|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/25/2009 10:37:28 PM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
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. http://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, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
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. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
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 http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://theophysics.chimehost.net
"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=206077125
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
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. http://theophysics.110mb.com/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html
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. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
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 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), 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.
##########
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. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf , http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-download-mirrors
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, although 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.
##########
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). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf 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) http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/discomfitingdiscoveries.htm , http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf
For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below article:
Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I," Atheism's Assertions, February 20, 2007 http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-pre-big.html
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. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
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.
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 12:27:53 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2546
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
I was interested right up until you got to the unbiblical bit:
quote:
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.
Sorry, but pantheism is about as far from the truth of Christianity as one can get. Thanks, but no thanks. The Scriptures you reference here do not say anything even close to what you are trying to make them say.
We are not gods. We are not God and God is not us, we are separate beings. God isn't every "thing".
quote:
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, although he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)
More egregiously incorrect application of Scripture. Hebrews nowhere teaches "the reality of multiple worlds", nor does the phrase "son of man" mean "God is the son of man" as you are trying to make it.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 12:40:35 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
By the power of Greyskull, that is a huge post!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 12:43:41 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
Here is the current wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
Here is a quote:
According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7]
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 1:33:03 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
I was interested right up until you got to the unbiblical bit:
quote:
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.
Sorry, but pantheism is about as far from the truth of Christianity as one can get. Thanks, but no thanks. The Scriptures you reference here do not say anything even close to what you are trying to make them say.
We are not gods. We are not God and God is not us, we are separate beings. God isn't every "thing".
You attempt to make Jesus Christ into a false prophet. From John 10:31-35:
""
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?"
The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? [Quoting Psalm 82:6.] If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
""
Regarding pantheism, there are different meanings in which people use this word. In literal terms, its etymology simply means "all is God," which of course is biblical doctrine. From Acts 17:22-29:
""
Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising."
""
So in God we (even the pagans, as Paul said) live and move and have our being, i.e., that everything that we see, touch, taste, smell, hear or otherwise experience occurs within the body of God, i.e., that existence is inside of God. And this logically follows, because God created existence from Himself. In quantum mechanics (per the Bekenstein Bound) and in computability theory, existence is literally nothing more than a concept--in its fulness, an infinite concept, but still only a concept (i.e., this fact carries no negative implications)--a concept conceived in the Mind of God.
See also Jeremiah 23:24; Colossians 3:11; Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
And in the above-quoted passage, Paul reinforces the correctness of Jesus Christ and the Psalm's statement that we are gods. For if we be children of God, then what are we now, even yet before we're fully grown?
And we who are saved shall never stop growing, as any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Poincaré cycle per the Poincaré recurrence theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.
Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states never repeating and hence an infinite number of experiences.
Yet no matter how much we grow and how godlike we become, we will still always be finite beings, and God will always be infinitely greater than us, since any finite number is still infinitely small compared to infinity.
But perhaps your objection is that God is transcendent to His creation. Mathematically and physically speaking, that's quite true. But that doesn't invalidate the literal etymological meaning of pantheism (since the literal etymological meaning of the word says nothing about God being identical to the universe, or more precisely, spacetime; it simply states that God is all, and since God is something that exists, God is also a part of that all). Yet, because of this invalid objection, some people prefer to use the term panentheism, which means that "all is inside God," which is also true.
As Stephen Hawking proved, the Cosmological 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).
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 (i.e., with its triune structure) has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So each Person of the Trinity at all times has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.
So the Omega Point, i.e., God, is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.
quote:
quote:
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, although he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)
More egregiously incorrect application of Scripture. Hebrews nowhere teaches "the reality of multiple worlds", nor does the phrase "son of man" mean "God is the son of man" as you are trying to make it.
The King James Version translates the critical word in these passages as "worlds." Here is how the New King James Version translates Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3:
""
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; ...
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
""
The Greek word traditionally translated as "worlds" in these passages is aeons (plural), which in addition to meaning ages, can also be translated as worlds. But even if one prefers to translate this as ages, at the very least it demonstrates that traditional Christianity has no problem with the concept of multiple worlds in a biblical context. But we don't even need these passages to derive the reality of multiple worlds from the bible, as Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36.)
