Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JamesRedford

God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

49 posts in this topic
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 , 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.
 
####################
 
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.
 
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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protip: whenever you use wording like "mainstream physics" some people, myself included, might take it as clear evidence you have no idea what you're talking about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protip: whenever you use wording like "mainstream physics" some people, myself included, might take it as clear evidence you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Rather, you have no idea what I am talking about.

 

By "mainstream physics", I mean extensively empirically-verified physics, as opposed to anti-reality, nonempirical physics such as String Theory. That is, I mean the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is "god" in your paper? It cannot be the Judeo-Christian god as described in the bible as that one violates the conservation of matter & energy.

 

If the definition was in your above post, my apologies. I'm on mobile right now, not the easiest device to read long posts on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I Pray to the Omega Point? Will it send me to Omega Point hell if I don't follow the 10 Omega Point commandments? Is there an Omega Point Bible, and which burning bush will dictate it to us?

 

Does the Omega Point love me?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is "god" in your paper? It cannot be the Judeo-Christian god as described in the bible as that one violates the conservation of matter & energy.If the definition was in your above post, my apologies. I'm on mobile right now, not the easiest device to read long posts on.

 

The God I refer to is the infinite sapient being. Regarding the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:
 
The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.
 
The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.
 
As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).
 
The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.
 
So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.
 
Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.
 
And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.
 
Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.
 
Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.
 
Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.
 
For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see 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
 
Furthermore, 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.
 
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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

Should I Pray to the Omega Point? Will it send me to Omega Point hell if I don't follow the 10 Omega Point commandments? Is there an Omega Point Bible, and which burning bush will dictate it to us?

 

Does the Omega Point love me?

 

The Omega Point--the technical physics term for God the Father--indeed loves you.
 
Regarding prayer, you cannot tell God anything He does not already know. Rather, prayer is opening your mind up to God.
 
In answer to your other questions, see in particular Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", pp. 46 ff., and Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence", pp. 50 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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, you have no idea what I am talking about.

 

By "mainstream physics", I mean extensively empirically-verified physics, as opposed to anti-reality, nonempirical physics such as String Theory. That is, I mean the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date.

So mainstream physics is physics. And physics is tantamount to reality, that which exists outside ourselves. So everything that is not mainstream physics is equivalent to everything that doesn't exist in reality, meaning non-mainstream physics = fantasy. OK. But why point out that god was proven to exist through mainstream reality? Are you implying he was and/or was not proven to exist through fantasy beforehand?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, physics didn't make claims about consciousness (which is still something biologists and neurologist are in the midst of figuring out anyway) ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

Does the Omega Point know what it's going to do tomorrow? If so, could it do something else?

Can the Omega Point leave the room?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk about the Omega point, like it's something verified, when in reality anything before the microwave background radiation event, can be at most considered an educated guess. But do come back to this when the necessary gravitational wave detection equipment is available.

 

Hawking talks about what you describe as a suggestion of the non existence of God, if everything measured on the Universe adds up to 0, maybe it can't be the result of an outside force.Maybe the entire Universe can be simulated on a computer, until it happens you might want to skip the word proof and use the correct terminology: science fiction

 

Proof is a mathematical term and scientists only use it in that context. You can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but God is not defined mathematically so any calculation won't make sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So mainstream physics is physics. And physics is tantamount to reality, that which exists outside ourselves. So everything that is not mainstream physics is equivalent to everything that doesn't exist in reality, meaning non-mainstream physics = fantasy. OK. But why point out that god was proven to exist through mainstream reality? Are you implying he was and/or was not proven to exist through fantasy beforehand?

 

One can construct all sorts of models which have nothing to do with actual reality, and of which models may not prove God's existence. What I am interested in, and what others also ought to be interested in, is actual reality, as best as can be determined.

Last time I checked, physics didn't make claims about consciousness (which is still something biologists and neurologist are in the midst of figuring out anyway) ;)

 

Of course it does. Cf. the Bekenstein Bound.

Does the Omega Point know what it's going to do tomorrow? If so, could it do something else?

Can the Omega Point leave the room?

 

Yes; No; and No.

