God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[James Redford]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause.

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format.

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; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""

ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.

""

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[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. http://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , http://cloudxeon.com/9d168dc7d6a )

* 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. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs

* 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. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W

* 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. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd

* 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. http://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. http://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. http://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. http://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. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998). http://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. http://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. http://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://www.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. http://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. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://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 above-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.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.freevar.com

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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.

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 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 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.

####################

In the below link are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, 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), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS

[John Cuthber]

If the assertion in the title of this thread was true I wouldn't have read about it in a badly written post on a discussion forum.

[James Redford]

If the assertion in the title of this thread was true I wouldn't have read about it in a badly written post on a discussion forum.

 

Hi, John Cuthber. Actually, my post is quite well-written. I am extraordinarily felicitous with the English language.

Moreover, your above assertion regarding where your knowledge of something first comes is the logical fallacy of non sequitur, as that doesn't logically follow.

[John Cuthber]

It's not a non sequiteur.

I'm not saying that it follows from anything else written here.There's no implied or stated causal relation.

 

I'm simply saying it's true.

 

Incidentally

http://bit.ly/151fUsC

 

By whom were you chosen and/ or who do you please?

Edited August 5, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Arete]

 

Moreover, your above assertion regarding where your knowledge of something first comes is the logical fallacy of non sequitur, as that doesn't logically follow.

 

 

 

Google reveals that you've been peddling your article extensively across many forums for some time - why must you self promote so extensively if the excessive rebuttals and critiques of your article are false and you do have the "ultimate" proof?

 

A skeptic might suspect flagrant self promotion by a crackpot is afoot - and that repeating discussions that have proven to have had no effect on your position again would prove to be an exercise in futility.

[James Redford]

It's not a non sequiteur.

I'm not saying that it follows from anything else written here.There's no implied or stated causal relation.

 

I'm simply saying it's true.

 

Your statement is an "if X then Y" formulation, which is an assertion of logical connection. But it doesn't follow in regards to your statement.

[John Cuthber]

I suppose I should point out that making statements of the form "if so and so is true then whatever" is a logical minefield* but I really don't see that as the big problem in this thread.

 

 

* they get messy when you try to prove them false.

So, for example if 1 = 2 then I'm Elvis.

Just as soon as you can come up wit circumstances where 1=2 then I will need to prove that I'm the King- until then you can't prove that the assertion is false.

 

On the other hand, this silly idea of yours has been on the web for a while.

If it were true then it would have been picked up by the mainstream media and I would already have heard of it.

I haven't, so it isn't.

Edited August 5, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

Frank J. Tipler is not quite as well received as it would appear from the OP

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

 

Critics of the final anthropic principle say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP).^[11] Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle has no claim on any special methodological status, it is "pure speculation", despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle".^[12] Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable".^[13]

Physicist David Deutsch incorporates Tipler's Omega Point cosmology as a central feature of the fourth strand of his "four strands" concept of fundamental reality and defends the physics of the Omega Point cosmology,^[14] although he is highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions^[15] and what Deutsch states are exaggerated claims that have caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory out of hand.^[16] Researcher Anders Sandberg pointed out that he believes the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs.^[17]

Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics.^[18][19][20]George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",^[3] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis.^[21] Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".^[22] In a review of Tippler's The Physics of Christianity, Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".^[23]

 

 

 

[James Redford]

It's not a non sequiteur.

I'm not saying that it follows from anything else written here.There's no implied or stated causal relation.

 

I'm simply saying it's true.

 

Incidentally

http://bit.ly/151fUsC

 

By whom were you chosen and/ or who do you please?

 

 

From John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989):

""

felicitous, a.

(fɪˈlɪsɪtəs)

[f. felicity + -ous.]

Characterized by felicity.

...

2. Of an action, expression, manner, etc.: Admirably suited to the occasion; strikingly apt or appropriate.

...

2.b Of persons: Happy or pleasantly apt in expression, manner, or style.

""

[John Cuthber]

Are you happy? That's nice but it's got nothing to do with your writing style.

You aren't " an action, expression, manner, etc" so 2 is out too.

2b is a matter of opinion. Care to set up a poll?

