God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

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.

I think it makes no sense because you ARE doing exactly that, albeit in a roundabout way. If you are wrong that logical truths exist independent of the human brain, then they're not absolute. They MUST be independent of matter, space, time and energy in order to be absolute because if they depended on the finite universe, then they could not possibly be infinitely true, beyond the scope of the human being's ability to know them. If logic is not absolutely true, then nothing is. Logic is the only way we can know anything at all.

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.

Well, that's tough if you don't like it, but that doesn't change the truth. You wouldn't be here to find it distasteful if it weren't for that all-powerful, all-knowing entity. I don't try to tell you that the God of the Bible exists, just that God exists and I think if you really want to know, the truth will lead you to the God of the Bible. After all, the Bible is the only book of its kind in history. It is the most authentic scripture ever recorded and the only religion that gives precise accounts of how the universe was created and when and precise records of what happened after creation. It is the story of the world and it there is none other like it. You don't have to believe that it's special, but I think it's obvious enough that, if you really wanted to know, then you would be led to it by your own volition.

As far as God being all-powerful and all-knowing, I rest my case. I think it's obvious to any thinking individual that a God who is truly God must be all of those things in order to be God at all.
 
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.

I think it's great what this physicist has taken on. It is literally a masterpiece of scientific thought. However, I don't think you need to be a physicist in order to know that God exists. I think it should be painfully obvious to anyone who really wants to know that He DOES exist. It doesn't answer the question of WHO God is, but I think that, too, will work itself out upon investigation.
 
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?

It's not referencing a theory as a law. The laws of physics are known as laws because there is a very specific definition of a natural law, as opposed to a theory. A law is the way in which things can be directly observed to behave for which there is no known exception. It does not claim that no exceptions exist, only that none have ever been found. So if you accept the laws of physics under those terms, then, according to this article, you should also accept that God exists. I think it's a reasonable claim.
 
It doesn't answer the question of WHO God is, but I think that, too, will work itself out upon investigation.

Perhaps this is why Crashland remains Agnostic or Ignostic. It's like asking him to agree to the seemingly obvious idea that God exists, yet then say that such a being has not been well defined in a specific way.

It makes me think of demanding a person believe in the existence of the Dark Matter that was discussed earlier, when Dark Matter just a label for something we don't yet understand. I mean really CrashLand, don't you see the gravitational effects of Dark Matter? You can't argue that Dark Matter doesn't exist right?
 
It's not referencing a theory as a law. The laws of physics are known as laws because there is a very specific definition of a natural law, as opposed to a theory. A law is the way in which things can be directly observed to behave for which there is no known exception. It does not claim that no exceptions exist, only that none have ever been found. So if you accept the laws of physics under those terms, then, according to this article, you should also accept that God exists. I think it's a reasonable claim.

whew, yes it is.
It's not referencing a theory as a law.
I have made that very clear many times.

I REALLY should have noticed what forum this thread was posted in.
we have people here who are well versed in many of the subjects that I have brought up.
they are and have remained silent.

I should heed that call.
peace bro.
:)
 
whew, yes it is.

I have made that very clear many times.

I REALLY should have noticed what forum this thread was posted in.
we have people here who are well versed in many of the subjects that I have brought up.
they are and have remained silent.

I should heed that call.
peace bro.
:)

I must have somehow missed where you made it clear because I do not understand what you're talking about.
 
I must have somehow missed where you made it clear because I do not understand what you're talking about.

reference post 170 of this thread.

I happen to like physics.
I am also a for real HVAC/R tech.

therefore, I only quibble over the difference between a law and a theory.
for the benefit of others.

in my mind, I saw physics being used to confuse people.
I interceded much to my chagrin.

all is good, peace bro.
:)
 
Perhaps this is why Crashland remains Agnostic or Ignostic. It's like asking him to agree to the seemingly obvious idea that God exists, yet then say that such a being has not been well defined in a specific way.

I don't understand why that's necessarily a conundrum. It's not that God isn't well-defined; I think He is. I just don't address any of the specifics of who I think God is because that's not for me to say unless the person already shows interest in finding out those specifics. You must first understand WHY God is before you can understand WHO God is. They're two separate questions, so the lack of clarity on one should not inhibit understanding of the other.

It makes me think of demanding a person believe in the existence of the Dark Matter that was discussed earlier, when Dark Matter just a label for something we don't yet understand. I mean really CrashLand, don't you see the gravitational effects of Dark Matter? You can't argue that Dark Matter doesn't exist right?

In contrast to the "dark matter" debate, which involves very specialized knowledge, anyone who can think and reason can understand the argument for why God exists. Dark matter has to do with physics, not philosophy. I also don't see why not having specific knowledge of God readily available should inhibit one from investigating. I think the specifics are out there if you're willing to look, but you first need to know why God exists. In fact, I think that understanding should imbibe people to investigate further and motivate them to learn more about the being that may determine what is in store for them beyond this life. It's a very important question, no?

So forgive me if I don't understand why not having a very specific knowledge of God would make anyone disinterested in learning about Him because not everything has to be easy to understand in order to be worthwhile. If I were convinced that God existed, I would want to learn everything I could about who He is and why He made me. The idea that we need specifics before we can try to understand God just doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
reference post 170 of this thread.

I happen to like physics.
I am also a for real HVAC/R tech.

therefore, I only quibble over the difference between a law and a theory.
for the benefit of others.

in my mind, I saw physics being used to confuse people.
I interceded much to my chagrin.

all is good, peace bro.
:)

I'm still a little confused because post #170 was the post I was responding to when I apparently misunderstood you.

But ok, peace. I won't interfere with you quibbles.
 
I'm still a little confused because post #170 was the post I was responding to when I apparently misunderstood you.

But ok, peace. I won't interfere with you quibbles.

sigh,
from post 170, which was in response to post 167.

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

it is clearly stated.
and yet you responded.
I'm still a little confused because post #170 was the post I was responding to when I apparently misunderstood you.

But ok, peace. I won't interfere with you quibbles.

praytell, what am I to make of that?

I will not be offended or surprised. I find it fascinating some of the things that I hear everyday.
most people are not even aware of what type of equipment that they have.
ever tried to explain how a heat pump works to someone? so that they will know what to expect?

"it made this terrible whooshing sound! and it was steaming! I thought it was on fire!"

and now you know why I do very little residential work.
:eek:
 
sigh,
from post 170, which was in response to post 167.



it is clearly stated.
and yet you responded.


praytell, what am I to make of that?

I will not be offended or surprised. I find it fascinating some of the things that I hear everyday.
most people are not even aware of what type of equipment that they have.
ever tried to explain how a heat pump works to someone? so that they will know what to expect?

"it made this terrible whooshing sound! and it was steaming! I thought it was on fire!"

and now you know why I do very little residential work.
:eek:

I'm really confused.

I just thought you were saying that you didn't like the term "laws" so I answered that the laws of physics are, in fact, known as laws by just about everyone. Not sure why that would be a point of contention.
 
Yes. And I know because of your conditioning, you'll probably dismiss everything I say because of it.

If anyone is conditioned, it is those who uncritically accept everything in the Bible and ignore all of the evidence to the contrary. And I will certainly dismiss your claims as to the authenticity of the Bible and the precision of its accounts.
 
If anyone is conditioned, it is those who uncritically accept everything in the Bible and ignore all of the evidence to the contrary. And I will certainly dismiss your claims as to the authenticity of the Bible and the precision of its accounts.

Oh, so if ANYONE is conditioned, it's me? I take that to mean you don't believe the government conditions anyone through state-run media, state-run education system, etc? That evolution is not drilled into us from an early age? I wonder what your attitude would be if you did not have the advantage of society being brainwashed with your view? I believe the science supports the Bible's account of history, and I have studied the science. I don't deny science, I welcome it and I use it. There is no scientific evidence against creation, as you say. You don't have to take my word about the authenticity of the Bible. First of all, why don't you try to find me a religion that has a more authentic and detailed scripture?

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, especially when compared to the dates of academically accepted Historical documents such as those detailing Roman History. The last foundation for any doubt that the scripts of the Old and New Testaments have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of these works may now be finally established and proved, probably to be the most authentic historical documents known to man.”

~Professor FF Bruce, leading Textual History critic, and a non-Christian at the time

http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm
 
Last edited:
If there really is a Multi-Verse, would each Universe have it's own version of God?

curious. is "multi-verse" a derivative of Quantum theory?

is that where the whole idea of where casements came from?

and if so, how cool would it be to meet Maxwell Planck, in person? :p
 
Last edited:
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.

Thank you, Jmdrake.

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause.

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format.

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

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
""

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. http://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , https://amazon.com/clouddrive/share?s=bTI58F1dSAIjSrxJ26R7d8 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit )

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

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

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://archive.today/pKD3y )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist. http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

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

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

-----

Note:

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

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

In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. 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://ge.tt/3lOTVbp
 
Last edited:
When should we expect to see a cable Science channel program episode covering this existence proof breakthrough?
 
Some have described Tipler's work as pseudoscience.

Critics of the final omega point principle say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP).[11] Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle has no claim on any special methodological status, it is "pure speculation", despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle".[12] Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable".[13]

Physicist David Deutsch incorporates Tipler's Omega Point cosmology as a central feature of the fourth strand of his "four strands" concept of fundamental reality and defends the physics of the Omega Point cosmology,[14] although he is highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions[15] and what Deutsch states are exaggerated claims that have caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory out of hand.[16] Researcher Anders Sandberg pointed out that he believes the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs.[17]

Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics.[18][19][20] George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience… the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[3] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis.[21] Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".[22] In a review of Tipler's The Physics of Christianity, Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
 
Back
Top