PaulConventionWV
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 16,041
No, it's not. More than one GOD is polytheism. You're not seriously going to tell me that each will must have it's own God, are you?
God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics
- Thread starter LexEtLibertas
- Start date
No, it's not. More than one GOD is polytheism. You're not seriously going to tell me that each will must have it's own God, are you?
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
No. Polytheism is more than one God.
Sonny Tufts
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 2,925
It makes no sense to you because you think I'm denying the existence of absolute truth. I'm not. When I say that "I could be wrong", I'm referring to whether a particular assertion is, in fact, an absolute truth. For example, I could be wrong that mathematical and logical truths exist independent of the human brain. But that wouldn't mean that there's not [edit] something else that's absolutely true.
The problem with your question is that depending on how you define "God", there could be evidence against His existence. If, for example, you were to define "God" as the Biblical deity, I believe the evidence would rule against His existence because of the contradictory characteristics He is portrayed as having (e.g., He is good and loving, yet he commands genocide). But let's take your definition that "God" is a being/entity that is all-powerful and all-knowing. I see no logical problem with this definition, but it's equivalent to saying that God is a puppetmaster, which I find distasteful because I don't like playing against a stacked deck.
Last edited:
willwash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Haven't read through the whole thread, so if this has been brought up, I apologize.
OP, are you aware that Tipler made specific predictions about the Higgs Boson based on his OPT that turned out not to be true?
I believe in Omega Point cosmology, but I highly encourage you to read the works of Teilhard, the TRUE originator of the theory, as opposed to Tipler. Tipler's endeavor is noble, but the human race is nowhere near the point of being able to understand the nature of God mathematically. I think we will get there, but we're not there yet, and by the time we are we won't really be humans. Teilhard, on the other hand, makes the simple observation that the universe started as a uniform haze of pure energy (zero complexity) at the Big Bang, and has gradually distilled and crystallized into progressively more complex forms, leading eventually to intelligent life. He then infers that this process will continue to a point of maximum complexity and intelligence which he calls point Omega. This can be equated with God, though that term is a dangerous one (see the "is this the God who hates fags" post) for the ingorant masses. No need for specific mathematical calculations...simple reason and observation are all that is required.
The other problem with Tipler is that he not only tries too hard to prove all of this mathematically, but he uses it to try to prove a Bible-thumping, Christian fundamentalist version of religion a la Sola Fide rather than presenting it to the world as the reason-based deist faith that it ultimately is.
Tipler gets a 7/10 in my book.
OP, are you aware that Tipler made specific predictions about the Higgs Boson based on his OPT that turned out not to be true?
I believe in Omega Point cosmology, but I highly encourage you to read the works of Teilhard, the TRUE originator of the theory, as opposed to Tipler. Tipler's endeavor is noble, but the human race is nowhere near the point of being able to understand the nature of God mathematically. I think we will get there, but we're not there yet, and by the time we are we won't really be humans. Teilhard, on the other hand, makes the simple observation that the universe started as a uniform haze of pure energy (zero complexity) at the Big Bang, and has gradually distilled and crystallized into progressively more complex forms, leading eventually to intelligent life. He then infers that this process will continue to a point of maximum complexity and intelligence which he calls point Omega. This can be equated with God, though that term is a dangerous one (see the "is this the God who hates fags" post) for the ingorant masses. No need for specific mathematical calculations...simple reason and observation are all that is required.
The other problem with Tipler is that he not only tries too hard to prove all of this mathematically, but he uses it to try to prove a Bible-thumping, Christian fundamentalist version of religion a la Sola Fide rather than presenting it to the world as the reason-based deist faith that it ultimately is.
Tipler gets a 7/10 in my book.
Last edited:
Well, if you consider "I think therefore I am", maybe. I'm not a nihilist
willwash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
I posted about this 2 and a half years ago and no one bit
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nt-interesting-religion&highlight=omega+point
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nt-interesting-religion&highlight=omega+point
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,901
Interesting article. Don't worry about the haters who blew it off as TLDR and then went into their own pet theories on God. Remember Matthew 5:6 and move on. I've downloaded the paper. It's 186 pages and not for the feint of heart.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,901
I posted about this 2 and a half years ago and no one bit
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nt-interesting-religion&highlight=omega+point
You needed to frame it in terms that people around here can understand and/or argue about. Like "The Omega-Point theory proves/disproves that we have freewill."
