God's Existence Is a Mathematical Theorem within Standard Physics

[Mike Mclees]

Where there is no substance there is no math. God cannot be determined by laws of physics or equations. Just like dark energy or the voids of space. God is Spirit not physical 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Mike Mclees

[The Barbarian]

I think you're right about God not being determined by the laws He created.   I don't see how it could be any other way.

[enoob57]

however there is this

Rom 1:20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV
for all that is here speaks, as to point to, of an infinite reality of unfathomed power in abilities....

[Coliseum]

When God interrupted the lives of those living in Israel 2000 years ago, He did not come to change their understanding of science or Mathematics. The Jews were a very superstitious people; they thought the Earth was flat. God did not come to tell them that in 2000 years a man would walk on the Moon. He did not come to change how unscientific their ideas were; He came to let them know who was in charge. Mathematics describes with unbreakable symbols things which occur---and even create unusable systems of things in the real world which don't. But it doesn't tell why. All the theorems and proofs in the world will not generate for any man a brand new heart, but the Spirit of God can. 

[Eman_3]

On 4/11/2019 at 4:44 PM, James Redford said:

As the title indicates, God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

Tippler's paper describes a universe that assumes that in the far future it is completely colonized by intelligent beings that somehow discovered how to reverse the expansion of the universe and create a contracting universe. That is  a lot of assumptions, and does not definitely prove anything.

Yes, he did publish that paper, and it was peer reviewed. That action does not legitimize the contents of the paper, but rather laid it out for examination and criticism. Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics.

In other words, it failed the acid test.

[James Redford]

13 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

Tippler's paper describes a universe that assumes that in the far future it is completely colonized by intelligent beings that somehow discovered how to reverse the expansion of the universe and create a contracting universe. That is  a lot of assumptions, and does not definitely prove anything.

Yes, he did publish that paper, and it was peer reviewed. That action does not legitimize the contents of the paper, but rather laid it out for examination and criticism. Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics.

In other words, it failed the acid test.

Hi, Eman_3. That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

As far as anyone knows, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is correct. No one has ever been able to devise a valid argument against it, despite many vainglorious attempts. The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's 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].)

Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

The evolutionary psychological reason for the bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian demons seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", State-Terror Archive, May 8, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190509025132/https://stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html , https://archive.is/tLeu4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0509-1152-02/stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html .

And you greatly underestimate the hatred of many in academia for belief in God, especially Christianity. This is the same Western academia that defended and covered-up for the USSR and Mao Tse-tung's China. During which time the Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects, while the Communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own noncombatant subjects.

Western academia in no small part helped enable those mass-slaughters with its faithful adoration of those regimes and the God-hating antitheist socialist ideologies upon which they were founded. Instead of shining a spotlight on the tyranny and horrors of Communism and thereby helping to diminish it by focusing world attention on it, they instead acted as Communism's intellectual bodyguards. Still to this day not much is said in academia or the major media about the biggest mass-slaughters by far in human history.

Edited December 12, 2019 by James Redford

[The Barbarian]

On 12/8/2019 at 4:05 PM, enoob57 said:

Rom 1:20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV
for all that is here speaks, as to point to, of an infinite reality of unfathomed power in abilities....

The verse is often presented as a refutation of "sola scriptura" and it is, but it also indicates that all men have  reason to know that there is a creator.  Well said.

[Eman_3]

14 hours ago, James Redford said:

Hi, Eman_3. That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

As far as anyone knows, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is correct. No one has ever been able to devise a valid argument against it, despite many vainglorious attempts. The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's 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].)

Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

The evolutionary psychological reason for the bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian demons seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", State-Terror Archive, May 8, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190509025132/https://stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html , https://archive.is/tLeu4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0509-1152-02/stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html .

And you greatly underestimate the hatred of many in academia for belief in God, especially Christianity. This is the same Western academia that defended and covered-up for the USSR and Mao Tse-tung's China. During which time the Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects, while the Communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own noncombatant subjects.

Western academia in no small part helped enable those mass-slaughters with its faithful adoration of those regimes and the God-hating antitheist socialist ideologies upon which they were founded. Instead of shining a spotlight on the tyranny and horrors of Communism and thereby helping to diminish it by focusing world attention on it, they instead acted as Communism's intellectual bodyguards. Still to this day not much is said in academia or the major media about the biggest mass-slaughters by far in human history.

From Wiki  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics 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 the Final Anthropic Principle, (FAP), the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle is "pure speculation" with no claim on any special methodological status, despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle", but considers the Omega Point hypothesis to be an interesting philosophical hypothesis in its own right. Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable". A review in the New York Times described Tipler's "final anthropic principle" argument as "rather circular"

[James Redford]

59 minutes ago, Eman_3 said:

From Wiki  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics 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 the Final Anthropic Principle, (FAP), the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle is "pure speculation" with no claim on any special methodological status, despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle", but considers the Omega Point hypothesis to be an interesting philosophical hypothesis in its own right. Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable". A review in the New York Times described Tipler's "final anthropic principle" argument as "rather circular"

Hi, Eman_3. As I said above:

That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

As far as anyone knows, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is correct. No one has ever been able to devise a valid argument against it, despite many vainglorious attempts. The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's 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:

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.

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.)

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.

Concerning Martin Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and 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 (Dec. 4, 1986), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4946 , https://webcitation.org/67Fw7SAdg . In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986), https://archive.is/QXsv3 , https://webcitation.org/6c7ZmxVbU .

[Eman_3]

11 hours ago, James Redford said:

Hi, Eman_3. As I said above:

That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

For the scientific process, someone publishes a paper. Then it is peer reviewed. That is when the publisher's peers examine, and either support or criticize the paper. If fellow scientists find holes in the argument and offer harsh criticism, then it is not a matter of popularity, but that fellow scientists believe the published paper is not worth accepting as valid.

 

This is what happened.