 

The Omega Point--the technical physics term for God the Father--is all action logically possible, and completed--and that to an infinite degree. As Stephen Hawking proved, the cosmological singularity is not is spacetime, and hence is not subject to time. It is eternal and unchanging. The Omega Point's perception of reality is as a timeless, unchanging, infinite whole. It is a state of perfect, infinite bliss.

You talk about the Omega point, like it's something verified, when in reality anything before the microwave background radiation event, can be at most considered an educated guess. But do come back to this when the necessary gravitational wave detection equipment is available.

 

Hawking talks about what you describe as a suggestion of the non existence of God, if everything measured on the Universe adds up to 0, maybe it can't be the result of an outside force.Maybe the entire Universe can be simulated on a computer, until it happens you might want to skip the word proof and use the correct terminology: science fiction

 

Proof is a mathematical term and scientists only use it in that context. You can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but God is not defined mathematically so any calculation won't make sense.

 

The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that singularities necessarily exist per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. 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].)

So… god is a black hole?I suppose there will always be gaps for gods.

 

Actually, the Omega Point cosmology does away with event horizons, so that all information currently trapped inside black holes will eventually escape. Nor is the collapse of the entire universe within the Omega Point cosmology a form of black hole, since a black hole's surface area scales with its energy content (i.e., its mass)--the Schwarzschild radius being R = 2*M , and its inverse being M = R/2, with radius R and mass M in Planck units of length and mass, respectively. Whereas the energy density of the universe's circumscribing radius goes to infinity during its collapse into the Omega Point final singularity.
 
Nor is this proof of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) a "God of the Gaps" argument, as it is not saying "We do not know how this is possible, therefore God is responsible for it." Rather, it says that we do know how it is possible for an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent sapient being to exist, of which being is eternal and the creator of all reality; and moreover, not merely how that is possible, but indeed required by the aforesaid known physical laws, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is to say, it is an argument from knowledge--that knowledge being the known laws of physics--rather than being an argument from ignorance.

http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf

 

so how does this relate to this paper?

 

is exodus 20-31 or whatever a free market covenant between a people and god? what happened to those that chose not to agree to the covenant?

 

For the answers to your above questions, see Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", Sec. 7.4.3: "Ha'Mashiach", Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence", and Sec. 8: "The Societal Implications of the Omega Point Cosmology", all of which are contiguous from pp. 46-107 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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the answers to your above questions, see Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", Sec. 7.4.3: "Ha'Mashiach", Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence", and Sec. 8: "The Societal Implications of the Omega Point Cosmology", all of which are contiguous from pp. 46-107 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/d...oryOfEverything , http://theophysics.h...sics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoi...sics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google....sics-of-God.pdf

 

so if  got this right, old testament includes man claiming that mans actions were ordered by god, when the actions were not ordered by god, but in fact ordered by man( government/priests/patriarchs/would be rulers)?

 

 
The history of mankind is that of coming out of a condition of extremely ignorant fal-
lacy into lesser states of ignorance, accompanying some massively gruesome setbacks
along the way (with all of the greatest atrocities perpetrated by government). This is
because of mankind's coming out of an animalistic mental state into states of higher

degrees of reason

 So what are your beliefs on human common ancestry and who are ancestors were and were not evolution wise? I have heard other creation theories say god made Adam separate from any other being, and that Adam was the most genetically perfect human, and would have been created with a higher degree of reason than Adams ancestors could have. I do question that as it sounds like Adam in the story quickly disobeyed god, and his son disobeyed god, and his ancestors quickly disobeyed god, all with direct contact with god in the stories. It seems people with more reason would not disobey after such direct evidence?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

Oo! Quick! Can you name the logical fallacy?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so if  got this right, old testament includes man claiming that mans actions were ordered by god, when the actions were not ordered by god, but in fact ordered by man( government/priests/patriarchs/would be rulers)?

 

 

 So what are your beliefs on human common ancestry and who are ancestors were and were not evolution wise? I have heard other creation theories say god made Adam separate from any other being, and that Adam was the most genetically perfect human, and would have been created with a higher degree of reason than Adams ancestors could have. I do question that as it sounds like Adam in the story quickly disobeyed god, and his son disobeyed god, and his ancestors quickly disobeyed god, all with direct contact with god in the stories. It seems people with more reason would not disobey after such direct evidence?

