God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[TER]

Revelations.

Correct. While the first book of the bible is a revelation given to Moses about the beginning of time, the last book of the Bible is a revelation given to St. John about the end of time.

Both involved visions which the two writers then wrote down as they experienced it.

Would you say the book of Revelation written by St. John has symbolism in it?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Correct. While the first book of the bible is a revelation given to Moses about the beginning of time, the last book of the Bible is a revelation given to St. John about the end of time.

Both involved visions which the two writers then wrote down as they experienced it.

Would you say the book of Revelation written by St. John has symbolism in it?

Sure it does. But when you say "as they experienced it", whose experience are you talking about? Were they simply allowed to use their own faculties to decipher what the vision meant?

 

[TER]

Sure it does. But when you say "as they experienced it", whose experience are you talking about? Were they simply allowed to use their own faculties to decipher what the vision meant?

If I show you a vision of something that happened in a park, and then you wrote it down, whose experience is being recorded?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If I show you a vision of something that happened in a park, and then you wrote it down, whose experience is being recorded?

That's different than being divinely inspired. What I'm wondering is why you say the stars were created after the earth because of how Moses experienced it instead of saying that's how it actually happened.

 

[TER]

That's different than being divinely inspired. What I'm wondering is why you say the stars were created after the earth because of how Moses experienced it instead of saying that's how it actually happened.

Having a vision is most definitely being inspiried. Moses and St. John were both inspired by God just by the mere fact that God gave them such divine visions. They then recorded these visions, such as has always been done, according to what they experienced.

To repeat what I told you earlier about what I think 'day' means in the Genesis account, I really don't care whether 'day' means 24 hours or 1000 days or 20 million years. Neither do I care if God created the earth first or the stars first. It really has no bearing in my life. Whatever the case, glory to God! I will not lose my faith in Jesus Christ either way or lose sight of the prize. Nor will I begin to doubt the truths of the Bible. And I don't have to die on a hill over an intepretation which I may very well be wrong about and not know until the end.

What I am saying is that just as St. John wrote down the vision he received, which you agree included lots of symbolism, so too Moses wrote down the vision he received which also could involve symbolism (and indeed did, if we hold both to be divine revelations from God). In both instances it was a man on earth recording what he experienced as he experienced it, and according to the knwoledge and wisdom given to him. I do not mean to make a positive statement either way on this topic, because I simply don't know what Moses meant or what he experienced. And the main point of the Genesis story is not if the stars were created before the earth.


Did God create the earth before the stars? Great! Did He create the earth afterwards? Great! Glory to Him either way! It changes my faith not in the bit.

 

[DamianTV]

God reveals Himself in science. He also gave some revelations many thousands of years ago too.

This is exactly why I avoid the Religion section of this forum. I already made my point and expressed my opinion, but dont want to turn it into a means to insult individual members here. I respect all of our forum members, and will do everything in my power to protect their rights to choose for themselves, especially when those choices are different than my own, as long as they dont try to "choose for me". God doesnt reveal himself in science, physics or math because he flat out doesnt exist. People see what they want to see, simple as that. Thus, Im outta here before anyone takes either of my statements as a personal attack, it isnt intended to be.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Having a vision is most definitely being inspiried. Moses and St. John were both inspired by God just by the mere fact that God gave them such divine visions. They then recorded these visions, such as has always been done, according to what they experienced.

To repeat what I told you earlier about what I think 'day' means in the Genesis account, I really don't care whether 'day' means 24 hours or 1000 days or 20 million years. Neither do I care if God created the earth first or the stars first. It really has no bearing in my life. Whatever the case, glory to God! I will not lose my faith in Jesus Christ either way or lose sight of the prize. Nor will I begin to doubt the truths of the Bible. And I don't have to die on a hill over an intepretation which I may very well be wrong about and not know until the end.

What I am saying is that just as St. John wrote down the vision he received, which you agree included lots of symbolism, so too Moses wrote down the vision he received which also could involve symbolism (and indeed did, if we hold both to be divine revelations from God). In both instances it was a man on earth recording what he experienced as he experienced it, and according to the knwoledge and wisdom given to him. I do not mean to make a positive statement either way on this topic, because I simply don't know what Moses meant or what he experienced. And the main point of the Genesis story is not if the stars were created before the earth.


