Seriously, what would an “immortal superintelligent human-mind computer” look like in an equation? Where does that even come from? Can you just briefly give me the logic behind it, in words rather than mathematics?
Pretty sure he’s moved on. He has posted the same thing all over the internet for years. I haven’t found once where he responds to any feedback in any reasonable manner. It’s not discussion, it’s just marketing for his book.
I see you’ve been publishing this stuff all over the place for years. These posts look look about the same as posts from 2012. It is more likely that this is some sort of automated response than a real person. He, or whatever he is, has been shown articles many times that refute FAP, so his statement that it has never been refuted is ridiculous. Tipler has done other work and been recognized for it, but his stuff about theology gets ignored in the world of physics.Which is what anyone else reading this should do.
Hi, Lausten. I am very much a real person. Nor has the Omega Point cosmology ever been refuted. The Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) in 1997. These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology 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].)
And rejecting empirical science is precisely how the physics community is handling this matter. 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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .
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 .
James Redford. What did Tipler’s apparently uninformed opponent, Lawrence Krauss, have to say? You barely mentioned him. I guess he doesn’t count. Just a guy who wandered in off the street, I guess.
Nothing like a load of confirmation bias.
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and director of its Origins Project, He is known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, of public policy based on sound empirical data, of scientific skepticism and of science education and works to reduce the impact of what he opines as superstition and religious dogma in pop culture.He is also the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing.
Krauss mostly works in theoretical physics and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as “dark energy”. Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from “nothing,” as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. He explains that certain arrangements of relativistic quantum fields might explain the existence of the universe as we know it while disclaiming that he “has no idea if the notion [of taking quantum mechanics for granted] can be usefully dispensed with”. As his model appears to agree with experimental observations of the universe (such as of its shape and energy density), it is referred to as a “plausible hypothesis”.
Initially, Krauss was skeptical of the Higgs mechanism. However, after the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed by CERN, he has been researching the implications of the Higgs field on the nature of dark energy.
Krauss is one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a “public intellectual” and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board’s Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the United States.
Arizona State University
Australian National University
New College of the Humanities
Yale University
Case Western Reserve University
Harvard University
Alma mater
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (PhD)
Carleton University (BSc)
Thesis Gravitation and phase transitions in the early universe (1982)
Known for
Dark energy
Zero-energy modeling
Notable awards
Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
Science Writing Award (2002)
Oersted Medal (2004)
Books
Krauss, Lawrence M. (1989). The fifth essence. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465023752.
Fear Of Physics: A Guide For The Perplexed. 1994. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02367-3
The Physics of Star Trek. 1996. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00559-4
Beyond Star Trek. 1998, Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0060977573
Quintessence The Search For Missing Mass In The Universe. 2000. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03741-0
Atom: An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth…and Beyond. 2002. Black Bay. ISBN 0-316-18309-1
Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond. 2005. Viking. ISBN 0-670-03395-2
Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science. 2011. Norton and Co. ISBN 978-0-393-06471-1
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. 2012. Atria Books. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8
Contributor
100 Things to Do Before You Die (plus a few to do afterwards). 2004. Profile Books.
The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? 2009. Yale Press.
Articles
THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN’T ZERO. 2006. Edge.org
A dark future for cosmology. 2007. Physics World.
The End of Cosmology. 2008. Scientific American.
The return of a static universe and the end of cosmology. 2008. International journal of modern physics.
Late time behavior of false vacuum decay: Possible implications for cosmology and metastable inflating states. 2008. Physical Review Letters.
Krauss, Lawrence M. (June 2010). “Why I love neutrinos”. Scientific American 302 (6): 19. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0610-34.
MediaEdit
Documentary films
The Unbelievers (2013)
The Principle (2014)
TelevisionEdit
How the Universe Works (2010–)
FilmsEdit
London Fields (2015) (cameo)
Awards
Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award in the 1984 Essay Competition
Presidential Investigator Award (1986)
American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000)
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002)
Oersted Medal (2003)
American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005)
Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009)
Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009)
Physics World Book of the Year 2011 for Quantum Man
National Science Board 2012 Public Service Award and Medal (2012)
Premio Roma “Urbs Universalis”, Rome (2013)
Elected as Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism (2013)
AFO (Academia Film Olomouc) Award for Outstanding Personal Contribution to the Popularization of Science, 49th Annual AFO Festival April 19, 2014. Olomouc, Czech Republic
Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award in the 2014 Essay Competition
Humanist of the Year, 2015, American Humanist Association.
Hi, LoisL. Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss is a particle physicist. Whereas physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Global General Relativity (which is General Relativity applied on the scale of the universe as a whole) is the field created by Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems, and it is the most elite and rarefied field of physics.
Further, Prof. Krauss’s criticism of Prof. Tipler is already covered in Sec. 4: “Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology”, pp. 26-28 of my aforecited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
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. 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.)
In school I only got as far as Algebra II and Geometry, and that’s pretty much the extent of my familiarity with mathematics. Yet you claim to have a mathematical proof “demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity”. whew!
