you trying to imply that science is done only out of greed? That's not very nice, is it?

That is his schtick. Pretty clever... Not really - fo rhe fails to realize how lucrative evangelical Christianity is - what with a ready-made stable of rubes that will literally buy anything you sell them.

 

[tas8831]

$cientists don't want to answer origin.

Christian$ don't want truth, they just want dopey platitude$ and big mansion$.

Real scientists do, the ones not "tax payer" funded. Real scientists do not work for universities and tax payer funded grants, they are independent, verifiable, testable, observable experiments.

Real scientists are experiments?

Oh, you are one of those un-educted Chri$tian$, I get it.

Nothing to see here folks - just another hate-filled, under-informed Chri$tian, ca$ting a$per$ion$ because he has nothing intelligent to offer.

 

[trunks2k]

Yeeesh someone performed some dark magic to make this thread rise from the grave