God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

[James Redford]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

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

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

See also the below resources for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://geocities.com/theophysics/

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=206077125

"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875

Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on pg. viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. On pg. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. http://geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

[James Redford]

Regarding the equivalence of God and the Omega Point, Prof. Tipler has published on this equivalence in a peer-reviewed academic science journal. See Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119442501/abstract

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

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

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

So to recapitulate:

1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise.
2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.
5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component.
6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.
7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity.
8.) The Omega Point creates the universe and all of existence.

Those are all the physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. There are many other congruities between the Omega Point cosmology and Christianity. Below are listed just some of them:

1.) We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
2.) We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
3.) We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
4.) God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24.
5.) We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
6.) We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
7.) God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
8.) God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
9.) We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
10.) Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8.
11.) The reality of multiple worlds: Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
12.) God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew, althought he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)

How item Nos. 9 and 10 relate is that within Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory the universe is brought into being by the Omega Point, as the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity). Another way of stating it is that in the Omega Point cosmology, the Omega Point is the fundamental existential and mathematical entity, from which all of reality derives. Indeed, within the Omega Point Theory, the Big Bang singularity and the Omega Point singularity are actually just different functions of the same singularity. Further, anything which at any time will exist will simply be a subset of what is rendered in the Omega Point.

[James Redford]

Nor does the fact that God has been proven to exist according to the known laws of physics leave no room for faith. Recall that Jesus Christ in part defined Himself as the truth (John 14:6). Hence, truth, particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of God and Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth (i.e., equivalently, trust in Jesus Christ), even when things seem hopeless. It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God:

""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
""

After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or false reason--but some process of reasoning must be involved.

Having faith in God is having trust in the truth, since the Godhead in all its fullness is the highest obtainment of truth: said state is the perfection of all knowledge.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community regarding it as lending credence to the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to a singularity itself. The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang, in an article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:

""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort." [My emphasis--J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), pg. 62, Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
""

On pg. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pg. 113:

""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
""

For more quotes by Robert Jastrow on this, see:

John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, "Science and Discomfiting Discoveries" in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United Church of God, 2000) http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/discomfitingdiscoveries.htm
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf

For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below article:

Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I," Atheism's Assertions, February 20, 2007 http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-see.html

Again, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Contrast that ad libitum approach to doing physics with that of Prof. Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work). They both believe we have to take the known laws of physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.

[America2]

Just to throw this out too...

It's NOT just *conservative* bible scholars who chronicle the death of Jesus at Calvary and his resurrection from his tomb 3 days later, but it's *also* liberal, feminist, AND secular bible scholars who AGREED 100% about these events as well. As a matter of fact, I once read a book written by a SECULAR journalist who was with TWO Catholic priests, and they ALL came to the SAME conclusion chronicling Jesus's death at Calvary and his resurrection from his tomb 3 days later.

Again - it's ALSO liberal, feminist, catholic, AND secular bible scholars who say Jesus' death at Calvary and his resurrection from his tomb 3 days later IS FACT!

So yeah - it really disgusts me how the sheeple listen to the likes of Dan Brown, James Cameron(the "Terminator" director who made a so-called "documentary" trying to debunk Jesus' tomb), and Paul Verhoven(the director of such filth as "Showgirls" who wrote a book claiming how Jesus' biological father was a Roman soldier who raped Mary).

[Voskhod3]

Quatum Science, the new religion.

Quatum Scientists v Theologians.

Same shit.

I just read a book about Einstein v Bohr by the way.

These days no physicists believe what they spent half a century arguing about.

(actually to Einstein's credit he did acknowledge that they were really arguing religious beliefs).

[James Redford]

Just to throw this out too...

It's NOT just *conservative* bible scholars who chronicle the death of Jesus at Calvary and his resurrection from his tomb 3 days later, but it's *also* liberal, feminist, AND secular bible scholars who AGREED 100% about these events as well. As a matter of fact, I once read a book written by a SECULAR journalist who was with TWO Catholic priests, and they ALL came to the SAME conclusion chronicling Jesus's death at Calvary and his resurrection from his tomb 3 days later.

Again - it's ALSO liberal, feminist, catholic, AND secular bible scholars who say Jesus' death at Calvary and his resurrection from his tomb 3 days later IS FACT!

So yeah - it really disgusts me how the sheeple listen to the likes of Dan Brown, James Cameron(the "Terminator" director who made a so-called "documentary" trying to debunk Jesus' tomb), and Paul Verhoven(the director of such filth as "Showgirls" who wrote a book claiming how Jesus' biological father was a Roman soldier who raped Mary).

Concerning the actual existence on Earth of the person known as Jesus Christ, the historicity of Jesus Christ has never been much in doubt by scholars (including non-Christians) other than with recent atheists with a skewed philosophical bone to pick. This modern charge of the non-historicity of Jesus is grounded on an a priori philosophical assumption, i.e., that an actual personage such as Jesus is impossible, therefore any historical evidence which confirms His place in actual history is *by definition* untrue.

But these same people are quite reluctant to actually flesh-out the necessary implications of this position (since doing so would reveal the absurdity of this position). Namely, that a massive conspiracy was instituted by (presumably) a break-away sect of Jews in an apparent effort to get themselves tortured and murdered by their fellow Jews and by the Roman government, willingly martyring themselves for a personage whom they knew to be a fictional creation of their own invention.

After all, it would be a number of centuries before people claiming the mantle of Christianity would actually come into power; the originators of this conspiracy had only to look forward to a life of suffering and being marginalized as (1) a heretical sect by the Jews (punishable by death, such as by stoning), and (2) a popular scapegoat by the Roman government (with such tortures awaiting as being fed to lions, burned alive as living torches, crucifixion, etc.). And moreover, that this conspiracy could somehow overtake the Western world without leaving the slightest historical trace of its mechinations in inventing a fictional character which it represented as a historical person--that this somehow all managed to occur without the early Christian-conspirators' many violently hostile enemies ever bothering to make note of the Christian-conspirators' invented fiction.

The following are some first century non-Christian sources which corroborate the historicity of Jesus Christ: Josephus, the Talmud, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc.

The public life of Jesus was in Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37). There are three possible Roman historical sources for Tiberius's reign written prior to A.D. 200: Tacitus (A.D. 55-117), Suetonius (A.D. 70-160), and Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 B.C.-c. A.D. 31). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (A.D. 37-c. 100), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical writings.

Among these writings, we would not expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus, as the events were happening outside of Velleius's home area during his life: Velleius was a contemporary of Jesus who likely died before Jesus's crucifixion. Of the remaining Roman historians--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have references to Jesus. Thus, we have an amazing fact: all the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus. (Which is the opposite situation than is sometimes assumed: "If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, they all did!)

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (i.e., the Talmud, and the Midrash)--both make clear references to the existence of Jesus. So the Jewish historical sources refer to Jesus.

The above three paragraphs only concern the standard Roman histories of Tiberius's reign and the standard Jewish historical sources written prior to A.D. 200. Other non-Christian historical sources writing prior to A.D. 200 which independently confirm the Gospels include Pliny the Younger (Roman governor of Bithynia), Lucian of Samosata, the Greek historian Phlegon, the historian Thallus, the Greek writer Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc. Most of these sources were actively hostile to Christianity.

[James Redford]

Quatum Sciene, the new religion.

Quatum Scientists v Theologians.

Same shit.

I just read a book about Einstein v Bohr by the way.

These days no physicists believe what they spent half a century arguing about.

(actually to Einstein's credit he did acknowledge that they were really arguing religious beliefs).

Albert Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (see Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941).

And here is what Einstein wrote regarding Christianity in his book The World as I See It (New York: Philosophical Library, 1949), pp. 111-112:

""
If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can. If he makes an honest attempt in this direction without being crushed and trampled under foot by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to which he belongs lucky.
""

So authentic Christianity (i.e., the doctrine taught by Yeshua Ha'Mashiach), according to Einstein, is "capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

[OG]

Omega Point is only theory, it has not been proven, so neither has the existence of god. And even if it was proven to actually exist the theological concept of god would still need to be proven. If Omega Point or Zero Point Energy, or whatever, does exist, I doubt it cares what you do with your life, otherwise you imply that it has some sort of consciousness and is aware of your actions and has formed an opinion of you, which is quite an arrogant assumption. Man has a rather disgusting sense of self importance borne of the fact that they have the inability to recognise their own insignificance. I doubt that will ever change.

[Voskhod3]

Man has a rather disgusting sense of self importance borne of the fact that they have the inability to recognise their own insignificance. I doubt that will ever change.

That too is a religious viewpoint as you will be unable to prove that man is insignificant.

[James Redford]

Omega Point is only theory, it has not been proven, so neither has the existence of god. And even if it was proven to actually exist the theological concept of god would still need to be proven. If Omega Point or Zero Point Energy, or whatever, does exist, I doubt it cares what you do with your life, otherwise you imply that it has some sort of consciousness and is aware of your actions and has formed an opinion of you, which is quite an arrogant assumption. Man has a rather disgusting sense of self importance borne of the fact that they have the inability to recognise their own insignificance. I doubt that will ever change.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For the fuller details on these matters, see the original post in this thread.

Regarding the personhood of the Omega Point and its equivalence to God, see Reply #1 above in this thread.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been declared, and within their declared paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[RickDaniels]

"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,"

someone has a God complex

[The_lizard]

This is a good thread.

[Voskhod3]

"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,"

Does it tell you why Steve Martin doesn't make funny films anymore?

[The_lizard]

So, this omega point singularity, i understand it being omnipotent but why can't we see it now. It should theoretically be everywhere. I understand the beginning and the end but not the middle. Also, when it reaches the omega point it would give off energy therefore mass so it couldn't exist infinity. So it isn't really omnipresent. This changes everything in how we think of time.

[James Redford]

"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,"

Does it tell you why Steve Martin doesn't make funny films anymore?

Yes, if one has enough computational resources to perform the required calculations. Per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe requires at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history).

This amount of computational resources is trivial for the Omega Point (which has infinite computational resources), or for the society near enough to the Omega Point.

[TheHouseMan]

The Bible is also very contradictory and says ridiculous things.

[James Redford]

The Bible is also very contradictory and says ridiculous things.

That depends on what part of the Bible one has in mind. For more on that, see my below post:

"God's Relation to the Old Testament," April 11, 2009 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&mforum=libertyandtruth

[Elvis]

The Bible is also very contradictory and says ridiculous things.

Need documentation.

[RickDaniels]

Does it tell you why Steve Martin doesn't make funny films anymore?


Yes, if one has enough computational resources to perform the required calculations. Per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe requires at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history).

This amount of computational resources is trivial for the Omega Point (which has infinite computational resources), or for the society near enough to the Omega Point.

I'll see your quote within a quote and raise you

[vCFy7W3SFb]

someone give me an atheist prospective on this

[sssomechange308]

This is an interesting read but there is no way i buy any of it, but i would give it more thought if dawkins became a christian. Do I believe in (a possibility of) god? Maybe, but do I have the NEED to prove anything? No.

This could be just another scifiop with the left as the humanists and right as creationists where both sides just discredit themself. You can still always ÷ by zero to see it.

[James Redford]

So, this omega point singularity, i understand it being omnipotent but why can't we see it now. It should theoretically be everywhere. I understand the beginning and the end but not the middle. Also, when it reaches the omega point it would give off energy therefore mass so it couldn't exist infinity. So it isn't really omnipresent. This changes everything in how we think of time.

In the multiverse, different times are merely examples of different universes.

The all-presents singularity exists at the edge of the multiverse. It's infinitely close to all points of spacetime. The reason we can't see it is because it's at the edge of spacetime: indeed, it's what prevents spacetime from immediately collapsing into nonexistence.

In classical general relativity, there is no connection between the initial and final singularities. In quantum general relativity (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg/Omega Point quantum gravity theory), the initial and final singularities are connected via the all-presents singularity.

For more on this, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), and F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf ; also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

[James Redford]

This is an interesting read but there is no way i buy any of it, but i would give it more thought if dawkins became a christian. Do I believe in (a possibility of) god? Maybe, but do I have the NEED to prove anything? No.

This could be just another scifiop with the left as the humanists and right as creationists where both sides just discredit themself. You can still always ÷ by zero to see it.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For the fuller details on these matters, see the original post in this thread.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been declared, and within their declared paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[sssomechange308]

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

You have missed my point and qoute in complete and thats ok, ill explain that for ley. Having to prove or disprove what the articles state is easily a waste of time, never ending story, or ultimate game of ball-tap. I have personal experiance with the school cps manipulators that use the same provable theory. This is why I must assume that what i believe is not to be shared unless asked, as im not trying to convert anyone now.  I will say that i just dont wanna end up in a padded room for having a belief or not.

With that being said, you may reread my original post.

[OG]

The laws of physics as we see them are just that, subjective. As we have apparently never ventured off this planet it cannot be catagoricaly stated that the laws of physics are then same everywhere in the universe but at the very most only relevent to where we are in space/time and only as far as we understand them. Besides that, the "laws" of physics themselves are nothing more than widely accepted theory, explained mostly using even more theory. When science comes across something they have a hard time understanding, like what happens if there is a big crunch, at which point the known laws of physics no longer apply or simply contradict themselves, well they simply introduce a new theory to make that theory work, e.g. zero point energy. I've said it before and I say it again, we used to believe the earth was flat, and had the "science" to prove it. Now while some still think the earth is flat, it's pretty certain that is not the case, but it shows that no matter what science says, or no matter how many people believe something to be true, it probably isn't true.

Should string theory or the idea of the multiverse become the generally accepted theory then you have effectively ruled out the existance of god becuase you have tied god to one particular version of scientific reasoning, putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak.

[James Redford]

The laws of physics as we see them are just that, subjective. As we have apparently never ventured off this planet it cannot be catagoricaly stated that the laws of physics are then same everywhere in the universe but at the very most only relevent to where we are in space/time and only as far as we understand them. Besides that, the "laws" of physics themselves are nothing more than widely accepted theory, explained mostly using even more theory. When science comes across something they have a hard time understanding, like what happens if there is a big crunch, at which point the known laws of physics no longer apply or simply contradict themselves, well they simply introduce a new theory to make that theory work, e.g. zero point energy. I've said it before and I say it again, we used to believe the earth was flat, and had the "science" to prove it. Now while some still think the earth is flat, it's pretty certain that is not the case, but it shows that no matter what science says, or no matter how many people believe something to be true, it probably isn't true.

Should string theory or the idea of the multiverse become the generally accepted theory then you have effectively ruled out the existance of god becuase you have tied god to one particular version of scientific reasoning, putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For the fuller details on these matters, see the original post in this thread.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been declared, and within their declared paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[The_lizard]

These are some interesting theories. We need to find Higgs Boson, that's the key to making this guys math sound. Until that particle is found, there is no way of knowing.

[agentbluescreen]

It a lot easier to simply regard the antecedent causality point (alpha or big bang) as All Loveliness Itself and the sympathetic end point (omega or agglomeration) as All Belovedness Itself.

It is self evident that these duolarities exist as one coexistent 6th dimension of All Intellect containing that of All Gravitation that contains spacetime and the three lower dimensional entities of ALL existences within that.

There are five trees in paradise. (5 dimensions below that of the unity of creative quantum intellects')

The G_d "particle" or "Higgs boson" does not exist in any dimension below spacetime - looking for "it" is like trying to weigh time with a measuring tape.

There is another ether unseen that communicates design data to and from spacetime up into gravitational framework and intellect.

Yhe 6th dimension and it's 5th are omnipresent and linked to out intellect.

This indivisible dipole duolarity is like the form of a DNA ladder's stiles or the manner in which wavefronts propagate, save that it is continuous and expanding of intellects (like a cosmic transcendental donut or halo - I prefer the former!)

The 'dark matter" physics seeks is that of It's own intellect's effect upon all that It observes.

Only creatively attractive loving data graduates to The All

Destructively repulsive hateful data thus simply expands space as nothingness.

The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death.

Our vacant physical universe will stop expanding when hate is no more.

That's my Cosmic Donut theory, and it does come in jelly-filled...

[_CREATIONIST_]

I approve of this thread. Very good post. To reject the existance of god is to reject the laws of physics

[The_lizard]

It a lot easier to simply regard the antecedent causality point (alpha or big bang) as All Loveliness Itself and the sympathetic end point (omega or agglomeration) as All Belovedness Itself.

It is self evident that these duolarities exist as one coexistent 6th dimension of All Intellect containing that of All Gravitation that contains spacetime and the three lower dimensional entities of ALL existences within that.

There are five trees in paradise. (5 dimensions below that of the unity of creative quantum intellects')

The G_d "particle" or "Higgs boson" does not exist in any dimension below spacetime - looking for "it" is like trying to weigh time with a measuring tape.

There is another ether unseen that communicates design data to and from spacetime up into gravitational framework and intellect.

Yhe 6th dimension and it's 5th are omnipresent and linked to out intellect.

This indivisible dipole duolarity is like the form of a DNA ladder's stiles or the manner in which wavefronts propagate, save that it is continuous and expanding of intellects (like a cosmic transcendental donut or halo - I prefer the former!)

The 'dark matter" physics seeks is that of It's own intellect's effect upon all that It observes.

Only creatively attractive loving data graduates to The All

Destructively repulsive hateful data thus simply expands space as nothingness.

The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death.

Our vacant physical universe will stop expanding when hate is no more.

That's my Cosmic Donut theory, and it does come in jelly-filled...

Nice! According to this theory, I understand satans purpose but what could he possibly be? He would have to know his quest will ultimately be futile as the alpha point will be reached.

[James Redford]

Below are the locations where the new Theophysics website is at:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://theophysics.chimehost.net

And the following article referenced in my second post above is now available for download:

Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf , http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-download-mirrors

[wtsrllygoinon]

Very interesting indeed.  The time seems to be here when man has no more excuse to deny God.

The concept of the Trinity has been demonstrated scientifically:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/strangephysicaltheoryprovedafternearly40years;_ylt=AhpSbjbAvJAcpSjhy2tWEV90fNdF[url]

I am emphasizing that I am saying only the concept has been scientifically proven.  The belief in the Trinity itself still requires we have and maintain faith.

[Mister-Ed]

Please clarify the distinction between the universe and the multiverse (please use as much layman terminology as the definition permits).

Another point: the Prison Planet forum seems to have an extensive section on plasma science, which touches on the Thornhill/Talbott "electric universe" concept of holoscience, refuting Einstein's cosmological constant and Hawking's black holes, if not also placing electromagnetism on a more premium "plateau" in conceptual scientific paradigms than the current focus for scientifically defining the universe, and that current focus seems to be mainly on gravity and matter, leaving electromagnetism and various modes of plasma (ionization, which is not visible; fire, chemical combustion and fusion, which are visible) to be kicked to the proverbial curb. Not that it necessarily matters in any life-or-death, serious-as-a-heart-attack way--one can define the universe a variety of ways and still reach workable conclusions--but I'm just saying that I would think holoscience will gradually overtake the Einstein/Feynman/QED paradigm, as I, myself, see it as more workable. Plasma focus overtakes nuclear energy as a viable energy supply for a world tiring of the ashy filth of coal and empire-stratagems inherent to an oil/natural gas economy. Just the way I see these things, economically and government-ally. With that said (and I gave you an earful) what is your take on holoscience? Do you believe our solar system and even our galaxy are similar to what we know about dense plasma focuses?

[Note: I'm not a scientist. I'm a janitor with new-age/Christian beliefs whose college experience is 97 credits in English and Art. Therefore, I would certainly be grateful if you used as many layman's terms as possible in your reply.]

[Note 2: if calling me "Mister_Ed" makes you feel like you're back in kindergarten, "Ed" works too. Understandably, there are millions on the internet who arguably deserve to be back in kindergarten, but you don't seem like one.]

[Neco]

3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.

This I can agree with.

2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.

These two I cannot.

Why?

To say something is omniscient or omnipotent, you are implying that it "thinks" or has reasoning powers.

I have not seen anything here that "proves" the "Omega Point" does this and to say so is to invent it from your own faith which proves nothing.

[GhostofTsenzei]

I approve of this thread. Very good post. To reject the existance of god is to reject the laws of physics

Or to point out that we do not yet understand them.  That said the material is quite interesting regardless.

To say something is omniscient or omnipotent, you are implying that it "thinks" or has reasoning powers.

I have not seen anything here that "proves" the "Omega Point" does this and to say so is to invent it from your own faith which proves nothing.

Beat me too it!

[Shroom!]

The ONLY way to prove god exists for for him to do it himself. I cannot understand why this god of yours would keep his minions guessing. It makes no sense whatsoever!

[Femacamper]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse - Roman 1:20 KJV

“Two things never live up to their billing; the circus and sin.”

“It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into nothing. Murder is no better than lies if lying does the trick.”—C. S. Lewis

“The punishment of sin is sin.”—Augustine

[Jackson Holly]

More Alice in Wonderland

[James Redford]

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler gave the below presentation at TEDxBrussels--which is the largest TEDx conference in the world--on December 6, 2010 in Brussels, Belgium. Tipler's talk was the headline presentation of the event.

"TEDx Bussels - Frank Tipler - The Ultimate Future", TEDxTalks, January 14, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNkuJvhyfP0

TEDxBrussels 2010. http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2010/index.html

One can download the video of this presentation below:

tNkuJvhyfP0.flv
45699920 bytes
MD5: a5c508f501010ac241a57d06e7abcf96
http://rapidshare.com/files/442586522/tNkuJvhyfP0.flv
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZZATRRR6
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/tabjyroyd
http://hotfile.com/dl/96797411/d118601/tNkuJvhyfP0.flv.html
http://www.zshare.net/video/85231870359d54dd/
http://uploading.com/files/84f2ab91/tNkuJvhyfP0.flv/

For the details on what Prof. Tipler spoke about in his above presentation, see his below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God--of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause):

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

Particularly see pp. 925 and 904-905 of the above Reports on Progress in Physics paper (or pp. 44-45 and 11-12 of the arXiv version) for the proof that the Omega Point cosmology is required per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

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 the details regarding the point Prof. Tipler made in his presentation about how modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation), see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", September 20, 2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

* Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity As an Æther Theory", arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

* Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in quantum field theory and computation theory. His Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

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

As stated above, 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 more of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his 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 Theory.)

* 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.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz

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

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

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY13xRip Full proceedings volume: http://www.webcitation.org/5nwu4fT31

* 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, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://www.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, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 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 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.webcitation.org/5nx3CxKm0 Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

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.

The peer-reviewed journal Reports on Progress in Physics--in which Prof. Tipler published the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) with his aforecited 2005 paper--is described above.

For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:

* "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics", TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, 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 Theorem is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing fundamentally wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[rabblevox]

someone give me an atheist prospective on this

THE ATHEIST PERSPECTIVE

Tipler's "Omega Point Theory" is nothing more than a tired re-hashing of the Anthropomorphic principle. (Which basically states that since all universal laws of physics and cosmology support the creation of intelligent life on earth, and the chance of that happening randomly are effectively zero, then the basic structure of the universe has to have been designed by an intelligent creator who wanted intelligent life in the universe.

This is a logical fallacy so basic that a smart high-school student can hit it out of the park.  Consider.  When I was born 51 years ago, thousands of miles from here, before personal computers had even been conceived of, the chance of me sitting here typing these words on a computer were effectively zero.  Yet here I am, no miracles required.

It is, at it's most basic, magical thinking.  "If there's a present under the tree, there MUST be a Santa Clause!!!"

The Anthropomorphic principle has been rejected by virtually all reputable physicists and cosmologists, and also by many theologians as both junk science and junk theology.

Also, as an atheist, I've gotta say...if the existence of god ever WAS proven, wouldn't that kind of negate the whole point of FAITH?