I’m sorry but that’s bit hard to swallow. Intelligence, as far as I know, is just an accident of evolution. Even if I accept the idea that of all the billions of planets in the universe, intelligence had to evolve on one of them, that doesn’t guarantee that it will survive for very long without exterminating itself (look at the news; we seem to be doing a damn good job of it!), let alone evolve into some “immortal human-mind computer”. I’m afraid to ask for the logical steps in this idea, because you’ll probably tell me to read one of these long-winded papers and I’ll get buried in mathematics.
Hi, Advocatus. For the details of this mathematical theorem, see Sec. 3: “Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology”, Subsec. 3.1: “The Omega Point”, pp. 12-19 of my aforecited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
Smart kid, Lausten, she just probably doesn’t have the concept of rhyming down, yet. I didn’t at age 4.
But, James, this statement for example:
“... 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.”
Really? In regular person English, you are saying that since somebody came up with a concept of a three part “cosmological singularity”, and since Christianity has a 3 in one deity, Christianity, is therefore the correct religion amongst all of mankind’s religions.
You can dress crap up in an extremely erudite looking and scholastically formatted apparel, but it continues to be, dressed-up crap. I realize that I am sounding harsh, but if you have convinced yourself of all this, take a break, do something useful (or fun) with your formidable intelligence.
Humans can discover physical laws, but they are not responsible for them.
In classical relativistic cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum relativistic cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don’t expand out from the Big Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity.
These three distinct aspects to which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a homoousian triune, i.e., three distinct entities of the same substance (ousia).
Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions. And the Cosmological Singularity has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions.
For more on the inherently triune nature of the Cosmological Singularity, see Sec. 7.3: “The Trinity of God”, pp. 43-45 of my previously-cited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, which also gives many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament; additionally on this topic, see my article “Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss’s Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?”, also previously cited within this thread.
Wow. I guess all of the other trinity-god religions throughout history, were selected and then de-selected.
Or more, likely, you are a victim of the human proclivity for seeing patterns and interpreting them to conveniently fit your worldview.
Hi, TimB. Trinitarianism holds that there is one God (i.e., one substance), Who consists of three Persons (i.e., hypostases)—not multiple Gods.
Occasionally it’s suggested that Hinduism also holds to a concept of a divine Trinity, involving “the ‘triple form’ (trimurti) in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma, Visnu, and Siva respectively.” (See p. 139 of Freda Matchett, Ch. 6: “The Puranas”, in Gavin Flood [Ed.], The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism [Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2003], pp. 129-143.) In actuality, this notion appears to be mostly a case of Westerners’ eagerness to find corollaries with Christianity in other religions. As historian and Indologist Prof. Arthur Llewellyn Basham writes (see pp. 310-311 of A[rthur]. L. Basham, The Wonder that Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before the Coming of the Muslims [New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1959]):
“”
Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really “caught on”. All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa’s hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.
“”
For more on the triune nature of the Cosmological Singularity, see Sec. 7.3: “The Trinity of God”, pp. 43-45 of my previously-cited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, which also gives many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament; additionally on this topic, see my article “Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss’s Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?”, also previously cited within this thread.
This is why you don’t comment on old threads. He has the “notify me” flag set. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn’t know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he’s wrong.
James, You say, “...Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity…” (You say this is because there is a cosmological singularity that consists of a three-aspect structure.)
By the same reasoning, then, shouldn’t 3-legged chairs be in vogue? How come 3-wheel vehicles are not the norm? Shouldn’t a ménage a trois be our primary mode of sexual interactions? For that matter, why don’t most advanced organisms have 3 major appendages rather than 4?
Come to think of it, if you work your cuckoo reasoning backwards, it seems to me that you should be looking for a 4-part “structure of the cosmological singularity” and a religion that has 4 Gods in One. (And when having sexual intercourse, we should always involve 3 other people.)
Hi, Advocatus. For the details of this mathematical theorem, see Sec. 3: “Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology”, Subsec. 3.1: “The Omega Point”, pp. 12-19 of my aforecited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
This is why you don’t comment on old threads. He has the “notify me” flag set. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn’t know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he’s wrong.
You’re right, of course. I just didn’t want him to get away with the (lying or, at best, pathetically erroneous) stunt of saying a lot of science-ish stuff and then saying “therefore”... Christianity is “selected” by all the science-ish stuff.
Of course, this sort of BS would go over well with a niche market of Christians who want to try to make their religion compatible with a more realistic worldview. So we’re probably just helping him market something by encouraging his canned responses.
Of course, this sort of BS would go over well with a niche market of Christians who want to try to make their religion compatible with a more realistic worldview. So we’re probably just helping him market something by encouraging his canned responses.
I see his book is free for e download on google books, yet there are no reviews. I’ve never seen any references to it, except from himself.
My article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.
I went for a walk with a 4 year old yesterday. I taught her the rhyme “See you later alligator, in a while crocodile”. Later, she said, “bye bye alligator” and “see you later crocodile…. joke”. She gets that there is some pattern to how jokes go, but she hasn’t figured out how to repeat it. Having a bibliography and footnotes doesn’t make something scientific.
I’ll look into the rest. I’ve heard of Tipler though and doubt what you say is accurate.
My article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.
