• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by white gardenia, Feb 27, 2017.

  1. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    Actually, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler does repeatedly point out in his peer-reviewed physics papers published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals that the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematically unavoidable result of the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

    Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, WebCite query result , Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip .)

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T, WebCite query result . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, WebCite query result .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, WebCite query result .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X, https://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H, https://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS .

    * Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

    * F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://dauns01.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

    Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

    Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

    Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

    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.

    For much more on these matters, see my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

    * Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.host56.com .

    The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of 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 cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. 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].)

    Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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.

    -----

    Note:

    1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (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 crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally 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 and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem 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 these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

    * * * * *

    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's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

    In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

    With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

    For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my following article:

    * 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 , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,444
    Atheist
    Single
    I see he did make the error of calling it a theory. No wonder he is laughed at.
     
  3. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology began as a theory based strictly on the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). However, the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per said known physical laws in 1997.

    The reason Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem induces paroxysms of apoplexia in theophobes is the same reason that, 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's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

    In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

    With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

    For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my following article:

    * 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: [email protected] , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,444
    Atheist
    Single
    Can you reply to a post without all of the spam?

    It appears that you know he does not have a theory. Answer me this simple question: What reasonable test could show his theory to be wrong?
     
  5. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

    So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

    You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

    I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

    That's very simple: disconfirm either the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, since physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per said known laws of physics. 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].)

    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: [email protected] , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .
     
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,368
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    On the interwebs discussion fora, 'spam' is also used to refer to posting unnecessary repeated verbiage, such as what you post below, in response to specific questions.

    ^^spam^^
     
  7. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,368
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    A 186 page paper.

    I note that on the SSRN, one needs only upload a paper - so your opus was not peer reviewed, I take it? Who would review it? A theologian? A physicist?

    The publication of the human genome was only 51 pages. I'm thinking that few, if any, will waste their time on this bafflegab-laden vanity opus.
     
  8. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,368
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,444
    Atheist
    Single
    You clearly do not know what spamming is because you continue to do so. I am ignoring almost all of your posts because it is basically a load of woo woo.

    One more time, what reasonable test could refute this theory? If you can't come up with a reasonable test then it is untestable and by definition not a theory.
     
  10. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

    So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

    You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

    I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.
     
  11. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    It's logically impossible for it to be peer-reviewed, as I have no peers. I am peerless.

    However, that will change shortly. Soon technology will become advanced enough to convert our human brains into artificial computer hardware (i.e., at the cellular level, such as by using nanobots), at which point we will be technologically immortal; and due to the vast amounts of computational resources at that time, we will also be superintelligent. The leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045, although it can come much quicker, particularly given the incredible recent advancements in machine-learning Artificial Intelligence via artificial neural networks. Said epoch is often termed the Singularity, or the Technological Singularity, and the field of interest pertaining to it is most commonly called transhumanism.

    Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself logically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

    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 .
     
  12. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,208
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    God is immaterial. Science only deals with the material. Therefore God's existence can't be proved scientifically.

    The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

    1. Make an observation or observations.
    2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
    3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
    4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
    5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
    6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory
     
  13. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    That would be highly illogical, unless one simply dislikes seeing me discuss physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.

    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 .
     
  14. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

    So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

    You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

    I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

    Nor is physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology "woo woo", but rather it 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. 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: [email protected] , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

    Your reading-comprehension is in need of improvement. Perhaps you should inquire with your local elementary schools to see if they offer remedial reading courses to the general public. As I already answered you regarding this:

    That's very simple: disconfirm either the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, since physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per said known laws of physics. 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].)
     
  15. James Redford

    James Redford Lux et veritas et libertas

    207
    +14
    Christian
    Private
    For how the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem uniquely conform to, and precisely match, Christian theology:

    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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

    The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

    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 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

    The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

    So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

    Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

    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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

    Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

    Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

    For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following two articles:

    * 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 .

    * 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: [email protected] , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… .
     
  16. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,208
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    What does Omega Point predict about the universe?
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,444
    Atheist
    Single
    TLDR. Spam is not limited to email. Dictionaries are often behind the time. When a person posts a bunch of nonsense that no one will read he is spamming the thread. That is what you have done. Since your answer to my question probably does not exist it looks as if you admitted that your heroes work is not a theory. Congratulations!
     
  18. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,368
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Hilarious.

    So cool how you just copy-pasted the same lame 'defense'.

    I also thought it was so cool how you sign yourself up on all of these 'research' pages, like Research Gate, apparently thinking it will make you look like a scholar of something. Pity you have no citations on your amazing God paper....

    Bye.
     
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +987
    Christian
    So what's the "test" that would or could falsify M-theory, Multiverse theory, or the LCMD model? Do you have *any* idea of how many times the so called "tests" of the dark matter model have produced NULL results? Billions of dollars of laboratory "tests" of DM have been conducted to date and nothing has ever been found.
     
  20. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,208
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    With advances in technology or development and testing of other hypotheses, these are POTENTIALLY falsifiable by the scientific method. God is not because he is not physical/material. Therefore God as the Intelligent Designer is not falsifiable and thus ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
     
Loading...