Oh, BTW, I'm putting in a pre-emptive strike about the "mantle of Galileo".

 

[James Redford]

 

 

Google reveals that you've been peddling your article extensively across many forums for some time - why must you self promote so extensively if the excessive rebuttals and critiques of your article are false and you do have the "ultimate" proof?

 

A skeptic might suspect flagrant self promotion by a crackpot is afoot - and that repeating discussions that have proven to have had no effect on your position again would prove to be an exercise in futility.

 

Because horrific events, including mass-death the likes of which has never been seen before, are going to occur on the world stage and I want people to know why they are occurring when they do come. I make no money from my article, nor do I promote myself, as I have nothing for sell.

No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. 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].)

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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.

We also 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.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

[Moontanman]

James, I refer you to post #8 on this page. Frank Tipler's ideas do not seem to enjoy the stature you are implying...

[James Redford]

 

Frank J. Tipler is not quite as well received as it would appear from the OP

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

 

 

 

 

 

 

No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

James, I refer you to post #8 on this page. Frank Tipler's ideas do not seem to enjoy the stature you are implying...

 

See said section of my aforementioned article regarding your said post.

Edited August 5, 2013 by James Redford

[John Cuthber]

Can we change the tread title to

"God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream pseudoscientific Physics"

[Moontanman]

 

No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

 

See said section of my aforementioned article regarding your said post.

 

 

No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

 

See said section of my aforementioned article regarding your said post.

 

 

The quote that was given in post #8 trivially refutes this...

[swansont]

No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

That's not really how it works. It is incumbent upon the investigator to establish the theory. It is not assumed true until someone refutes it, so a claim that no refutation exists doesn't carry much weight.

 

From your description of the informal refutations, it sounds like several people read some book and said "it's crap", and you deny the critique because it was not a point-by-point treatment. But the burden of proof is upon you to show that Tipler's work isn't crap. That only one peer-reviewed article mentions it strongly suggests the work is so flawed that it would be a waste of time to formally debunk it.

[cladking]

I once calculated that it would take about 42 X 10 ^ 806,999 monkeys and typewriters to get War and Peace in a single try.

 

The concept of infinite universes and the like is simply absurd to me. It seems apparent that God(s) must exist, but probably impossible to know the nature(s) of such. People like to pencil whip problems and invent solutions while jumping to conclusions. The world as it exists is an impossibility of the highest order yet here we are.

 

I doubt it would matter if Tipler is right or not (I seriously doubt he is), he wouldn't be believed because everyone already has his own beliefs.

 

WYSIWYG.

[Delta1212]

I am extraordinarily felicitous with the English language.

 

This is a self-contradicting sentence.

[Strange]

 

Hi, John Cuthber. Actually, my post is quite well-written. I am extraordinarily felicitous with the English language.

 

 

I think your audience should be the judge of that. (It isn't. And you're not.)

 

The quality of the writing matches the quality of the argument, if that helps.

[hyperion1is]

I couldn't read all your article.

" Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem)"

I'm learning now about the scientific method, but there is no so things as proof, only predictions which can be proven false or true. A totally different thing.

Follow my logic: According to a Logic fundamental (which math obbeys):

- If you start from a True Statement through logic operations you will come to a True Statement.

- If you start from a False Statement through logic operations you will come to a False Statement. So, no certainty there.

 

Regarding God whatever he exists or not there will be always 50/50, that if you have to make decisions that is.

One is knowing the path and another is to walk on the path (from Bible, rephrased maybe).

Knowing something doesn't help you much because when you have to make decisions it will present to you with uncertainty.

 

And our decisions (people among people) can't be always the same. For instance let's consider there is a book on a table next to us. We have to decide who gets the book. If we don't fight for it and consider so solve it rationally, we have if you take the book: You have to make the decision "I have the book and you don't have it", and I have to make the decision: "I don't get the book, you get it." Even if it seems to you to be same decisions because it leads to an outcome, actually they are opposites.

 

The same with you and God. Even you and God want the same thing you can't both make the same decisions (always).

 

Anyway, the search for a proof regarding God is futile. You have to ask yourself, why do you want to know. If God exists you will live a righteous life (whatever that is) ? And if He Doesn't exists you will go into bars, enjoy yourself at maximum no matter the "sin" before you die? and you can't make up your mind until you don't find out if God exists ? Really now.