Did God create the earth before the stars? Great! Did He create the earth afterwards? Great! Glory to Him either way! It changes my faith not in the bit.

Well, I'm glad you have it all figured out in your own mind, but what about those who come to you for counsel? What do you say to them? How do you answer their questions? For many, "Just have faith" won't be enough, and reasonably so.

1 Peter 3:15

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

 

[TER]

Well, I'm glad you have it all figured out in your own mind, but what about those who come to you for counsel? What do you say to them? How do you answer their questions? For many, "Just have faith" won't be enough, and reasonably so.

I say to those to come to me in counsel the truth that I don't know the exact answer and that it shouldn't be the defining matter of their faith and trust in the Scriptures whether one day mentioned is a thousand or a million to us or if the Lord saying 'Let there be lights in the firmament' was Moses describing his experience of a primordial earth's atmosphere dissipating to reveal the stars.

I would also tell them that there doesn't need to be a division between faith and science. The hyperliteralists approach of those who cannot understand that perhaps there is more than meets the eye in the simple writing of Genesis and ignore possible symbolism which we agree is quite typical in God's revelation to man are (I think) the ones who are turning people away and creating divisions that may not actually be there. But that is just my opinion.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I say to those to come to me in counsel the truth that I don't know the exact answer and that it shouldn't be the defining matter of their faith and trust in the Scriptures whether one day mentioned is a thousand or a million to us or if the Lord saying 'Let there be lights in the firmament' was Moses describing his experience of a primordial earth's atmosphere dissipating to reveal the stars.

I would also tell them that there doesn't need to be a division between faith and science. The hyperliteralists approach of those who cannot understand that perhaps there is more than meets the eye in the simple writing of Genesis and ignore possible symbolism which we agree is quite typical in God's revelation to man are (I think) the ones who are turning people away and creating divisions that may not actually be there. But that is just my opinion.

So in other words you don't really have a reason.

Here's that verse again:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

You should be prepared to give EVERYONE a reason. Even the atheists.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about it. I think you're doing fine, but I think it's a bit narrow-minded to tell people it doesn't matter what the answer to their question is.

 

[TER]

So in other words you don't really have a reason.

No friend, my point is that the reason for my hope is not dependent upon whether the Genesis story is literal or metaphorical or symbolic. My reason and faith does not lie solely in my head and my brain's ability of exegesis. It relies on me being a child of God and saved through death by Christ, which is the main point of the Genesis story.

 

[TER]

So in other words you don't really have a reason.

Here's that verse again:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

You should be prepared to give EVERYONE a reason. Even the atheists.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about it. I think you're doing fine, but I think it's a bit narrow-minded to tell people it doesn't matter what the answer to their question is.

Just saw your edit. Sometimes the answers we think we have are actually false and stumbling blocks. That too is a great danger and sometimes the best answer is 'I don't know exactly' like how you answered about how it was revealed to Moses the revelation about the creation of the world.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Just saw your edit. Sometimes the answers we think we have are actually false and stumbling blocks. That too is a great danger and sometimes the best answer is 'I don't know exactly' like how you answered about how it was revealed to Moses the revelation about the creation of the world.

I answered it that way because it didn't really make a difference. You and I will disagree about whether a literal reading of Genesis makes a difference, but I see I can't change you. There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..26.9.7344.mZF5LrdES44

 

[LexEtLibertas]

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

Concerning Martin Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Tipler's part within said review. However, I do find the below exchange between Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner's aforesaid review of Barrow and Tipler's book. Note Gardner's two-word reply to Tipler.

Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "The FAP Flop", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (December 4, 1986), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/dec/04/the-fap-flop/ , http://webcitation.org/67Fw7SAdg . In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986), http://archive.today/QXsv3 , http://megalodon.jp/2013-1209-0914-30/archive.is/QXsv3 .

Regarding Prof. George Ellis's criticism, to date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Ellis and Dr. David Coule (see G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739). In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

Dr. Michael Shermer doesn't attempt to present any error on Prof. Tipler's part regarding the Omega Point cosmology.

For my reply to Dr. Sean M. Carroll's erroneous criticisms of Prof. Tipler in Carroll's blog post "The Varieties of Crackpot Experience" (Discover Blogs; and Preposterous Universe, Jan. 5, 2009), see http://webcitation.org/5yDcRx6IZ and http://archive.today/56z3C .

