Jump to content

God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics


Recommended Posts

Did you bother to read either of those pages you linked to? I don't think they say what you think they say.

 

From your first link...

 

The historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated. Strabo states that locals living near Moasada (as opposed to Masada) say that "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis". Strabo identifies a limestone and salt hill at the south western tip of the Dead Sea, and Kharbet Usdum ruins nearby as the site of biblical Sodom.[8]

From your second link..

 

In ancient Mesopotamia, the excavated cities of Shuruppak, Ur, Kish, Uruk, Lagash, and Ninevah all present evidence of flooding. However, the evidence comes from different times.[11] In Israel, there is no such evidence of a widespread flood.[12]

The flood story and Sodom and Gomorrah are mythological in nature not part of real history...

 

Red Sea was something to the effect of an earthquake causing a tidal wave to form. As the wave moved up the Red Sea the water drained out before it. Moses was able to cross, Pharaoh pursuing was caught directly in its path.

There is no historical evidence this ever took place, no evidence the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt, no evidence they wondered around in a tiny desert for 40 years, no evidence Moses as portrayed in the bible ever existed. You cannot use the bible as evidence of the bible...

 

 

Not the best quality evidence but reasonably plausible or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

In fact it is worthless as evidence...

 

You would end up with only facts though. Freedom to believe or disbelieve is dependent on having something you can't explain.

Believing something with out evidence or facts is nothing but gullibility...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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.

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. Tiple

Let's just clarify something here " Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. " OK, I guess that's true, but unicorns ar

Not really how I interpret it but okay.

 

Whether these events happened exactly as described is less of an issue to me than whether at some point they happened even if to a lesser degree.

 

Honestly, Occam's razor suggests it was just massive poetic license and misunderstood events. Don't need much in the way of science to explain in that case.

 

 

Believing something with out evidence or facts is nothing but gullibility...

 

 

Which we also define as faith. If you can explain everything, you can no longer have faith in anything.

 

Really doesn't matter what you believe, but you should at least have the option to make up your own mind on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really how I interpret it but okay.

 

Whether these events happened exactly as described is less of an issue to me than whether at some point they happened even if to a lesser degree.

 

Honestly, Occam's razor suggests it was just massive poetic license and misunderstood events. Don't need much in the way of science to explain in that case.

 

Which we also define as faith. If you can explain everything, you can no longer have faith in anything.

 

Really doesn't matter what you believe, but you should at least have the option to make up your own mind on the subject.

I have faith in lots of things but I don't think we define "faith" in the same way...

 

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that sinking feeling I'm being drawn in. Obviously we need more cranks here to enliven our days...

 

 

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

 

By straightforward reasoning if there is sufficient proof there can be no faith.

 

Most generic definition anyways. Other definitions are in the form of trust or belief in religious doctrine. Equally valid but still a bit on the pointless side if your knowledge level is sufficient.

 

 

I figure I'll just ask(or not) about the assorted miracles after death. Most efficient strategy. Only in the case of physical immortality will I devote time to investigating them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that sinking feeling I'm being drawn in. Obviously we need more cranks here to enliven our days...

 

 

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

 

By straightforward reasoning if there is sufficient proof there can be no faith.

 

Most generic definition anyways. Other definitions are in the form of trust or belief in religious doctrine. Equally valid but still a bit on the pointless side if your knowledge level is sufficient.

 

 

I figure I'll just ask(or not) about the assorted miracles after death. Most efficient strategy. Only in the case of physical immortality will I devote time to investigating them.

 

 

Can you give an example of a miracle after death?

BTW, if you want to call someone a crank i suggest you take a good long look in the mirror..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After my own demise?

 

You'll have to wait a bit for that one. If at all possible though I promise to get the word out.

 

 

As I have said before, in the face of the lack of evidence the default position is it doesn't exist.. and anything you can assert with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not saying miracles are real.

 

I'm saying there is some evidence out there. Not the best quality of evidence nor delivered by the most reputable research, but still evidence to consider. I'm sure most people have seen the assorted documentaries and whatnot.

 

You venture too far down that path though and you are left talking about the Omega Point theory, baryon-lepton conservation and Jesus being a XX male.

 

My personal plan is to wait until I die and then ask. God and/or an Afterlife may not exist, but one can still make plans based on a potential.

 

Anyways in that vein this is reaching my limit for religious debate. Gets too circular after a very short while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not saying miracles are real.

 

I'm saying there is some evidence out there. Not the best quality of evidence nor delivered by the most reputable research, but still evidence to consider. I'm sure most people have seen the assorted documentaries and whatnot.

 

You venture too far down that path though and you are left talking about the Omega Point theory, baryon-lepton conservation and Jesus being a XX male.

 

My personal plan is to wait until I die and then ask. God and/or an Afterlife may not exist, but one can still make plans based on a potential.

 

Anyways in that vein this is reaching my limit for religious debate. Gets too circular after a very short while.

