God's Existence Is a Mathematical Theorem within Standard Physics

[Mike Mclees]

I think this thread tries to complicate truth with math. 

The earth exists. That is an absolute truth

The universe exists. That is an absolute truth 

Jesus said you must be born again of the spirit. That is not just a statement or rule, but an absolute truth. God does not need math to prove His existence. He is God and that is an absolute truth

[James Redford]

13 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

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.

You should be joyously thrilled to learn that your above statement is not "what happened", Eman_3. So relax, Eman_3, God exists, and has been proven to exist in standard physics.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, has been extensively peer-reviewed and found to be correct as a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (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.

* 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, https://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* 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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://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, https://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, https://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://dauns01.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, https://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, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/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 following two articles:

* 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 , http://www.freezepage.com/1560446695DXLEZNRPJS .

* 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 only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, 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. 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].)

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.

[Eman_3]

1 hour ago, James Redford said:

You should be joyously thrilled to learn that your above statement is not "what happened", Eman_3. So relax, Eman_3, God exists, and has been proven to exist in standard physics.

Referees? Passed? So what if they found the math to be correct, that does not substaniate the assumption. Tipler founded his assertion on an unlikely hypothetical scenario, that various forms of intelligent life pervaded the entire universe and found a way to reverse the expansion. That alone raises a lot of red flags, since this universe has expanded to the point where if you started at one end of the universe and set out towards the other side, you would never get there because of expansion.

In theory practice is possible. In practice, theory may not align with reality.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

 That is not just a statement or rule, but an absolute truth. God does not need math to prove His existence. He is God and that is an absolute truth

And we have a winner.

[James Redford]

Eman_3 wrote:

""
Referees? Passed? ...
""

Correct. All of the papers by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler on his Omega Point cosmology which I cited above are published peer-reviewed papers that passed the referee process, a number of which to leading physics and science journals.

""
... So what if they found the math to be correct, that does not substaniate the assumption. Tipler founded his assertion on an unlikely hypothetical scenario, that various forms of intelligent life pervaded the entire universe and found a way to reverse the expansion. That alone raises a lot of red flags, since this universe has expanded to the point where if you started at one end of the universe and set out towards the other side, you would never get there because of expansion.

In theory practice is possible. In practice, theory may not align with reality.
""

The only assumption made for Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which 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].)

The other aspects of the Omega Point cosmology, such as sapient life taking control over all matter, are conclusions required in order for the aforesaid known physical laws to remain unviolated--not assumptions.

Regarding sapient life overcoming event horizons, this will be accomplished by such species having been independently evolved on average roughly once every Hubble volume. The universe is logically forced to end at the Omega Point by the known laws of physics. That is, the future is controlling the present every bit as much as the past is controlling the present. One can additionally think of it as all of reality flowing backward in time from the Omega Point.

Mankind can no more prevent the Omega Point than they can fly to the moon by flapping their arms, as physical law prohibits both. For much more on this, see 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, 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?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

Edited December 14, 2019 by James Redford

[James Redford]

On 12/13/2019 at 10:08 AM, Mike Mclees said:

I think this thread tries to complicate truth with math. 

The earth exists. That is an absolute truth

The universe exists. That is an absolute truth 

Jesus said you must be born again of the spirit. That is not just a statement or rule, but an absolute truth. God does not need math to prove His existence. He is God and that is an absolute truth

Traditional Christianity has been at the forefront of using the latest science of the day to prove God's existence, such as with Anselm's *Proslogion* and Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways. Indeed, natural science as a systematic discipline is the invention of Christendom, as is the university system. For more on this, see Sec. 6: "Science Comes Home", pp. 33-35 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560446695DXLEZNRPJS .

Christians in this Godless age continuously cut their own feet out from under themselves before they even bother standing up. They've made the proverbial Faustian bargain with this world--in this case, what evolutionary biologist Prof. Stephen Jay Gould termed the "non-overlapping magisteria": that if they just cede ground regarding scientific matters to the God-haters, that said theophobes won't interfere with the Christians' theological concerns.

Though Satan must always betray in his pacts. The God-haters have come to lie, steal, enslave, torture, rape and murder--and all that on a mass-scale. Attempts to appease them result in mass-horrors.

Yet why would Christians believe the same God-hating intelligentsia that gave us the horrors of Communism and Nazism (and other forms of socialism), to name a few of their many horrific societal gifts? Once one buys into their false premise, one has already lost. And I'm not talking about merely debates. One has lost society. One has lost souls. This false premise is straight out of the pit of Hell. So stop believing it, those who dare call themselves Christians. Stop believing the serial-killers of societies. They set up a trap, and naïve Christians willingly fall into it. The consequences are rotting corpses stacked as far as the eye can see. Stop being a participatory party to your own rape and slaughter. Stop fashioning your own noose.

