God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[Sola_Fide]

It doesn't. It presupposes the existence of an external, non-supernatural reality that we can observe.

Right. And since propositions about truth cannot be validly derived from observations, science cannot prove anything to be true.

 

[LexEtLibertas]

Science can't prove exists. That would be begging the question, since science presupposes God's existence.

Sure it can. Your foregoing comment commits the logical fallacy of epistemological relativism, which is the idea that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, unknowable, or nonexistent. Yet on the contrary, truth exists and is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it.

Below are basic a priori axioms. That is, true synthetic a priori propositions; or, propositions which cannot be denied without necessitating their use in the denial.

1. I think, therefore I am. (Proof of the existential reality of one's own existence.)

If one did not exist in some form then one would not be able to even think "I do not exist."

2. Truth, and knowledge of truth, exists.

Whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist. Yet, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true. And if there is anything true, then truth exists.

3. Conscious humans act. (Prof. Ludwig von Mises's Axiom of Action.)

It cannot be coherently denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action.

As well, there are logically necessary implications of this axiom:

3. (a) With every action an actor pursues a goal; and whatever the goal may be, the fact that it is pursued by an actor reveals that he places a relatively higher value on it than on any other goal of action he could conceive of at the start of his action.

(b) In order to achieve his most highly valued goal an actor must interfere or decide not to interfere (which, of course, is also an interference) at an earlier point in time to produce some later result; such interferences invariably imply the employment of some scarce means (at least those of the actor's body, its standing room and the time absorbed by the interference).

(c) These means must also have value for an actor--a value derived from that of the goal--because the actor must regard their employment as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal; and actions can only be performed sequentially, always involving the making of a choice, i.e., taking up that one course of action which at some given point in time promises the most highly valued result to the actor and excluding at the same time the pursuit of other, less highly valued goals.

(d) As a consequence of having to choose and give preference to one goal over another--of not being able to realize all goals simultaneously--each and every action implies the incurrence of costs. For example, forsaking the value attached to the most highly valued alternative goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be deferred because the means necessary to effect it are bound up in the production of another, even more highly valued goal.

(e) At its starting point every goal of action must be considered worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding a profit, i.e., a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the foregone opportunities. And yet, every action is also invariably threatened by the possibility of a loss if an actor finds, in retrospect, that the result actually achieved--contrary to previous expectations--has a lower value than the relinquished alternative would have had.

All of these categories--values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and loss, as well as time and causality--are implied in the axiom of action. The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly impossible to ever falsify the validity of Prof. Mises's axiom of action. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action.

4. Sapient humans are capable of argumentation and hence know the meaning of truth and validity. The so-called "A Priori of Argumentation". (This axiom relates strongly to axioms No. 2 and 3.)

It is impossible to coherently deny that one can argue, as the very denial would itself be an argument. In fact, one could not even silently say to oneself "I cannot argue" without thereby contradicting oneself. One cannot coherently argue that one cannot argue. Nor can one coherently dispute knowing what it means to make a truth or validity claim without implicitly claiming the negation of this proposition to be true (see axiom No. 2).

***

For more on the above, see the following works:

1. Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007; originally published 1995) http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2 .

2. René Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences, Part 4, p. 101 in Elizabeth S. Haldane and G[eorge]. R. T. Ross (translators), The Philosophical Works of Descartes (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1911), Vol. 1 of 2 http://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor01desc , http://webcitation.org/63rYLFB5m (Vol. 1); http://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor02descuoft, http://webcitation.org/63rYNaLr2 (Vol. 2).

3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiæ, First Part, Question 2, Article 1, Objection 3; English translation: Laurence Shapcote of the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, revised by Daniel J. Sullivan, The Summa Theologica, Vols. 17–18 of Mortimer J. Adler, Clifton Fadiman and Philip W. Goetz (editors), Great Books of the Western World (Chicago, Ill.: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2nd ed., 1990), 60 vols.

See also my below article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/Liberta...yCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/r...arianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

 

[LexEtLibertas]

is this the same God who hates fags?

No. God has nothing against homosexuals qua homosexuals. For the details on that, see my following article, particularly Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", pp. 46-47 and Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence", pp. 50-52:

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

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sure it can. Your foregoing comment commits the logical fallacy of epistemological relativism, which is the idea that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, unknowable, or nonexistent. Yet on the contrary, truth exists and is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it.

Below are basic a priori axioms. That is, true synthetic a priori propositions; or, propositions which cannot be denied without necessitating their use in the denial.

1. I think, therefore I am. (Proof of the existential reality of one's own existence.)

If one did not exist in some form then one would not be able to even think "I do not exist."

2. Truth, and knowledge of truth, exists.

Whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist. Yet, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true. And if there is anything true, then truth exists.

3. Conscious humans act. (Prof. Ludwig von Mises's Axiom of Action.)

It cannot be coherently denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action.

As well, there are logically necessary implications of this axiom:

3. (a) With every action an actor pursues a goal; and whatever the goal may be, the fact that it is pursued by an actor reveals that he places a relatively higher value on it than on any other goal of action he could conceive of at the start of his action.

(b) In order to achieve his most highly valued goal an actor must interfere or decide not to interfere (which, of course, is also an interference) at an earlier point in time to produce some later result; such interferences invariably imply the employment of some scarce means (at least those of the actor's body, its standing room and the time absorbed by the interference).

(c) These means must also have value for an actor--a value derived from that of the goal--because the actor must regard their employment as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal; and actions can only be performed sequentially, always involving the making of a choice, i.e., taking up that one course of action which at some given point in time promises the most highly valued result to the actor and excluding at the same time the pursuit of other, less highly valued goals.

(d) As a consequence of having to choose and give preference to one goal over another--of not being able to realize all goals simultaneously--each and every action implies the incurrence of costs. For example, forsaking the value attached to the most highly valued alternative goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be deferred because the means necessary to effect it are bound up in the production of another, even more highly valued goal.

(e) At its starting point every goal of action must be considered worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding a profit, i.e., a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the foregone opportunities. And yet, every action is also invariably threatened by the possibility of a loss if an actor finds, in retrospect, that the result actually achieved--contrary to previous expectations--has a lower value than the relinquished alternative would have had.

All of these categories--values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and loss, as well as time and causality--are implied in the axiom of action. The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly impossible to ever falsify the validity of Prof. Mises's axiom of action. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action.

4. Sapient humans are capable of argumentation and hence know the meaning of truth and validity. The so-called "A Priori of Argumentation". (This axiom relates strongly to axioms No. 2 and 3.)

It is impossible to coherently deny that one can argue, as the very denial would itself be an argument. In fact, one could not even silently say to oneself "I cannot argue" without thereby contradicting oneself. One cannot coherently argue that one cannot argue. Nor can one coherently dispute knowing what it means to make a truth or validity claim without implicitly claiming the negation of this proposition to be true (see axiom No. 2).

***

For more on the above, see the following works:

1. Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007; originally published 1995) http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2 .

2. René Descartes, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences, Part 4, p. 101 in Elizabeth S. Haldane and G[eorge]. R. T. Ross (translators), The Philosophical Works of Descartes (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1911), Vol. 1 of 2 http://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor01desc , http://webcitation.org/63rYLFB5m (Vol. 1); http://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor02descuoft, http://webcitation.org/63rYNaLr2 (Vol. 2).

3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiæ, First Part, Question 2, Article 1, Objection 3; English translation: Laurence Shapcote of the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, revised by Daniel J. Sullivan, The Summa Theologica, Vols. 17–18 of Mortimer J. Adler, Clifton Fadiman and Philip W. Goetz (editors), Great Books of the Western World (Chicago, Ill.: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2nd ed., 1990), 60 vols.

See also my below article:

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/Liberta...yCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/r...arianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

The problem with all of this is that even if a god was "proven" to exist, what god is it? No Christian can use this kind of apologetic, because a Christian doesn't aver that "a god" exists, He avers that THE GOD, Yahweh exists (in 3 persons' Father Son and Holy Spirit).

You might as well be "proving" that an alien exists which created us all. Who knows? Nothing about what you've posted here comport with God's revelation in the Bible.

 

[Jamesiv1]

On the contrary, Jamesiv1, the *only* issue which could ever possibly matter is if God exists <snip>

Whether or not God exists is purely belief (some call it faith). Maybe it's just me but in my humble opinion all that quantum, omega, blah blah theory stuff is a total mind-*uck and waste of time.

I would encourage all the folks that indulge in this kind of nonsense to go experience God for themselves. That's time well-spent.

 

[HVACTech]

On the contrary, Jamesiv1, the *only* issue which could ever possibly matter is if God exists, since if God exists then life has meaning, whereas if God does not exist then nothing whatsoever matters.

you and I are not going to get along very well with an attitude like that.
whether or not "God" exists has no bearing on my morals. there are still things that need done. personally, I do not try to pigeonhole god.

the simple fact is. we humans do not even understand gravity, much less "matter" did that sink in?

 

[pcosmar]

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,

Not surprising at all.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Yeah. Those stupid scientists. What have they ever given us that made anyone's lives better?

name me a couple of things you're referring to.

Over that past couple or few thousand years Western Civilization has slowly but surely taken Wisdom down off the pedestal, and replaced it with knowledge and 'science'. Bullshit, I say.

Now our kids spend the bulk of their time in government-mandated 'education' instead of enjoying childhood (and being taught the lessons of life by their elders) - and adults spend the bulk of their adulthood spinning their wheels in the rat race so they can achieve the so-called "American Dream!!"

Bullshit, I say.

{edit} Oh yeah, and paying taxes. Can't forget paying taxes.

 

[HVACTech]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,

Not surprising at all.

^^ this ^^

I concur wholeheartedly!

 

[LexEtLibertas]

The problem with all of this is that even if a god was "proven" to exist, what god is it? No Christian can use this kind of apologetic, because a Christian doesn't aver that "a god" exists, He avers that THE GOD, Yahweh exists (in 3 persons' Father Son and Holy Spirit).

You might as well be "proving" that an alien exists which created us all. Who knows? Nothing about what you've posted here comport with God's revelation in the Bible.

Sola_Fide, you need to be more observant. I already answered this inquiry of yours above in this thread before you even posed the question to me. That is what is called prolepsis, or procatalepsis. (And indeed, this was already answered in my oft-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", so those such as yourself who are raising ignorant objections need to read said article first.) Videlicet:

You can't prove the existence of God. God and His revelation is the starting point or the axiom of thought itself. Axioms are taken as true in order to reason. They cannot be proven so much as they are necessary for intelligible thought itself.

Actually, Sola_Fide, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology 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), which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. For much more on the foregoing matters, 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

Regarding how Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament:

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 uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

 

[erowe1]

Sure it can. Your foregoing comment commits the logical fallacy of epistemological relativism, which is the idea that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, unknowable, or nonexistent.

No it doesn't commit that fallacy. And I don't believe that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, unknowable, or nonexistent. Why don't I believe that? Because I presuppose the existence of the God of the Bible.

Your proof of God's existence also presupposes his existence.

 

[LexEtLibertas]

Whether or not God exists is purely belief (some call it faith). Maybe it's just me but in my humble opinion all that quantum, omega, blah blah theory stuff is a total mind-*uck and waste of time.

I would encourage all the folks that indulge in this kind of nonsense to go experience God for themselves. That's time well-spent.

Actually, Jamesiv1, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology 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), which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. For much more on the foregoing matters, 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

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

 

[Jamesiv1]

Actually, Jamesiv1, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology 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), which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. For much more on the foregoing matters, 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

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

meh

I'm thinking somebody needs to get a girlfriend.

 

[erowe1]

Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology 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), which have been confirmed by every experiment to date.

But without presupposing God's existence, we have no reason to trust the scientific method by which those laws were discovered, and then confirmed via experiments.

 

[LexEtLibertas]

No it doesn't commit that fallacy. And I don't believe that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, unknowable, or nonexistent. Why don't I believe that? Because I presuppose the existence of the God of the Bible.

Your proof of God's existence also presupposes his existence.

Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a position of pure epistemological relativism, since if nothing can be said to exist, then no truth can be said to exist.

Nor do you display any awareness of what my "proof of God's existence" is. For that, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's 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), which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.today/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

 

[HVACTech]

But without presupposing God's existence, we have no reason to trust the scientific method by which those laws were discovered, and then confirmed via experiments.

 

[erowe1]

Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a position of pure epistemological relativism, since if nothing can be said to exist, then no truth can be said to exist.

I didn't say that nothing can be said to exist. Nor was it a position of epistemological relativism. Did you read the reason I gave? Your responses look like you didn't.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't prove the existence of God. God and His revelation is the starting point or the axiom of thought itself. Axioms are taken as true in order to reason. They cannot be proven so much as they are necessary for intelligible thought itself.

This.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a position of pure epistemological relativism, since if nothing can be said to exist, then no truth can be said to exist.

Science can't prove anything to exist. Propositions can't be derived from observations.

 

[robert68]

Give glory to Jupiter!