Well if Christians are correct then after you die is a bit late. Documentaries are not evidence of anything but a scramble for ratings...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not saying miracles are real.

 

I'm saying there is some evidence out there. Not the best quality of evidence nor delivered by the most reputable research, but still evidence to consider. I'm sure most people have seen the assorted documentaries and whatnot.

 

You venture too far down that path though and you are left talking about the Omega Point theory, baryon-lepton conservation and Jesus being a XX male.

 

My personal plan is to wait until I die and then ask. God and/or an Afterlife may not exist, but one can still make plans based on a potential.

 

Anyways in that vein this is reaching my limit for religious debate. Gets too circular after a very short while.

If there is evidence out there, then no faith is required anyway...

 

And Jesus being XX means that he would be a she. Are you sure you don't mean XXY?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is evidence out there, then no faith is required anyway...

 

Exactly my point.

 

 

And Jesus being XX means that he would be a she. Are you sure you don't mean XXY?

 

Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics. The process which Prof. Frank J. Tipler proposes for the miracles of Jesus Christ uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy.

 

Thankfully, I didn't come up with that bit of craziness. Why it is used as an example.

 

Parthenogenesis is at the far end of theoretically possible, but wouldn't have any reason to think it would result in someone with male characteristics.

 

Only other real world thing would be if Mary was a chimera with a former male sibling's cells. In that case Jesus would be normal in terms of his genetics, if not the circumstances of his conception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly my point.

 

 

 

 

Thankfully, I didn't come up with that bit of craziness. Why it is used as an example.

 

Parthenogenesis is at the far end of theoretically possible, but wouldn't have any reason to think it would result in someone with male characteristics.

 

Only other real world thing would be if Mary was a chimera with a former male sibling's cells. In that case Jesus would be normal in terms of his genetics, if not the circumstances of his conception.

Other than Chimerism, another example could be a Microperforate Hymen. This would have caused the hymen to allow sperm to pass through without it being broken. To a physician back then it would have appeared to be a virginal conception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, if there's no credible evidence for the existence of 'X,' the most rational thing to do is remain skeptical in regards to 'X.'

 

In light of this, I disbelieve in deities because there's no evidence for gods or miracles. Any 'scientific' explanation of how the virgin birth / water into wine / etc. could have happened is irrelevant, because there's no evidence that such events ever took place. It's useless to discuss their plausibility without first providing some evidence that these fantastic events actually happened.

 

However, despite my atheism, I have no problem with people who choose to hold religious or mystical views -- as long as they keep their views separate from the political sphere and don't use them as a justification for bigotry or discrimination toward others.

Edited by kindheart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than Chimerism, another example could be a Microperforate Hymen. This would have caused the hymen to allow sperm to pass through without it being broken. To a physician back then it would have appeared to be a virginal conception.

I remember that the story included Mary, her sister, Joseph, God, some Angels and Shepherds etc, but as far as I recall, no physicians.

There were some "wise men" but they got there a bit late to comment on the issue.

As far as I can tell, the "evidence" of Mary's virginity s that she said so,

I suspect that not all such assertions are honest and accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that the story included Mary, her sister, Joseph, God, some Angels and Shepherds etc, but as far as I recall, no physicians.

There were some "wise men" but they got there a bit late to comment on the issue.

As far as I can tell, the "evidence" of Mary's virginity s that she said so,

I suspect that not all such assertions are honest and accurate.

So her sister, God, angels, and shepherds were all there the entire 9 months of pregnancy looking up her skirt to see if the seal was broken? I highly doubt that. Joseph may have checked simply because it was customary in a marriage (they were betrothed after all) to make sure that the bride to be was a virgin. At that time, if she was no longer a virgin, she would have been stoned to death. Also Mary's father and future father in law would have checked to make sure it was intact. No sense paying a dowry if the goods were "bad". Outside of that, no one would have been making sure that it wasn't broken.

 

On top of that there is no mention of anything happening between the time that her pregnancy is foretold and the time that John the baptist is born. That's a three month span. Even still, after all that, Joseph still takes Mary into his home as his wife instead of divorcing her under the law. Also, as I recall Elizabeth wasn't there during labor. In fact, and unfortunately I don't have a bible at hand to check, I don't recall any mention of Elizabeth after John the Baptist was born...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making was that no "physician" was likely to have checked.

 

It's likely that Joseph would have known, but he might have kept quite for two reasons- first (and most obvious) he was the reason.

Secondly- perhaps he loved her and was prepared to forgive her "indiscretion" even, or perhaps especially, in a society that would have killed her for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned amazingly misogynistic, it's difficult to wrap my mind around a human being being treated as property much less checking to see if your daughter is a virgin by letting every one who is interested take a look...wacko.png

 

But I do feel the need to point out that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of or the accuracy of any of this stuff... Since this thread is "God proven to exist according to mainstream physics" possibly we need to stick to what is possible in the natural world and since we are talking about a time when technology was limited to the bronze age need we debate over turning water into wine or virgin births or walking on water as natural processes? If they occurred they were supernatural, no technology existed at the time to allow these things to happen, suggesting anything but technology could bring them to pass is no different than saying "God did it"...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

The misogyny is due to the nature of society in the times referred to.

Some people seem to think we should still act that way, or at least, they don't denounce a book that says we should.

 

The real tragedy is that such attitudes still prevail in some parts of the world today.

 

Anyway, there is no evidence that virgin birth took place and thus there is no need to discuss how it might have happened.

The same goes for the other "miracles".

Until someone can show that they really took place there's not much point worrying how

Link to post
Share on other sites

Division of the loaves and fishes? Pillars of salt?

 

You could debate whether they were speaking literally or not, but you could make that same point about any of the assorted miracles in the Bible.

 

Some of the geological and medical miracles maybe. Some of those explanations make "Goddidit" start to look reasonable, but I'll allow the possibility.

 

I just think it violates some essential human element attempting to explain everything away. If you can explain every miracle you deny yourself a degree of freedom. I figure I'll find out(or not) in due time. My own random thoughts on the matter, feel free to believe what you will.

 

J S Mill on miracles is well-worth a read - it is in Theism which is freely available. Until one accepts the supernatural miracles have no import - and if one must accept the supernatural for a miracle to become definable as a miracle then one can no longer use the miracle as proof of the supernatural

 

The existence of God cannot possibly be proved by miracles, for unless a God is already recognized, the apparent miracle can always be accounted for on a more probable hypothesis than that of the interference of a Being of whose very existence it is supposed to be the sole evidence
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is evidence that the bible is like "Forrest Gump" - a fictional account with some real happenings thrown in here and there. As mentioned previously, the virgin birth was mentioned thousands of years before Jesus. This is something we have been obsessed with for a long, long time.

 

I'm sure there were women who became pregnant while their hymen stayed intact. Also, the pressure to lie is tremendous - you go from hatred and death of you and your unborn child to worship status.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

The Omega Point theory is not widely accepted as being true in the first place...

 

Hi, Endy0816.
Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.
In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.
With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.
For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my following article:
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; 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
Additionally, in the below resource 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. 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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

!

Moderator Note

James Redford, linking to your own articles to support your own suppositions is nothing more than soapboxing, which is against our rules. It's also quite obvious you're being less than honest in your "bombardment" approach to evidence. Nothing you've cited lives up to your claim of "proof" in the title, and most of your references are blatant proselytizing.

 

Sorry to the rest of the membership that we haven't already placed a warning in this thread. If this "Gish Gallup" approach continues, the thread will be closed.

 

Hi, Phi for All. My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.
Physicist and mathematician 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 , https://mega.co.nz/#!JkVQWLZT!GNIDgVWPCCb72G6LLijSinf_6u9zc0a20gXBfAVE4MA , https://amazon.com/clouddrive/share?s=bTI58F1dSAIjSrxJ26R7d8 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit , http://ubuntuone.com/0VMqN7rnJzXVsJCUXkj6lY )
* 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:
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 nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
Edited by James Redford
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi, Endy0816.
Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.
In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.
With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.
For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my following article:
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; 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
Additionally, in the below resource 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. 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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

 

Hi, Phi for All. My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.
Physicist and mathematician 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 , https://mega.co.nz/#!JkVQWLZT!GNIDgVWPCCb72G6LLijSinf_6u9zc0a20gXBfAVE4MA , https://amazon.com/clouddrive/share?s=bTI58F1dSAIjSrxJ26R7d8 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit , http://ubuntuone.com/0VMqN7rnJzXVsJCUXkj6lY )
* 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:
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 nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

 

 

 

James this is nothing but an argument from authority and even then it only suggests the possibility of a god, there might be an all powerful pink fairy too but just because it's not ruled out doesn't mean it's probable. I am an atheist but I would never say there is no god. I only say there is no testable or objective evidence for a god. Any number of things might exist and your critique of the theories that cannot be tested... well then pot meet kettle...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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").

 

In my experience in going to physics and metrology conferences:

 

Proceedings are typically not peer-reviewed. There's no point, since the talks on which they are based are not. They may be edited, which is not the same thing. Adding commas and hyphens is not peer review.

 

"Poster papers" are literally posters that one can peruse, and usually have a presenter with whom you can discuss the topic; they are not really the opposite side of invited papers. Talks are broken down into invited and contributed, which are exactly what they imply. You can be invited to give a talk, though the topic may be up to you; you provide an abstract and give the talk. Or you can send in an abstract and have your subject chosen by the technical program committee, in which case it's a contributed talk.

 

I've pointed this out to you before. Repeating yourself does not make your claim correct.

 

Which physics conference proceeding(s) have you been published in, and was it peer-reviewed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.