No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

[Abdul Alhazred]

No, Atheist Scientists Are Incompetent
PJ Media

From a right wing (though not specifically creationist) site, and the argument itself is pretty much the usual {!#%@}.

The gold is down in the comment thread.

Here's a sample:

... So, what you're saying is let's start the debate by choosing a definition which effectively ends the debate from the start. ...

[Flash]

Oh, Frank J. Tipler the Christian nutcase who doesn't know a good argument from a bad one. He accuses the atheist Lawrence Krauss of not knowing physics:

Lawrence Krauss is a physicist in name only. I’ve debated him in the past, and I know he does not understand either quantum mechanics or general relativity.

Lawrence Krauss happens to be one of more prominent physicists in the academia today. I think he is at the University of Waterloo in Ontario and a member of prestigious Perimeter Institute there. And he is a friend of Dawkins.

Look how Tipler starts his proof of the existence of God.

Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity.

Oh, WTF, it's all clear now Tipler tells us, God is a supernatural being who created the Universe and who is aka the cosmological singularity (or to people like us Jeebus)

Who needs {!#%@} proofs and evidence. Tipler's assumptions are all we need. From here he shows that any self respecting physicist has got to know that the cosmological singularities exist therefore God exists.

The cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause, which is how Thomas Aquinas (“The Five Ways”) and Maimonides (“The Guide for the Perplexed”) defined “God.” All competent Christian and Jewish theologians have known for the past 2,000 years that God in His essence is not an old man wearing a white gown. One of the greatest Christian theologians, John Chrysostom, said that no created being can see God as He really is. So He appears to us in a form we can comprehend, often as an old guy wearing a white sheet.

So now, according to Tipler, the cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause and we know for sure from that bubonic times religious fanatic named Thomas Aquinas that this is indeed god. And God, reveals Tipler, does not really wear white, flowing gowns people he just likes to look like he does.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Oh, Frank J. Tipler the Christian nutcase ...

Good denunciation fodder, eh?

Never heard of him before, but I'll be on the lookout.

[Flash]

From Wiki;

Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. Some have argued that it is pseudoscience.[3] He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine.

So, if anyone wants to know the truth about the resurection of the dead, the time machine and the Omega point go to Tipler. On the other hand;

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]

[JamesRedford]

No, Atheist Scientists Are Incompetent
PJ Media

From a right wing (though not specifically creationist) site, and the argument itself is pretty much the usual {!#%@}.

The gold is down in the comment thread.

Here's a sample:

... So, what you're saying is let's start the debate by choosing a definition which effectively ends the debate from the start. ...

Hi, Abdul Alhazred. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's argument given in his above-cited article entitled "No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent: Lawrence Krauss' claim -- all scientists must be 'militant atheists' -- conveniently fails to address the universe's origin" (PJ Media, Sept. 25, 2015) is not "{!#%@}" (sic), but rather a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics.

GuaniloDC's quote which you provide is correct: Prof. Tipler's argument absolutely does end the debate. Rejoice: physics unavoidably says that God exists. And that of course is what any sane person wants: the debate not only ended, but ended in mankind's favor--for the alternative is eternal extinction.

The definition of God which Prof. Tipler gives in his aforesaid article is a quidditative definition of God. That is to say, said definition identifies a haecceity, i.e., a property which differentiates a thing from all other things that are not that thing. If *a thing* has even a single haecceity given by the word's definition, then *by definition* that thing is *the thing* to which the word refers, as the haecceity (or haecceities) uniquely *defines* a thing.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals, is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) 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, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Said known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE 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 Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. 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/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

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 ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

* * * * *

A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being.

As Prof. Tipler noted, "Any cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, "A Physicist Proposes a Theory of Eternal Life that Yields God", Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 [Oct. 1994], pp. 89 ff. [8 pp.].) This means that, e.g., any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.

Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences.

Consequently, transhumanism--if the goal by that position is immortality--is inherently theistic, not only in a lowercase-G god sense, but also in the capital-G God sense.

Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded. Thus, to believe that evolution has a finite cut-off would be to hold a belief without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief.

The concept of man being gods and becoming ever-more Godlike is simply traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings (e.g., see John 10:34), that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)", Wikipedia, Oct. 6, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =684362358 . Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been deemphasized for the last millennium.

Indeed, the words "transhuman" and "superhuman" originated in Christian theology. "Transhuman" is a neologism coined by Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72), referring favorably to a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin of the term "superhuman", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.), the first appearance being by Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, in his Al Mondo: Contemplatio Mortis, & Immortalitatis (London, England: Robert Barker, and the Assignes of John Bill, 1636).

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

The above is a good example of why I quit an Atheists Forum as it was overrun with theist arguments of the type shown. Complete word vomit. Makes me want to throw up again.....................

[scrmbldggs]

...a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant...

Ha, courtesy of our recent shroomacle, I read several accounts of visionary partaking and imbibing in special he or she brews - Rainbow Magic, the other Green Tea.

[JamesRedford]

Oh, Frank J. Tipler the Christian nutcase who doesn't know a good argument from a bad one. ...

Hi, Flash. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661, http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs ). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

After the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, 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), of 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].)

... He accuses the atheist Lawrence Krauss of not knowing physics:

Lawrence Krauss is a physicist in name only. I’ve debated him in the past, and I know he does not understand either quantum mechanics or general relativity.

Lawrence Krauss happens to be one of more prominent physicists in the academia today. I think he is at the University of Waterloo in Ontario and a member of prestigious Perimeter Institute there. And he is a friend of Dawkins.

Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss is a particle physicist. Whereas Prof. 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.

I give commentary on Prof. Krauss's 2007 debate with Prof. Tipler in the following resource:

* 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 ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

Look how Tipler starts his proof of the existence of God.

Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity.

Oh, WTF, it's all clear now Tipler tells us, God is a supernatural being who created the Universe and who is aka the cosmological singularity (or to people like us Jeebus)

Who needs {!#%@} proofs and evidence. Tipler's assumptions are all we need. From here he shows that any self respecting physicist has got to know that the cosmological singularities exist therefore God exists.

The cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause, which is how Thomas Aquinas (“The Five Ways”) and Maimonides (“The Guide for the Perplexed”) defined “God.” All competent Christian and Jewish theologians have known for the past 2,000 years that God in His essence is not an old man wearing a white gown. One of the greatest Christian theologians, John Chrysostom, said that no created being can see God as He really is. So He appears to us in a form we can comprehend, often as an old guy wearing a white sheet.

So now, according to Tipler, the cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause and we know for sure from that bubonic times religious fanatic named Thomas Aquinas that this is indeed god. And God, reveals Tipler, does not really wear white, flowing gowns people he just likes to look like he does.

Regarding 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 cosmology 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 article, in addition to my previously-cited 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/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

[JamesRedford]

From Wiki;

Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. Some have argued that it is pseudoscience.[3] He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine.

So, if anyone wants to know the truth about the resurection of the dead, the time machine and the Omega point go to Tipler. On the other hand;

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]

Regarding Prof. George Ellis's criticism, to date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. 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.

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 , 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), https://archive.is/QXsv3 , http://webcitation.org/6c7ZmxVbU .

Prof. 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 Physics of Christianity" (Preposterous Universe, May 30, 2007), see my reply to Carroll within his blog-post page entitled "The Varieties of Crackpot Experience" (Discover Blogs; and Preposterous Universe, Jan. 5, 2009), http://webcitation.org/5yDcRx6IZ , https://archive.is/56z3C .

Nor, contrary to what Dr. Carroll claimed, is Prof. Tipler a "crackpot". Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws. Under this rational definition of what a "crackpot" is within the discipline of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots.

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.

Bear in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). 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].) 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. For much more on the foregoing matters, 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/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

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 ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .