God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[robert68]

Thank you, Jmdrake.

Have you submitted your paper to a science forum?

 

[willwash]

To be fair, Tipler's theory does not deign to prove that God exists, rather that God WILL exist at the culmination of the evolution of the universe.

Omega point cosmology/theology (they are one and the same) requires you to accept evolution.

Tipler's specific theory made several predictions which turned out to be false, including a big one about the Higgs Boson.

As I said earlier, you can't prove this stuff mathematically, but good old fashioned reason is enough to convince me of Omega Point cosmology. Read Teilhard!

 

[Crashland]

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evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, especially when compared to the dates of academically accepted Historical documents such as those detailing Roman History.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and the general integrity of these works may now be finally established and proved, probably to be the most authentic historical documents known to man.”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

I will illustrate the logical fallacy:

I read "Les Misérables". Great book. It has more original copies than the Bible does. In fact, the interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence is so small as to be in fact negligible, especially when compared to the dates of academically accepted Historical documents such as those detailing Roman History.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 Les Misérables have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of this work may now be finally established and proved, probably to be the most authentic historical document known to man.

No one is suggesting that the Bible doesn't have real historical value. Just like Les Misérables has real historical places and real historical events in it. It doesn't follow that everything in Les Misérables is true or historically accurate. And it doesn't follow that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, either.

By the way, I looked around quickly but I can't find anything about FF Bruce that indicates he was ever a non-Christian. Apparently his father was an evangelist, he went to church his whole life and he became a biblical scholar. Please point me to where this information about him being a non-christian is. Not that it would matter anyway though since him being a Christian or non-Christian is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

When should we expect to see a cable Science channel program episode covering this existence proof breakthrough?

Don't expect it. Not with a state-run media and scientific establishment.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I will illustrate the logical fallacy:

I read "Les Misérables". Great book. It has more original copies than the Bible does. In fact, the interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence is 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 Les Misérables have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of this work may now be finally established and proved, probably to be the most authentic historical document known to man.

No one is suggesting that the Bible doesn't have real historical value. Just like Les Misérables has real historical places and real historical events in it. It doesn't follow that everything in Les Misérables is true or historically accurate. And it doesn't follow that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, either.

You're engaging in a straw man. I claimed that the Bible was authentic, and that was all that I was trying to say with that passage in its entirety. I didn't say "therefore, it is true." All I said was that it was the most authentic piece of literature in history. Make of that what you will, but I made no claims about its truth. The whole point was to show that it is unique and that it stands out. Those who are seeking the truth, I believe, will be led there. I never claimed it was true because it's authentic. The point that it is authentic stands regardless.

By the way, I looked around quickly but I can't find anything about FF Bruce that indicates he was ever a non-Christian. Apparently his father was an evangelist, he went to church his whole life and he became a biblical scholar. Please point me to where this information about him being a non-christian is. Not that it would matter anyway though since him being a Christian or non-Christian is irrelevant to the argument.

Exactly, so why you are you demanding evidence for such a meaningless factoid? He was an expert in literature and he said that. That was my whole point.

 

[Crashland]

You're engaging in a straw man. I claimed that the Bible was authentic, and that was all that I was trying to say with that passage in its entirety. I didn't say "therefore, it is true." All I said was that it was the most authentic piece of literature in history. Make of that what you will, but I made no claims about its truth. The whole point was to show that it is unique and that it stands out. Those who are seeking the truth, I believe, will be led there. I never claimed it was true because it's authentic. The point that it is authentic stands regardless.

Why even bring up "authenticity" if you have no intention of connecting it to its truth? You were responding in the context of discussing the Bible as a historical document and science supporting the Bible's historical claims, so I assumed that is what you meant. If that isn't what you meant, then pointing out that the Bible is remarkable doesn't really have a bearing on anything.

Exactly, so why you are you demanding evidence for such a meaningless factoid? He was an expert in literature and he said that. That was my whole point.

Just fact-checking.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why even bring up "authenticity" if you have no intention of connecting it to its truth? You were responding in the context of discussing the Bible as a historical document and science supporting the Bible's historical claims, so I assumed that is what you meant. If that isn't what you meant, then pointing out that the Bible is remarkable doesn't really have a bearing on anything.

I think it's important. If the scripture claims to be the inerrant word of God and we don't even know if it's anything close to the original, then it follows that we don't know if it's the real word of God. When asked why someone should believe Christianity over some other religion, I'll point out the fact that Christianity is remarkable and that you can tell the difference between the inerrant word of God and something some guy somewhere made up. The Bible is the only religious text that gives such detailed accounts of creation, or that even explains how the universe was created. The fact that it's authentic just proves that you don't have to hear what it's about through word of mouth because that undermines everything. No other religion has anything like it.

 

[Crashland]

When asked why someone should believe Christianity over some other religion, I'll point out the fact that Christianity is remarkable and that you can tell the difference between the inerrant word of God and something some guy somewhere made up. The Bible is the only religious text that gives such detailed accounts of creation, or that even explains how the universe was created. The fact that it's authentic just proves that you don't have to hear what it's about through word of mouth because that undermines everything. No other religion has anything like it.

The Bible is the only religious text that has detailed accounts for creation? The Biblical account of creation is hardly detailed, nor does it explain how God created anything, other than specifying the order he created some things. It's one chapter in Genesis. Here are a few dozen other religious texts that account for creation, and many of them are much more detailed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

There are some things about Christianity that make it more remarkable than other religions, but the creation account certainly isn't one of them. The Biblical creation account blends right in.

 

[TER]

The Bible is the only religious text that has detailed accounts for creation? The Biblical account of creation is hardly detailed, nor does it explain how God created anything, other than specifying the order he created some things. It's one chapter in Genesis. Here are a few dozen other religious texts that account for creation, and many of them are much more detailed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

There are some things about Christianity that make it more remarkable than other religions, but the creation account certainly isn't one of them. The Biblical creation account blends right in.