 

There will always be 50/50 regarding proofs. The questions is what constitutes for you as proofs.

Edited August 6, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Delbert]

Seems the discussion is similar to Russell's china teapot. Which of course is an example of a misinterpretation and distortion of the principle of scientific theory.

[Greg H.]

 

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Forget proving that God exists. If someone had managed to unify Gravity with all the other forces in the cosmos, the scientific community would be shouting about that from the rooftops of the world. Not only would it be front page news, but Nobel prizes would be showered upon them like rain drops in a monsoon. They'd probably have to invent a new one - Nobel Prize in Pure Awesome or something along those lines.

 

Your paper is bunk. Your idea that God can be "proven to exist" is nonsense. After more than 2,000 years, out of all the millions of Christians that have puzzled over this very question, I think we'd have found some (scientific) evidence by now besides a book full of morality stories and parables.

[andrewcellini]

lol no refutation of tiplers work exists in peer reviewed literature because he strictly gets his work published in non peer reviewed pseudoscience journals

 

i wonder why...

[James Redford]

 

 

 

The quote that was given in post #8 trivially refutes this...

 

People have attempted refuting physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, but none have succeeded. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

As I show therein, when Prof. Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler’s case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics, as the Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. 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].)

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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.

We also 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.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

For much more on the foregoing, see my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", and see the following resource:

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS

I couldn't read all your article.

" Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem)"

I'm learning now about the scientific method, but there is no so things as proof, only predictions which can be proven false or true. A totally different thing.

Follow my logic: According to a Logic fundamental (which math obbeys):

- If you start from a True Statement through logic operations you will come to a True Statement.

- If you start from a False Statement through logic operations you will come to a False Statement. So, no certainty there.

 

Regarding God whatever he exists or not there will be always 50/50, that if you have to make decisions that is.

One is knowing the path and another is to walk on the path (from Bible, rephrased maybe).

Knowing something doesn't help you much because when you have to make decisions it will present to you with uncertainty.

 

And our decisions (people among people) can't be always the same. For instance let's consider there is a book on a table next to us. We have to decide who gets the book. If we don't fight for it and consider so solve it rationally, we have if you take the book: You have to make the decision "I have the book and you don't have it", and I have to make the decision: "I don't get the book, you get it." Even if it seems to you to be same decisions because it leads to an outcome, actually they are opposites.

 

The same with you and God. Even you and God want the same thing you can't both make the same decisions (always).

 

Anyway, the search for a proof regarding God is futile. You have to ask yourself, why do you want to know. If God exists you will live a righteous life (whatever that is) ? And if He Doesn't exists you will go into bars, enjoy yourself at maximum no matter the "sin" before you die? and you can't make up your mind until you don't find out if God exists ? Really now.

 

There will always be 50/50 regarding proofs. The questions is what constitutes for you as proofs.

 

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology proves that God (i.e., the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite sapient being) exist according to the known laws of physcis (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). The field of physics does involve proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that singularities necessarily exist per the known physical laws and given attractive gravity. One could posit that the known laws of physics are themselves incorrect, but there is no rational reason for thinking that they are; as well, they have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the conclusion that God exists is to reject the known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science.

Further, we also 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.

Forget proving that God exists. If someone had managed to unify Gravity with all the other forces in the cosmos, the scientific community would be shouting about that from the rooftops of the world. Not only would it be front page news, but Nobel prizes would be showered upon them like rain drops in a monsoon. They'd probably have to invent a new one - Nobel Prize in Pure Awesome or something along those lines.

 

Your paper is bunk. Your idea that God can be "proven to exist" is nonsense. After more than 2,000 years, out of all the millions of Christians that have puzzled over this very question, I think we'd have found some (scientific) evidence by now besides a book full of morality stories and parables.

 

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 aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

Edited August 7, 2013 by James Redford

[Greg H.]

Stuff

The problem with your word salad is that we don't currently have a functional mathematical model that unifies all of the four fundamental forces (aka A Working Theory of Everything). How do you make predictions (much less universal requirements) based on a model that does not exist?