Regarding your last statement, Jesus Christ Himself called Himself the Son of Man, so stop attempting to make Him into a false prophet. In physics, causality flows in both time directions (viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity). So we are the children of God, just as God is the son of man. Another way of stating it is that we have a participatory role in existence, i.e., that we are not superfluous to existence's existence. (Indeed, we are co-potentates along with Jesus, but only insofar as we remain within the Spirit of Christ--see 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; Luke 12:57; 22:30; Revelation 5:10; Daniel 7:27.) God uses His sapient creatures in order so that existence can exist. This is necessarily (i.e., mathematically and physically) how God creates existence, and it is a glorious thing. This is why Jesus said "For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21.)
< Message edited by JamesRedford -- 10/26/2009 2:48:08 AM >
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 1:41:30 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
Here is the current wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
Here is a quote:
According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7]
Prof. George Ellis is a theist who takes a fideist position. His fideist Weltanschauung also extends to other areas, e.g., he maintains that physics cannot be capable of explaining human consciousness, which is a mystical position known as vitalism. Hence, Ellis dislikes Prof. Tipler's work because it abrogates the type of mystical theism that Ellis desires to believe in.
Notice that in Prof. Ellis's review that he never once states anyplace where Prof. Frank J. Tipler made any type of actual error, whether it be mathematical or physical. All he can resort to is an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy.
In a paper published by Prof. Ellis and Dr. David Coule criticizing Tipler's Omega Point Theory ("Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739), Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Unwittingly, Ellis and Coule thereby actually gave a powerful argument that the Omega Point is required by the laws of physics.
So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and mystically nebulous cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. I find that deliciously ironic. (Ironic though it is, it's the expected result, given that the Omega Point--i.e., God--is required by the known laws of physics.)
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 3:10:33 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JamesRedford
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
Here is the current wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
Here is a quote:
According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7]
Prof. George Ellis is a theist who takes a fideist position. His fideist Weltanschauung also extends to other areas, e.g., he maintains that physics cannot be capable of explaining human consciousness, which is a mystical position known as vitalism. Hence, Ellis dislikes Prof. Tipler's work because it abrogates the type of mystical theism that Ellis desires to believe in.
Notice that in Prof. Ellis's review that he never once states anyplace where Prof. Frank J. Tipler made any type of actual error, whether it be mathematical or physical. All he can resort to is an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy.
In a paper published by Prof. Ellis and Dr. David Coule criticizing Tipler's Omega Point Theory ("Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739), Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Unwittingly, Ellis and Coule thereby actually gave a powerful argument that the Omega Point is required by the laws of physics.
So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and mystically nebulous cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. I find that deliciously ironic. (Ironic though it is, it's the expected result, given that the Omega Point--i.e., God--is required by the known laws of physics.)
Although having said the above, if one still desires the mystical, physics also demonstrates that there is one thing that is mystical. The Cosmological Singularity (of which the Person of the Omega Point is one entity of this triune structure) has all the ineffable qualities one is looking for, and more (indeed, because it's God).
Let me now explain that.
Pertaining to the supernatural: traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates physical law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.
Although God is transcendent to the laws of physics, as physical values are at infinity at the cosmological singularity, and hence it is not possible for any form of physics to apply to the actual singularity since one cannot perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on infinity.
In general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions (i.e., given any universe with enough matter to contain life): for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that the universe began in the Big Bang singularity, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2416467
So it's been known for some time that physical law proves the existence of something to which no form of physics can be applied, i.e., something which is transcendent to any form of physics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 179, "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."
Thus if the term "supernatural" is taken to mean something which transcends any form of physics, but which does not violate physical law, then physical law proves that the supernatural necessarily exists.
This is a result that the physics community haven't been able to tolerate, and so they have been attempting to do away with singularities ever since Hawking and Penrose's paper which proved that singularities are unavoidable in general relativity given realistic energy conditions.