 

Evolution of the species is true; however, the Darwinian conception of evolution is false, since Darwinian evolution is predicated upon random mutations, whereas according to the known laws of physics, no such thing as randomness exists in nature. For example, Quantum Mechanics is actually more deterministic than classical mechanics, because the Schrödinger Equation is simply the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation (i.e., the most powerful formulation of Newtonian mechanics) with the constraint imposed that determinism is maintained, as the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced, thereby making it impossible (even in principle) to say what occurs afterwards. Quantum unpredictability is due to ignorance as to what the other interacting (i.e., interfering) particles in the multiverse are doing (or if one prefers, how the wave function evolves).
 
So everything that will ever occur, to the end of time, was set in stone from the beginning of existence. A logically-equivalent way of stating the foregoing sentence is that everything in existence is determined by the end-state of the universe. That is to say, existence is radically teleological. Not so much as the placement of a single elementary particle happens by chance. Nothing in reality is actually an accident. Which also means that not one jot, not one tittle is redundant to existence: the smallest iota is crucial for the entirety of existence (a higher-level emergent expression of this fact in the Omega Point cosmology is that event horizons must be eliminated, which means that not so much as the smallest part of existence can be left behind, but that every part of existence--no matter how small--is crucial to make the whole thing work).
 
Quite interestingly, however, simply because the known laws of physics are purely deterministic does not mean that free will does not exist. Free will does exist. Within the constraint of not being able to violate physical law (such as jumping to the moon, or flapping one's arms and flying to the moon), the future truly is wide open for each individual. The reason for this is because before a universe splits into parallel analogues (or again, if one prefers, before the wave function branches in its evolution), not even God Himself can say which version of the "you" you presently call yourself will end up in which universe, because indeed that question makes no logical sense in the first place. The other "you" in the branched-off parallel universe feels himself to be *the* "you" just as much as you do.
 
Per the known laws of physics, all universes in the multiverse evolve into the Omega Point. But within the constraint of physical law, an infinitude of different histories take place, with all histories ending at Point Omega.

 

Oo! Quick! Can you name the logical fallacy?

 

A haecceity is an attribute that uniquely identifies a thing, i.e., a property which differentiates a thing from all other things that are not that thing. Hence, if a thing has even a single haecceity given by a word's definition, then by definition it is that thing referred to by the word. For more on this, see the Glossary entry "haecceity" in pp. 131 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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused, if the whole universe will eventually reach an end singularity, how does that singularity have any effect on us today when the universe is, quite noticeably, not a singularity?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that I have proof that it isn't god but an all powerful being I like to call The Fart Monster. I have the only copy of the Fart Monster Bible if you want me to quote anything from it.

 

" And thus he spaketh with his anus, and he sayeth unto the darkness, Pffttthhhhhssddtttttt which translates to "let there be smell." " Fartgenesis 1:1

 

That has as much validity as your theory does.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish someone would come up with a genuinely new argument for god instead of these reheated leftovers...

 

I mean it's just so boring, I came into this thread hoping to read something interesting. I feel let down :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution of the species is true; however, the Darwinian conception of evolution is false, since Darwinian evolution is predicated upon random mutations, whereas according to the known laws of physics, no such thing as randomness exists in nature. For example, Quantum Mechanics is actually more deterministic than classical mechanics, because the Schrödinger Equation is simply the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation (i.e., the most powerful formulation of Newtonian mechanics) with the constraint imposed that determinism is maintained, as the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced, thereby making it impossible (even in principle) to say what occurs afterwards. Quantum unpredictability is due to ignorance as to what the other interacting (i.e., interfering) particles in the multiverse are doing (or if one prefers, how the wave function evolves).
 
So everything that will ever occur, to the end of time, was set in stone from the beginning of existence. A logically-equivalent way of stating the foregoing sentence is that everything in existence is determined by the end-state of the universe. That is to say, existence is radically teleological. Not so much as the placement of a single elementary particle happens by chance. Nothing in reality is actually an accident. Which also means that not one jot, not one tittle is redundant to existence: the smallest iota is crucial for the entirety of existence (a higher-level emergent expression of this fact in the Omega Point cosmology is that event horizons must be eliminated, which means that not so much as the smallest part of existence can be left behind, but that every part of existence--no matter how small--is crucial to make the whole thing work).
 