Christians in this age have been entranced by this demonic spell. But it is a lie: for ever since Newton's physics, and especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either separately or combined), God has always been a mathematically-unavoidable result. For some of the details on this, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my aforecited "Physics of God" article; and 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://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

[joekhul]

On 12/13/2019 at 1:53 PM, Eman_3 said:

Referees? Passed? So what if they found the math to be correct, that does not substaniate the assumption. Tipler founded his assertion on an unlikely hypothetical scenario, that various forms of intelligent life pervaded the entire universe and found a way to reverse the expansion. That alone raises a lot of red flags, since this universe has expanded to the point where if you started at one end of the universe and set out towards the other side, you would never get there because of expansion.

In theory practice is possible. In practice, theory may not align with reality.

You seem to be mis-understanding what Tipler's assumption is.  The Majority of Modern Physicist refuse to acknowledge the result of their own best tested theories if the result involves any mathematical singularities, or if they cannot renormalize the differential equations.  They look at this as the 'math breaking down' or will just disregard the result at that point as a "to be figured out later".  

Tipler does not do this.

He looks at Einsteins General Theory of Relativity and accepts the math for what it is.  I.E. that the mathematical singularities do exist.  The natural result of this is the Quantum Theory of Gravity developed by DeWitt-Feynman-Weinberg.  However, this was abandoned as the Differential Equations were unable to be renormalized and thus you had infinite terms.  Yet, Professor Tipler does not have problems with this.  You see, he accepts that there will be these unknowables in the Physics, because the math is clear on what they are:  GOD.

James R Redford's posts and Tipler's books go into this much better than I ever could, but just remember, your argument against Tipler above is an Argument against the known laws of Physics.  I.E. you may not understand the fight you are getting in -- which is simply that some physicist refuse to acknowledge the existence of God, even if it means they need to abandon their best tested Theories.

Sabrine Hossenfelder discusses Quantum Gravity (Theory of Everything), it's comeback and it's issue:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-an-old-theory-of-everything-is-gaining-new-life-20180108/

 

[Paul James]

On 4/12/2019 at 10:36 AM, James Redford said:

For how the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem uniquely conform to, and precisely match, Christian theology:

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

As well, 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.

Quite literally, the cosmological 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.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following two articles:

* 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 .

* 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@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 .

God created the law of Physics, and that makes Him greater.  So to try and fit God into the law of physics is to try and fit the all-powerful, almighty God into His own creation.   I think that to say God is the law of physics is a kind of Pantheism which many atheistic evolutionists hold -that God is everything in the universe.

So, we cannot find God through Physics, in the same way that we cannot identify who made the computer I am working on by the computer itself.   We need to look elsewhere by researching the brand of computer, and who first designed it.  In the same way, we have to approach God more directly, and the only way we can do that is to consult the written record that He gave to 66 authors about Himself.  As Jesus said, we need to believe Moses and the Prophets, (the written Scriptures) to show that God is really there and He is a communicating God.

All we can know through Physics is how the universe works, but we cannot identify the creator through Physics.

[joekhul]

On 5/2/2020 at 9:48 PM, Paul James said:

God created the law of Physics, and that makes Him greater.  So to try and fit God into the law of physics is to try and fit the all-powerful, almighty God into His own creation.   I think that to say God is the law of physics is a kind of Pantheism which many atheistic evolutionists hold -that God is everything in the universe.

So, we cannot find God through Physics, in the same way that we cannot identify who made the computer I am working on by the computer itself.   We need to look elsewhere by researching the brand of computer, and who first designed it.  In the same way, we have to approach God more directly, and the only way we can do that is to consult the written record that He gave to 66 authors about Himself.  As Jesus said, we need to believe Moses and the Prophets, (the written Scriptures) to show that God is really there and He is a communicating God.

All we can know through Physics is how the universe works, but we cannot identify the creator through Physics.

You are missing what is being say.  God is an irrefutable consequence of the Laws of Physics.  This does not mean that God is contained by Physics, and that his entire presence is defined by it.  This only means that the Lord's existence is necessary for it.  I.E. if you believe in the Laws of Physics then you must necessarily believe in God.  The mathematics state that the Singularity (which is God), exists OUTSIDE of the Laws of Physics, thus it is supernatural and outside of spacetime.  The Singularity gave rise to Spacetime and every moment / place in it is part of the Singularity.  Which is to say we know from the Math that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and supernatural.  

 

[Mike Mclees]

I would like to say from personal view that in science time began with the B B. I rather believe time has always been infinite As God is infinite both before the B B and throughout eternity.Science time began when objects of mass in the universe came into play so that it could be measured by math and physics. Before.the  visible things of the universe. there would be no physics. Just space. we must see God and time From the infinite view.

 It was asked who made God is a redundant qusetion 

 

 

t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bg