String theory is the physics community's answer to the known laws of physics. Whereas the known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date, string theory has never been confirmed by even a single experiment and makes no testable predictions. String theory isn't actually physics, it's just mathematical omphaloskepsis.
And so the physics community's strategy against the Omega Point hasn't been to argue against it (as that's not possible if one conforms to the known laws of physics), but rather to simply do away with empirical physics altogether.
For some of the historical details regarding this matter, see my original post in this thread (one can also do a string search within this thread on "abandon the laws of physics").
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 5:09:31 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2546
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
Hey, James.
Do you believe the King James Bible is the only Bible a Christian should consult?
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 10:29:26 AM
|
|
|
parkerbrother
Posts: 384
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
Here is the current wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
Here is a quote:
According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7]
Now there's a surprise. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/26/2009 7:29:39 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
You attempt to make Jesus Christ into a false prophet. From John 10:31-35: Sorry, James, this is the Science and Origins thread. If you want to share faulty doctrine then take it to the "Christian Doctrine" or "God" threads where it can be properly ripped up and thrown away...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 10/27/2009 3:55:16 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2546
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
I think we scared the poor guy off.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/11/2009 1:21:21 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Hey, James.
Do you believe the King James Bible is the only Bible a Christian should consult?
No. To begin with, it uses the Alexandrian text-type, which is known it be a later manuscript compared to others. This can be seen based merely on hermeneutical grounds, as the scribes changed a number of passages to make them more worldly in the Alexandrian text-type, such as putting one's soul in jeopardy by calling a brother a "fool" without cause, whereas the original is that one puts one's soul in jeopardy by doing so, cause or not.
The scribes did this because they couldn't believe that Jesus actually preached such a message, as His message is so otherworldly. They couldn't wrap their minds around it, so they figured that the previous scribes must have made a scribal error in leaving something out. So they went ahead and "corrected" it so that it would make sense to them.
To date, the best translation is the New King James Version. It uses the Alexandrian text-type, just as the old King James Version, but it gives footnotes regarding any differences between the manuscripts, i.e., it actually tells you what the earlier manuscripts say.
Additionally, the old King James Version bible is written in antiquated language which most people can't understand very well. Many preachers like this because then they get to be the center of attention in telling their parishioners what the bible is supposed to say, instead of them reading for themselves what the bible has to say.
From what I've seen, the English Standard Version (ESV) uses the best manuscripts and is a good translation. But even so, a number of its English constructions are awkward. Whereas the New King James Version (NKJV) seems to me to be very comprehensible. As well, the ESV doesn't provide alternative manuscript passages. But next to the NKJV, the ESV is the second-best English bible translation from what I have seen (I haven't read all of the ESV, although I have read all of the NKJV, while comparing it to many other translations while doing so, in addition to consulting the original the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek passages).
One test I put every bible translation to is Matthew 17:26. If a particular bible translates Jesus's words in this passage to the silly and redundant statement of "exempt"--or something equivalent--instead of the correct "free" or "at liberty," then it is a worldly bible translation, concerned with pleasing government instead of preaching the truth. For the details on that, see my below article:
James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), October 17, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.chimehost.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf
< Message edited by JamesRedford -- 11/11/2009 1:29:39 AM >
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/11/2009 1:28:33 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: parkerbrother
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
Here is the current wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
Here is a quote:
According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7]
Now there's a surprise.
Prof. George Ellis is a theist who takes a fideist position. His fideist Weltanschauung also extends to other areas, e.g., he maintains that physics cannot be capable of explaining human consciousness, which is a mystical position known as vitalism. Hence, Ellis dislikes Prof. Tipler's work because it abrogates the type of mystical theism that Ellis desires to believe in.
Notice that in Prof. Ellis's review that he never once states anyplace where Prof. Frank J. Tipler made any type of actual error, whether it be mathematical or physical. All he can resort to is an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy.