I went for a walk with a 4 year old yesterday. I taught her the rhyme “See you later alligator, in a while crocodile”. Later, she said, “bye bye alligator” and “see you later crocodile…. joke”. She gets that there is some pattern to how jokes go, but she hasn’t figured out how to repeat it. Having a bibliography and footnotes doesn’t make something scientific.
I’ll look into the rest. I’ve heard of Tipler though and doubt what you say is accurate.
You’re leading her astray, Lausten. Everybody knows it’s, ” See ya later alligator, AFTER WHILE, crocodile.” She may be ruined forever!
Lois
Agreed. In my childhood experience, it was “after while”. I was being tolerant, however, in assuming that “in a while” was just some northern colloquial divergence. But how are we ever going to have another greatest generation, if our young are subjected to these kind of errors?
This is why you don’t comment on old threads. He has the “notify me” flag set. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn’t know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he’s wrong.
Hi, Lausten. As far as I am aware, I do not have “the ‘notify me’ flag set.” Regarding vital sapient knowledge, including its methodological basis:
One does not simply acquire veridical and systematic knowledge on such subjects as religion, politics, and economics via some process of ætherical osmosis, wherein by merely existing as a human being one absorbs logically and empirically rigorous insight into such subjects. Rather, such erudition can only be obtained by deep readings into those fields—more critically and to the point: readings of those who themselves know whereof they speak, since there is much prattle which flies under the banner of knowledge, including fallacious ideologies which are quite destructive vis-à-vis society. In addition, mere readings do not themselves suffice, even of those writers who are genuinely penetrating. Understanding of what is read is also critical.
Very few people, in relative terms, ever embark upon this course; less still get very far in this journey toward truth. It’s a hard road to travel, so few people bother.
A popular saying runs thus: Ignorance is bliss. In actual fact, ignorance is *not* bliss, because what one does not know will quite often hurt one and one’s loved-ones, and very badly at that. As God imparted to Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6, New King James Version.)
This world is certainly not suffering from an overabundance of truth, but rather quite the opposite: the commonality have been inculcated from birth into massively-destructive lies by those who rule over them. It’s the widespread ignorance of the public which enables the government-created horrors which we have seen and will see far more of.
However, though ignorance be not bliss, ignorance is easy: being ignorant requires no effort.
To quote Prof. Murray N. Rothbard on this matter (from p. 4 of “Anarcho-Communism”, The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 2, No. 1 [Jan. 1, 1970], pp. 1 and 4, http://webcitation.org/6K8WaX5VF ):
“”
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous *opinion* on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
“”
More than just pertaining to economics, the underlying thrust of Prof. Rothbard’s above reproval applies equally to other fields of vital human knowledge, including religion and politics.
If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God’s existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy’s self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.
Item No. 1 is important vis-à-vis salvation for those who maintain that they already believe in Jesus Christ’s Godhead. Items Nos. 2-5 are important in letting atheists, believers in other religions, and nominal ersatz “Christians” know that God as described by the New Testament does exist and that the New Testament is true. Items Nos. 2-5 are additionally important in giving believers in Christ a much deeper understanding of God and of the End Time, so that they may be strengthened in their faith during the extreme horrors to come and so that they will not fall for the deceptions of the Beast governmental system.
My following articles distill all of the most important aspects of veridical human knowledge into a comprehensive, coherent and unified whole: from theology, physics, science, ethics, legal theory, political theory, economics, sociology, epistemology to history.
* 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 .
James, You say, “...Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity…” (You say this is because there is a cosmological singularity that consists of a three-aspect structure.)
By the same reasoning, then, shouldn’t 3-legged chairs be in vogue? How come 3-wheel vehicles are not the norm? Shouldn’t a ménage a trois be our primary mode of sexual interactions? For that matter, why don’t most advanced organisms have 3 major appendages rather than 4?
Come to think of it, if you work your cuckoo reasoning backwards, it seems to me that you should be looking for a 4-part “structure of the cosmological singularity” and a religion that has 4 Gods in One. (And when having sexual intercourse, we should always involve 3 other people.)
TimB - 13 May 2015 01:03 PM
Lausten - 11 May 2015 12:34 PM
This is why you don’t comment on old threads. He has the “notify me” flag set. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn’t know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he’s wrong.
You’re right, of course. I just didn’t want him to get away with the (lying or, at best, pathetically erroneous) stunt of saying a lot of science-ish stuff and then saying “therefore”... Christianity is “selected” by all the science-ish stuff.
Of course, this sort of BS would go over well with a niche market of Christians who want to try to make their religion compatible with a more realistic worldview. So we’re probably just helping him market something by encouraging his canned responses.
Hi, TimB. My full sentence which you above partially quote from was “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.”
It is the parenthetical statement within that full sentence which addresses your above concern. The Cosmological Singularity is intrinsically infinite, and infinity in theology has traditionally been held to be a property unique to God (i.e., God is the only actually-existing infinity in physical reality). The Cosmological Singularity also has all the other unique properties (i.e., haecceities; quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. Hence, by definition, the Cosmological Singularity is God. For details on that, see Sec. 7.1: “The Haecceities of God”, pp. 35 ff. of my aforecited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.