In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler's physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler's mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler's technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss's review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss's pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it's clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details.

Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 .)

As pointed out with Ellis and Coule's criticism, this isn't the first time that this ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

 

[LexEtLibertas]

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!

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.

That is, the Omega Point has always existed.

Nor has the Omega Point cosmology ever made a false prediction, let alone concerning the Higgs boson. What you might be thinking of there is a human error, which is a world apart from the mathematics of what the Omega Point itself requires. One should be very careful to never confuse the two together. Humans are fallible creatures, whereas physics--and the mathematical expression of it--is just what it is.

Regarding your last paragraph, 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.

 

[LexEtLibertas]

This is not Mainstream Physics. This is twisting reality to suit ones perceptions, not altering ones perceptions to understand reality. Or biased conclusions that looks for anything that scan support the conclusion itself, much the same way as Police do with first entering into a confrontation, then making the arrested guilty of being arrested, thereby making the innocent guilty.

Real Science makes Real Discoveries, and this is not Real Science. Sorry, but that is my two cents, and it isnt intended to discredit or disparage anyone for their beliefs, just discrediting this specific idea.

When it comes to physics, one cannot get more mainstream than the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). As it is simply nothing more and nothing less than standard physics. Standard, pure-shot, straight-line physics.

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.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of 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

 

[libertygrl]

There is a single, intelligent Consciousness that pervades the entire Universe - the Universal Mind. It is all knowing, all powerful, all creative and always present. As it is present everywhere at the same time, it follows that it must also be present in you - that it is you. Your mind is part of the one Universal Mind. This is not simply a philosophical ideal passed down to us through the ages. It is an exact scientific truth. Know it, believe it, apply it and you will see your life transform in miraculous ways.

Albert Einstein told us that "everything is energy"; that "a human being is a part of the whole called by us [the] Universe". His words echoed the most ancient of spiritual and philosophical teachings and still underpin today's cutting-edge scientific discoveries. The Universal Mind goes by many names. In the scientific world we know of the Unified Field, in spiritual philosophy we refer to The All or Universal Consciousness and in religion we call upon God who Himself goes by many names - Jehovah, Allah and Brahman to mention but a few. The name is relevant only in so far as it resonates with you.

Whichever way you cut it, you come to this one unavoidable conclusion: there is but One Consciousness of which your consciousness must be a part and "a part", as Charles Haanel said, "must be the same in kind and quality as the whole, the only difference being one of degree".

The nature of the Universal Mind is Omniscience (all knowing), Omnipotence (all powerful), Omnificence (all creative) and Omnipresence (always present). Know that this too is your nature. You have access to all knowledge, known and unknown; you have access to an infinite power for which nothing is impossible; you have access to the limitless creativity of the One Creator. All these attributes are present within you at all times in their potential form.

http://www.mind-your-reality.com/universal_mind.html

 

[LexEtLibertas]

Just to let people here know, below are some of my scholarly researcher profiles, via which one can access my works (with a number of them also hosting said works):

"James Redford", Figshare, http://figshare.com/authors/James_Redford/693488 .

"James Redford", ResearchGate, http://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Redford .

"James Redford', Mendeley, http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/james-redford/ .

"James Redford", PhilPapers, http://philpapers.org/profile/61919 .

"Redford, James", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), http://ssrn.com/author=1156571 .

"James Redford's Works", Zenodo, https://zenodo.org/collection/user-james-redford .

"James Redford", GitHub, https://github.com/JamesRedford . "Scholarly Works by James Redford, Including LaTeX Sources", https://jamesredford.github.io .

"James Redford", Academia.edu, https://independent.academia.edu/JamesRedford .

"Curriculum Vitæ of James Redford", Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/JamesRedford .

"James Redford", ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5033-7865 .

"James Redford", Google Scholar Citations, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IzEe4_0AAAAJ .

 

[Biblefundyfun]

If we are without excuse for unbelief, then clearly Gods existent is self evident, we have creation, scripture and personal testimony. Whilst personal testimony is not enough the other two are. We are told if we seek, we will find. One can't find something that can not be proven to exist to the satisfaction of the seeker.