There are certainly other creation stories in the history of mankind. I think some of the things that makes Genesis unique is that it describes the Creator as a Trinity (found in the very first few verses of Genesis), that He created man in His image and likeness to share in creation, and that He promised that a Son of Eve would eventually destroy the evil in the world. The beauty is that it provides us with an understanding of who are, why we are, why we are born in the condition we are born in, and what we are eventually able to become.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The Bible is the only religious text that has detailed accounts for creation? The Biblical account of creation is hardly detailed, nor does it explain how God created anything, other than specifying the order he created some things. It's one chapter in Genesis. Here are a few dozen other religious texts that account for creation, and many of them are much more detailed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

What do you want, an instruction manual? God spoke it into existence. What more does He need to do to be detailed? Detailed is a relative term and I'm saying that it's detailed relative to other religious texts.

There are some things about Christianity that make it more remarkable than other religions, but the creation account certainly isn't one of them. The Biblical creation account blends right in.

Blends right in to what? Show me another religious text that has anything like it.

 

[Crashland]

What do you want, an instruction manual? God spoke it into existence. What more does He need to do to be detailed? Detailed is a relative term and I'm saying that it's detailed relative to other religious texts.

Well, you claimed it was detailed. "God spoke it into existence" is about as ambiguous as you can get. And the only details that it does provide aren't particularly encouraging from a scientific perspective, like the stars being created after the earth.

Blends right in to what? Show me another religious text that has anything like it.

The most obvious one that comes to mind is the Eridu Genesis, but almost any of the mythologies you can find in the above wiki link have creation accounts that are at least as "detailed" as the account in the Bible.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, you claimed it was detailed. "God spoke it into existence" is about as ambiguous as you can get. And the only details that it does provide aren't particularly encouraging from a scientific perspective, like the stars being created after the earth.

I meant it was detailed in saying WHAT He did and when. Like I said, do you want an instruction manual? Are you looking for some complicated process that God went through unnecessarily in order to call it detailed? Because you're going to be disappointed. And what's scientifically discouraging about the stars being created after the earth?

The most obvious one that comes to mind is the Eridu Genesis, but almost any of the mythologies you can find in the above wiki link have creation accounts that are at least as "detailed" as the account in the Bible.

Have you ever actually read the Eridu Genesis or are you just saying that because that's what you found? I read parts of it and I couldn't find anywhere where whoever or whatever is speaking claims to be God. I can't find anything about what that god did to create the world and when he did it. You're going to have to be more precise.

 

[TER]

Crashland, you should understand that the written Book of Genesis was written down according to a vision Moses was given by God, not unlike the vision recorded by St. John in the Book of Revelation. Moses is describing what he saw, how he experienced it, from his point of view. This can explain why standing on the earth in the primordial state it was, with an atmosphere of dark gases (firmaments), that the sun and the stars would not have been visible to one on earth until later as the earth evolved. The entire revelation given to Moses by God is geocentric (better yet, anthropocentric) because it is from the point of view of a man on earth that God communicated the creation story, and as such, in this light it should be understood.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Crashland, you should understand that the written Book of Genesis was written down according to a vision Moses was given by God, not unlike the vision recorded by St. John in the Book of Revelation. Moses is describing what he saw, how he experienced it, from his point of view. This can explain why standing on the earth in the primordial state it was, with an atmosphere of dark gases (firmaments), that the sun and the stars would not have been visible to one on earth until later as the earth evolved. The entire revelation given to Moses by God is geocentric (better yet, anthropocentric) because it is from the point of view of a man on earth that God communicated the creation story, and as such, in this light it should be understood.

Are you saying that the account that the stars were created after the earth is false?

 

[TER]

Think about how the sky looks on a cloudy or foggy day. There is enough light to pass through to know it is day or night but neither the sun at noon or the stars at midnight can be seen. How much more so in a primordial atmosphere of gases which science explains the earth had in the beginning. The beauty of the Genesis account is that the more we learn about the science of creation, the more Genesis reveals it to be true. The order of the animals, from sea life, to reptiles and birds, to mammals, to man, corresponds very nicely with current modern scientific theories. Not bad for a shepherd in the desert a few thousand years ago! But again, the belief is that what he wrote down wasn't just his guess, but a direct revelation from God.

 

[TER]

Are you saying that the account that the stars were created after the earth is false?

No, I am saying that a vision was given to Moses and he wrote it down according to how he experienced it. The same way St. John wrote down his revelation.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I am saying that the vision given to Moses was how he experienced it and wrote it down.

Ok, but was that experience something other than reality?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Think about how the sky looks on a cloudy or foggy day. There is enough light to pass through to know it is day or night but neither the sun at noon or the stars at midnight can be seen. How much more so in a primordial atmosphere of gases which science explains the earth had in the beginning. The beauty of the Genesis account is that the more we learn about the science of creation, the more Genesis reveals it to be true. The order of the animals, from sea life, to reptiles and birds, to mammals, to man, corresponds very nicely with current modern scientific theories. Not bad for a shepherd in the desert a few thousand years ago! But again, the belief is that what he wrote down wasn't just his guess, but a direct revelation from God.

So I'm guessing you don't believe God actually created in 7 literal days since you're talking about evolution, correct?

 

[TER]

So I'm guessing you don't believe God actually created in 7 literal days since you're talking about evolution, correct?

I'm not sure what Moses meant by a 'day'. I don't really care either. Not a major concern for me. I am happy to find out on the Last Day, which is the day I am much more concerned about.

 

[HVACTech]

my brain just entered a worm-hole.