In a paper published by Prof. Ellis and Dr. David Coule criticizing Tipler's Omega Point Theory ("Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739), Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Unwittingly, Ellis and Coule thereby actually gave a powerful argument that the Omega Point is required by the laws of physics.
So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and mystically nebulous cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. I find that deliciously ironic. (Ironic though it is, it's the expected result, given that the Omega Point--i.e., God--is required by the known laws of physics.)
Although having said the above, if one still desires the mystical, physics also demonstrates that there is one thing that is mystical. The Cosmological Singularity (of which the Person of the Omega Point is one entity of this triune structure) has all the ineffable qualities one is looking for, and more (indeed, because it's God).
Let me now explain that.
Pertaining to the supernatural: traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates physical law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.
Although God is transcendent to the laws of physics, as physical values are at infinity at the cosmological singularity, and hence it is not possible for any form of physics to apply to the actual singularity since one cannot perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on infinity.
In general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions (i.e., given any universe with enough matter to contain life): for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that the universe began in the Big Bang singularity, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2416467
So it's been known for some time that physical law proves the existence of something to which no form of physics can be applied, i.e., something which is transcendent to any form of physics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 179, "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."
Thus if the term "supernatural" is taken to mean something which transcends any form of physics, but which does not violate physical law, then physical law proves that the supernatural necessarily exists.
This is a result that the physics community haven't been able to tolerate, and so they have been attempting to do away with singularities ever since Hawking and Penrose's paper which proved that singularities are unavoidable in general relativity given realistic energy conditions.
String theory is the physics community's answer to the known laws of physics. Whereas the known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date, string theory has never been confirmed by even a single experiment and makes no testable predictions. String theory isn't actually physics, it's just mathematical omphaloskepsis.
And so the physics community's strategy against the Omega Point hasn't been to argue against it (as that's not possible if one conforms to the known laws of physics), but rather to simply do away with empirical physics altogether.
For some of the historical details regarding this matter, see my original post in this thread (one can also do a string search within this thread on "abandon the laws of physics").
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/11/2009 1:29:57 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You attempt to make Jesus Christ into a false prophet. From John 10:31-35: Sorry, James, this is the Science and Origins thread. If you want to share faulty doctrine then take it to the "Christian Doctrine" or "God" threads where it can be properly ripped up and thrown away...
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. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
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, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resources:
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. http://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, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.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.
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/11/2009 1:45:57 AM
|
|
|
JamesRedford
Posts: 10
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
I think we scared the poor guy off.
I'm not afraid of anything in this mortal coil. I fully expect to have the flesh of my body sliced and ripped off in front of my eyes. I fully expect to [be tortured in other ways]
Any genuine Christian should expect no better. Did you think this thing called Christianity was a joke? Well, many of you are going to find out the hard way that it's not [Edited by moderator]
[Edited by moderator - objectionable material & unwelcome spiritual counsel/judgment]
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 11/13/2009 9:17:36 AM >
_____________________________
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, 2009-10-17 (orig. 2001-12-19) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity TOE) http://theophysics.chimehost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/11/2009 12:15:59 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 75
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JamesRedford
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
I think we scared the poor guy off.
I'm not afraid of anything in this mortal coil. I fully expect to have the flesh of my body sliced and ripped off in front of my eyes. [edited]
Any genuine Christian should expect no better. Did you think this thing called Christianity was a joke? Well, many of you are going to find out the hard way that it's not, [edited]
Wow... this is where you lost me completely.
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 11/13/2009 9:17:59 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/11/2009 12:26:41 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Actually, Ohio, it's JR who's been lost for most of this entire thread...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/13/2009 9:14:50 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10995
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
I've edited a post for both objectionable material and for unwelcome spiritual counsel. I have also edited the quotes of said post in other people's posts.
Please refer to TOS 5, 6, and 9 and tone down future posts.
Thanks!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics - 11/13/2009 3:24:36 PM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 17270
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
JamesRedford4
Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com concerning the status of your account. Please allow time for a response.
Please do not post under this handle or any other until you have heard from the administrator.
Sincerely
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please allow time for a response.
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