Quite interestingly, however, simply because the known laws of physics are purely deterministic does not mean that free will does not exist. Free will does exist. Within the constraint of not being able to violate physical law (such as jumping to the moon, or flapping one's arms and flying to the moon), the future truly is wide open for each individual. The reason for this is because before a universe splits into parallel analogues (or again, if one prefers, before the wave function branches in its evolution), not even God Himself can say which version of the "you" you presently call yourself will end up in which universe, because indeed that question makes no logical sense in the first place. The other "you" in the branched-off parallel universe feels himself to be *the* "you" just as much as you do.
 
Per the known laws of physics, all universes in the multiverse evolve into the Omega Point. But within the constraint of physical law, an infinitude of different histories take place, with all histories ending at Point Omega.

 

if i got this right

 

physics are deterministic,gene mutations are part of physicstherefor gene mutations are deterministic.

 

physics are deterministic,free will is not part of physicstherefor free will can be non- deterministic?

 

I'm not thinking of  a definition of free will that could be deterministic.

i was thought that will was part of physics, rather than not being apart of physics, so any will would be tied into physics

 

mutations are not part of free will i would assume, or people could choose to grow gills or have children that grow gills, and growing gills is physical, and other animals do grow gills. perhaps genetic engineering could have people that grow gills by manipulation the genes?

that humans can know the genetics of a baby before the egg and sperm meet because it's deterministic, or do humans just not know because of ignorance rather than randomness? can humans know that a miscarry is going to happen because and then select for a nonmiscary instead?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

 

Does the Omega Point know what it's going to do tomorrow? If so, could it do something else?

Can the Omega Point leave the room?

 

Yes; No; and No.

 

The Omega Point--the technical physics term for God the Father--is all action logically possible, and completed--and that to an infinite degree. As Stephen Hawking proved, the cosmological singularity is not is spacetime, and hence is not subject to time. It is eternal and unchanging. The Omega Point's perception of reality is as a timeless, unchanging, infinite whole. It is a state of perfect, infinite bliss.

 

So, not omnipotent?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Oo! Quick! Can you name the logical fallacy?

 

 

A haecceity is an attribute that uniquely identifies a thing, i.e., a property which differentiates a thing from all other things that are not that thing. Hence, if a thing has even a single haecceity given by a word's definition, then by definition it is that thing referred to by the word.

 

 

 

Actually, the correct answer is "the bandwagon fallacy". Just because almost all of the world's leading religions agree on something, doesn't make it true.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the cause is the end point, is that fatalism or determinism? i'm a bit mixed on terms, but i thought determinism was about cause and effect, not effect and cause?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused, if the whole universe will eventually reach an end singularity, how does that singularity have any effect on us today when the universe is, quite noticeably, not a singularity?

 

As Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.
 
For more on this, see under the heading "Worlds within Worlds", pp. 39 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

The problem is that I have proof that it isn't god but an all powerful being I like to call The Fart Monster. I have the only copy of the Fart Monster Bible if you want me to quote anything from it.

 

" And thus he spaketh with his anus, and he sayeth unto the darkness, Pffttthhhhhssddtttttt which translates to "let there be smell." " Fartgenesis 1:1

 

That has as much validity as your theory does.

 

The Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals (see the originating post of this thread for that).
 
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.
 
For much more on the above, and for details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see 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
 
Furthermore, 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.
 
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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

I really wish someone would come up with a genuinely new argument for god instead of these reheated leftovers...I mean it's just so boring, I came into this thread hoping to read something interesting. I feel let down :(

 

Hi, J-William. The following is the first paper on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology:
 
* 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
 
The following is the first book wherein Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology was published:
 
* John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Foreword" by John A. Wheeler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1986).
 
Clarendon Press is the prestige imprint of Oxford University Press, the same imprint under which The Oxford English Dictionary is published.
 
In all likelihood, J-William, you had never hear of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology before you came across it from my post on this forum. And you certainly haven't heard about anything like it, since nothing else close to it exists--so your statement there is certainly faulty.
 
Nor is it boring. Indeed, quite the contrary, it is the most interesting subject logically possible, since all other subjects are merely subsets of it. So if one is interested in anything, one is interested in this.

 

if i got this right

 

physics are deterministic,gene mutations are part of physicstherefor gene mutations are deterministic.

 

physics are deterministic,free will is not part of physicstherefor free will can be non- deterministic?

 

I'm not thinking of  a definition of free will that could be deterministic.

i was thought that will was part of physics, rather than not being apart of physics, so any will would be tied into physics

 

mutations are not part of free will i would assume, or people could choose to grow gills or have children that grow gills, and growing gills is physical, and other animals do grow gills. perhaps genetic engineering could have people that grow gills by manipulation the genes?

that humans can know the genetics of a baby before the egg and sperm meet because it's deterministic, or do humans just not know because of ignorance rather than randomness? can humans know that a miscarry is going to happen because and then select for a nonmiscary instead?

 

 

No, free will is a physical process.

 

And yes, humanity will take over its own evolution to become immortal gods.

So, not omnipotent?

 

God can do anything that doesn't involve a logical contradiction, such as making 2+2 = 5, rendering a "square circle", or creating a stone so large that even He cannot lift it. Recall that God *is* logic itself (i.e., the Logos). God cannot violate Himself, otherwise that would mean that God no longer has the properties of God, i.e., that God is not God.
 
God is omnipotent, because God contains all power and energy that exists, wherein this power and energy is infinite in amount, i.e., physically speaking, an infinite number of watts and joules.

Actually, the correct answer is "the bandwagon fallacy". Just because almost all of the world's leading religions agree on something, doesn't make it true.

 

It is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics that God as described by the world's leading religions does exist. Said known physical laws being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the conclusion that God as described by the world's leading religions exists is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology, which is the aforesaid proof of God's existence, has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals (see the originating post of this thread for that).
 
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.

if the cause is the end point, is that fatalism or determinism? i'm a bit mixed on terms, but i thought determinism was about cause and effect, not effect and cause?

 

As I said, simply because the known laws of physics are purely deterministic does not mean that free will does not exist. Free will does exist. Within the constraint of not being able to violate physical law (such as jumping to the moon, or flapping one's arms and flying to the moon), the future truly is wide open for each individual. The reason for this is because before a universe splits into parallel analogues (or again, if one prefers, before the wave function branches in its evolution), not even God Himself can say which version of the "you" you presently call yourself will end up in which universe, because indeed that question makes no logical sense in the first place. The other "you" in the branched-off parallel universe feels himself to be *the* "you" just as much as you do.
 
Per the known laws of physics, all universes in the multiverse evolve into the Omega Point. But within the constraint of physical law, an infinitude of different histories take place, with all histories ending at Point Omega.
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aren't there stories in the bible of god making 2+2= 5?

luke 9: 10-17

5 loaves of bread and 2 fish serve 5000 men till the men are full, and there are leftovers.

 

how do we go about recreating this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aren't there stories in the bible of god making 2+2= 5?

luke 9: 10-17

5 loaves of bread and 2 fish serve 5000 men till the men are full, and there are leftovers.

 

how do we go about recreating this?

 

How does that have anything to do with mathematical necessity? God can start with zero loaves of bread and make any number of loaves that He wishes. It merely requires physical materialization, which doesn't involve a violation of mathematics.
 
You're obviously misunderstanding what I have been saying in my previous posts in this thread. God cannot violate mathematics, since God *is* mathematics. Violating mathematics would mean that God violates His own properties (since God is the Logos, i.e., logic, i.e., mathematics), and hence that God is not God. But there is no logical contradiction involved in materializing new physical resources. As the total energy of the universe at all times sums to exactly zero, as physicist Stephen Hawking has pointed out (Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988], Chapter 8: "The Origin and Fate of the Universe", pp. 166-167):
 
""
The answer [to where the univere's energy came from] is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
 
Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. ... As [physicist Alan] Guth has remarked, "It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
""
 
That is, an infinity of positive matter-energy can be created so long as the negative gravity-energy scales along with it. And that's precisely what occurs during the universe's collapse into the Omega Point. For the details on that, see 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
 
Furthermore, 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.
 