HVACTech
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,736
just for giggles, I looked up the "big bang theory"
apparently it's basis is that galaxies seem to be moving away from us in all directions..
the big bang theory, the theory of relativity as well as quantum theory.
have all been known for close to 100 years... ouch!
we humans are not doing so good..
the problem that I have with this stuff, "omega point theory" and such is that it is essentially piling theories on top of theories.
that is WHY I jumped into this thread. calling theories laws is VERY misleading.
most people today are VERY deceived about how smart we humans actually are.
peace.
apparently it's basis is that galaxies seem to be moving away from us in all directions..
the big bang theory, the theory of relativity as well as quantum theory.
have all been known for close to 100 years... ouch!
we humans are not doing so good..
the problem that I have with this stuff, "omega point theory" and such is that it is essentially piling theories on top of theories.
that is WHY I jumped into this thread. calling theories laws is VERY misleading.
most people today are VERY deceived about how smart we humans actually are.
peace.
Last edited:
HVACTech
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,736
curious, do you suspect me of being a "hater"? honest question as I wish to avoid that.
and that brings us to this gem.
do you see, or have any problem with a theory being referenced as a law?
willwash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
dark matter/energy is identically analogous to the luminiferous aether of 100 years ago.
With the aether, they had the observation that light fit the behavior of a wave, which perfectly fit the appropriate equations, except that it was known at the time that a wave requires a medium through which to travel. So they declared into existence a universal medium (the luminiferous aether) for light to travel through, and the problem was more or less "solved" for decades.
Of course, we later learned fundamental things about the nature of light, viz., that it exists as a particle with wavelike properties and therefore requires no medium. And thus went the aether into the dustbin.
Dark matter appears to be the same. Now I am not a physicist, but my lay understanding of the topic is that no one can prove it exists, except to say that they have all these gravitational equations that work everywhere else but because they don't work on cosmic scales, the answer is to declare into existence whatever amount of "stuff" is necessary to exert the appropriate gravitational influence such that the equations work again.
It's a fine theory, and I'm not saying it's flat out wrong (it very well may be), but there are certainly other possibilities here. There may, for example, be fundamental things about the nature of gravity that we are yet to discover which hold the real answer. This was certainly the case with light and the luminiferous aether. But, again, based my lay readings on the topic, there doesn't seem to be this kind of skepticism on the topic among scientists. Indeed, dark matter seems to be almost a kind of dogma in physics. "It exists. It has to exist. Otherwise the equations are all wrong, and we know these equations are right, so dark matter exists."
Again, I'm not a physicist, but I think I do know my history a little better than your average physicist. Similar statements were made in defense of the aether.
With the aether, they had the observation that light fit the behavior of a wave, which perfectly fit the appropriate equations, except that it was known at the time that a wave requires a medium through which to travel. So they declared into existence a universal medium (the luminiferous aether) for light to travel through, and the problem was more or less "solved" for decades.
Of course, we later learned fundamental things about the nature of light, viz., that it exists as a particle with wavelike properties and therefore requires no medium. And thus went the aether into the dustbin.
Dark matter appears to be the same. Now I am not a physicist, but my lay understanding of the topic is that no one can prove it exists, except to say that they have all these gravitational equations that work everywhere else but because they don't work on cosmic scales, the answer is to declare into existence whatever amount of "stuff" is necessary to exert the appropriate gravitational influence such that the equations work again.
It's a fine theory, and I'm not saying it's flat out wrong (it very well may be), but there are certainly other possibilities here. There may, for example, be fundamental things about the nature of gravity that we are yet to discover which hold the real answer. This was certainly the case with light and the luminiferous aether. But, again, based my lay readings on the topic, there doesn't seem to be this kind of skepticism on the topic among scientists. Indeed, dark matter seems to be almost a kind of dogma in physics. "It exists. It has to exist. Otherwise the equations are all wrong, and we know these equations are right, so dark matter exists."
Again, I'm not a physicist, but I think I do know my history a little better than your average physicist. Similar statements were made in defense of the aether.
Last edited:
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,901
No. You were at least discussing the science involved. And "hater" probably isn't the best term anyway.
Of course.
HVACTech
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,736
thank you. I was familiar with Aether.
early in my career, I was very interested in the concept of a "vacuum" we have to "pull" one on a system before we can charge it with freon.
a vacuum is not something that most people are familiar with. I am.
at every step in my career, I wanted to know more. electricity, pneumatics, fluid dynamics, combustion, analog vs digital controls etc.
I am aware that there are in fact "laws"
this is why I have a pet peeve about confusing laws with theories.
willwash
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
thank you. I was familiar with Aether.
early in my career, I was very interested in the concept of a "vacuum" we have to "pull" one on a system before we can charge it with freon.
a vacuum is not something that most people are familiar with. I am.
at every step in my career, I wanted to know more. electricity, pneumatics, fluid dynamics, combustion, analog vs digital controls etc.
I am aware that there are in fact "laws"
this is why I have a pet peeve about confusing laws with theories.
Yeah, I actually wasn't even responding to anything you specifically said...I just saw the term dark matter and had to go off on my rant about it. I have a decent grounding in the sciences (not a pHD or anything), but I remain skeptical about this one.
VIDEODROME
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,407
I thought Dark Matter was kind of a filler term to describe unknown mass or a source of gravity. That there is trouble explaining the way galaxies form with just the matter that is accounted for. So it's effects have been observed, but the cause is kind of generically called Dark Matter until it can be more specifically identified.
NOTE: Again, kind of layman here. I may be off so correct me if I'm wrong.
HVACTech
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,736
you know my friend, I have learned a lot from both the DP (may it rest in peace) and RPF's.
we have such eloquent and knowledgeable writers... that there are few things I can.. contribute to.
so, my intent in this thread, was simply to help others... understand the gobbledegook.
I am very familiar with these terms and concepts and...
it REALLY pisses me off to see them used in a way that does not lead to enlightenment.
(end rant)
HVACTech
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,736
I thought Dark Matter was kind of a filler term to describe unknown mass or a source of gravity. That there is trouble explaining the way galaxies form with just the matter that is accounted for. So it's effects have been observed, but the cause is kind of generically called Dark Matter until it can be more specifically identified.
NOTE: Again, kind of layman here. I may be off so correct me if I'm wrong.
basically you are right. fact is, we DO NOT understand what mass (matter) is. this is fundamental to our understanding of gravity. as per Einstein (theory of relativity), Planck (quantum theory)
the "big bang theory" is a derivative theory based on the first two.
the answer is, not so much a question about "God" as it is a thermodynamic question.
where is all this energy coming from?
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
peace.
VIDEODROME
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 5,407
basically you are right. fact is, we DO NOT understand what mass (matter) is. this is fundamental to our understanding of gravity. as per Einstein (theory of relativity), Planck (quantum theory)
the "big bang theory" is a derivative theory based on the first two.
the answer is, not so much a question about "God" as it is a thermodynamic question.
where is all this energy coming from?
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
peace.
Interesting. I think one idea I heard was that the expansion of space caused some of these opposite charge virtual particles to fail to come back together and re-annihilate.
HVACTech
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,736
heh, near as I can tell Dude, "energy" is nothing more than an imbalance of forces.
this is why I think "God" has a sense of humor.
electricity, does not do any work.. until it "flows" it ALWAYS flows from higher EMF to lower EMF. (EMF= potential difference)
therefore, the more imbalanced you are, the more energy you exude.
and now, you understand the power source of RPF's!
PaulConventionWV
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 16,041
Precisely. There ARE absolute truths. That's how we know intelligence exists in the universe. There are laws of logic and nature that are always true, without exception, regardless of whether we believe them or not. Now, if intelligence exists in the universe, then there must be an intelligent source for the universe. I don't understand why so many people try to get around this, but that seems like the most obvious conclusion, so I don't see why we have to come up with alternate explanations like the sentience of the being or lack thereof. The simple fact is that intelligence implies the existence of an intelligent being. There's really no reason to think otherwise.
If we were all just the result of natural processes, then we wouldn't expect absolute truths to exist because everyone's brains, and therefore reasoning, would be different, yet we find these things that we can refer to outside of our brains that tell us whose reasoning is "correct." They are innate, they don't come from within us as we would expect them to if there were nothing beyond the secular, material world.
The laws of logic do not depend on MEST for existence, and the fact that we know anything for sure implies that we have an absolute standard already set for us by an intelligent source. Whenever we run across something incredibly complex, we can usually tell right a way whether it was created or not. Any 5 year old can tell you the difference between a Picasso and few rocks that kind of look like a face in the right lighting. I think God made it dreadfully obvious that we were created and it really astounds me that some people can deny it. The only explanation I can come up with is that some people don't like the idea that God owns this world and might have some rules, so they remain willfully ignorant.
Crashland, it's cool that you're an agnostic, because it does show some level of open-mindedness, but it's also really silly to see people dancing around the obvious conclusion that there is a God by coming up with all of these weird alternative theories to get around the idea of a sentient God who knows who they are. You can get around it by arguing in circles all day, but I really just think you're avoiding the obvious conclusion that God exists when it really comes down to it.
I didn't choose to believe this. I was convinced by reason that God exists and that's how I know my faith will never be shaken. I know some people will say that my faith contradicts my reason, but there's really no reason that the two should be mutually exclusive. One thing I try to get across to all atheists is that their worldview takes just as much faith as mine to believe in. I don't try to change their minds or convince them that God exists. Only they can do that, so all I do is try to make them understand that their worldview is no more reasonable to believe than mine. I think it's quite the opposite, but I can't prove that for absolute certainty because there are a million ways you can use the reasoning that God gave you to think of ways to circumvent the idea that intelligence requires an intelligent source.
As for me, I just think it's painfully obvious that God exists.
Similar threads