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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 In a review of Tipler's [/size]The Physics of Christianity[/size]Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[/size]^ Lawrence Krauss, More Dangerous Than Nonsense, New Scientist, May 12, 2007, page 53. 
 
http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question is on how humans can do the same, have 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish feed 5000, and solve world hunger.

 

so far i understand that humans have the ability put ingredients together to make bread and catch fish, but not physically materialize  bread and fish. humans aren't putting materials together to make fish, nor are they catching bread.

 

is this saying we could create fish by balancing out the creating of fish by more gravity? by manipulating particles together to create fish?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else not NEARLY high enough to read this shit?

 

Take in one sitting two ten-strips of high-quality blotter or gel-tab acid. It greatly helps to clear the cobwebs out of the mind.
 
If by "high" you meant via cannabis: that is for the most rank of neophytes.

 In a review of Tipler's [/size]The Physics of Christianity[/size]Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[/size]^ Lawrence Krauss, More Dangerous Than Nonsense, New Scientist, May 12, 2007, page 53. 

 

http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf

 

 

For my reply to Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss's above review, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 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
 
Also concerning Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, 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.
 
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 The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

the question is on how humans can do the same, have 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish feed 5000, and solve world hunger.

 

so far i understand that humans have the ability put ingredients together to make bread and catch fish, but not physically materialize  bread and fish. humans aren't putting materials together to make fish, nor are they catching bread.

 

is this saying we could create fish by balancing out the creating of fish by more gravity? by manipulating particles together to create fish?

 

No. It's not an allegory. It literally happened. Not all the miracles Jesus performed were presagements of what mankind will do when the technology becomes sophisticated enough. Some of the miracles Jesus performed are not possible unless one has precise control over every single elementary particle at precisely the same time, which is only possible for the Cosmological Singularity. 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It's not an allegory. It literally happened. Not all the miracles Jesus performed were presagements of what mankind will do when the technology becomes sophisticated enough. Some of the miracles Jesus performed are not possible unless one has precise control over every single elementary particle at precisely the same time, which is only possible for the Cosmological Singularity.

 

 

which acts will be possible for humans?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing i would be wondering is what kind of differences this makes for those that are ancap christian, and those that are ancap athiest, or other religion?

 

i would see a danger in statist christianity, but not in ancap christianity in the same way.

 

is this saying in the future ancap christians will have be part of what ancap athiests will not be a part of?  would the ancap athiests have a choice in the future to have what the ancap christians have, instead of what the ancap athiests would not have?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question is on how humans can do the same, have 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish feed 5000, and solve world hunger.

 

so far i understand that humans have the ability put ingredients together to make bread and catch fish, but not physically materialize  bread and fish. humans aren't putting materials together to make fish, nor are they catching bread.

 

is this saying we could create fish by balancing out the creating of fish by more gravity? by manipulating particles together to create fish?

cab, you always ask some very interesting questions and I like that. Not really wanting to disrupt the flow of this conversation too much. Also, I am not defending this or that philosophy, however think of some possibilities in this case, for example: what size are these fish Jesus talked about? they could have been sharks. A couple of large ones and that would do the trick, right? I would also include small size whales with a notation that perhaps they didn't know back than that whales are mammals. Who knows? As for the bread the Sabbath has a interesting ritual on Friday evenings called the Kiddush where small pieces pf bread are distributed at the dinner table during prayer and they are small pieces and the act mostly symbolic. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cab, you always ask some very interesting questions and I like that. Not really wanting to disrupt the flow of this conversation too much. Also, I am not defending this or that philosophy, however think of some possibilities in this case, for example: what size are these fish Jesus talked about? they could have been sharks. A couple of large ones and that would do the trick, right? I would also include small size whales with a notation that perhaps they didn't know back than that whales are mammals. Who knows? As for the bread the Sabbath has a interesting ritual on Friday evenings called the Kiddush where small pieces pf bread are distributed at the dinner table during prayer and they are small pieces and the act mostly symbolic.

 

 

 

luke 9:13 says that the total amount of meat was not enough to feed 5000 on its own.

the apostles say they don't have enough food, and would need to go to the market to buy more food in order to have enough food to feed all 5000.

 

this is assuming the story is real and correctly recorded, which is a question on it's own

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites