Frank Tipler's Physics of Christianity

[Ben Ziajka]

If you have no idea about the book or Tipler, this is decent intro (be sure to note the link to the first "chapter" [three pages] of the book): http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/search/label/fine%20tuning%20of%20universe

I have no idea how questions end up on Dr. Craig's Q&A, but I think a good question would be what he has to say about the book. I'm pretty sure it would be a critical review about why Tipler is mistaken.

"The Cosmological Singularity is the Judeo-Christian God" - Tipler (pg.1).

[Michael S]

The Singularity is outside the universe. It's transcendent. The Singularity of the space-time theorem is a causal singularity.

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series A, 314 (1970): 529-548. States:

We are now in a position to state the corollary to our theorem.

COROLLARY. A space-time M cannot satisfy causal geodesic completeness if, together with Einsteins equations, the following four conditions hold......We may interpret failure of the geodesic completeness condition in our corollary as virtually a statement that any space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) 'possesses a singularity'.....The implication is virtually, that a space-time satisfying (3.20-3.23) must contain a causal geodesic which possesses no pair of conjugate points....Instead, we see that our theorem implies that some causal geodesic 'enters a singularity' (i.e. is compelled to be geodesically incomplete) before any repeated focusing has time to take place.

Gravitational Singularity-Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia states:

More generally, a spacetime is considered singular, if it is geodesically incomplete......The simplest Big Bang cosmological model contains a causal singularity at (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating bakwards to 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spacial dimensions...

So, at the singularity 0 (the lack of space, time, matter, and energy) there's a CAUSE. This places the CAUSE outside our universe.

So, the corollary of the space-time theorem is that if general relativity accurately describes the dynamics of the universe then there is not only a beginning to space, time, matter, and energy but there must also be a transcendent CAUSAL AGENT that brings the universe into existence.

Since General Relativity has been established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem can be trusted.

[JamesRedford]

The Singularity is outside the universe. It's transcendent. The Singularity of the space-time theorem is a causal singularity.

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series A, 314 (1970): 529-548. States:

We are now in a position to state the corollary to our theorem.

COROLLARY. A space-time M cannot satisfy causal geodesic completeness if, together with Einsteins equations, the following four conditions hold......We may interpret failure of the geodesic completeness condition in our corollary as virtually a statement that any space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) 'possesses a singularity'.....The implication is virtually, that a space-time satisfying (3.20-3.23) must contain a causal geodesic which possesses no pair of conjugate points....Instead, we see that our theorem implies that some causal geodesic 'enters a singularity' (i.e. is compelled to be geodesically incomplete) before any repeated focusing has time to take place.

Gravitational Singularity-Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia states:

More generally, a spacetime is considered singular, if it is geodesically incomplete......The simplest Big Bang cosmological model contains a causal singularity at (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating bakwards to 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spacial dimensions...

So, at the singularity 0 (the lack of space, time, matter, and energy) there's a CAUSE. This places the CAUSE outside our universe.

So, the corollary of the space-time theorem is that if general relativity accurately describes the dynamics of the universe then there is not only a beginning to space, time, matter, and energy but there must also be a transcendent CAUSAL AGENT that brings the universe into existence.

Since General Relativity has been established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem can be trusted.

Thank you, Michael S., for your above contribution. For a great deal more details on the foregoing matters:

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

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

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

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

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

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

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

[jayceeii]

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics.

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:

What is your drive to link physics with the Bible? To say a singularity is the cause is not the same as to say a Person is the cause. By what mechanism do you propose the prophets were influenced to precede Hawking and the rest from a poetic standpoint, before the mathematics appeared? Looking over one of your papers, you appear to be claiming that the mathematics of modern physics points to a Personal God, of which Jesus (and the prophets?) was a manifestation, capable of miracles. This appears to be adequate grounds for a new religion. How is that coming along? Have you gathered any followers? My guess would have been the current state of the math does not point to the Creator, the only miracles that are real are those that we already see all around us, and that the prophets are of celestial origin. I also do not have any followers.

[JamesRedford]

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics.

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:

What is your drive to link physics with the Bible? To say a singularity is the cause is not the same as to say a Person is the cause. By what mechanism do you propose the prophets were influenced to precede Hawking and the rest from a poetic standpoint, before the mathematics appeared? Looking over one of your papers, you appear to be claiming that the mathematics of modern physics points to a Personal God, of which Jesus (and the prophets?) was a manifestation, capable of miracles. This appears to be adequate grounds for a new religion. How is that coming along? Have you gathered any followers? My guess would have been the current state of the math does not point to the Creator, the only miracles that are real are those that we already see all around us, and that the prophets are of celestial origin. I also do not have any followers.

My intention is to make everyone Christians.

For those who already call themselves Christians, my intention is to make them far more effective Christians. As it pertains to apologetics, 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.

Yet 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.

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 my aforecited "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech" article.)

I intend with my writings to demolish the aforesaid spell: to unbewitch the bewitched; to perform a societal exorcism.

[jayceeii]

My intention is to make everyone Christians.

For those who already call themselves Christians, my intention is to make them far more effective Christians. As it pertains to apologetics, 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.

Yet 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.

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 my aforecited "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech" article.)

I intend with my writings to demolish the aforesaid spell: to unbewitch the bewitched; to perform a societal exorcism.

I have a hunch that you are correct that the math will eventually point to God, but I’m a bit skeptical that you have already achieved it, unless you can sway the other physicists. This is why I asked if you had a following. Reading in your paper some more I saw that you think you had a direct vision of Jesus asking you to do this work, and if so, where are the fruits? When God commands, won’t there be success? If it isn’t succeeding, why not?

Can you give a specific example of where the Christians are at fault? You say that they have been entranced by a demonic spell, that they’re cutting their own feet out from under themselves, and that they’re ceding ground to the God-haters, but for lack of an example I don’t know what you mean. Is there a specific doctrine you fault, or a specific branch of Christianity? The Catholics and Protestants are divided in interpreting science, yet you claim to see a way to attack the whole of Christianity, in every sect. What is it?

I used to think Christianity could be set on a right footing, but that period was very brief. I no longer accept that Jesus performed any miracles, or that Christianity saves anyone. You seem to be intent on saving this religion, where I gave up on it. Yet I’d say if you succeed in saving Christianity, you haven’t succeeded in saving Christians. You seem very sharp. Can you point me to the scripture where Jesus promised exactly that men could go to Heaven after one lifetime? He never said it, and the doctrine came from Paul.

[JamesRedford]

My intention is to make everyone Christians.

For those who already call themselves Christians, my intention is to make them far more effective Christians. As it pertains to apologetics, 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.

Yet 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.

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 my aforecited "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech" article.)

I intend with my writings to demolish the aforesaid spell: to unbewitch the bewitched; to perform a societal exorcism.

I have a hunch that you are correct that the math will eventually point to God, but I’m a bit skeptical that you have already achieved it, unless you can sway the other physicists. This is why I asked if you had a following. Reading in your paper some more I saw that you think you had a direct vision of Jesus asking you to do this work, and if so, where are the fruits? When God commands, won’t there be success? If it isn’t succeeding, why not?

Can you give a specific example of where the Christians are at fault? You say that they have been entranced by a demonic spell, that they’re cutting their own feet out from under themselves, and that they’re ceding ground to the God-haters, but for lack of an example I don’t know what you mean. Is there a specific doctrine you fault, or a specific branch of Christianity? The Catholics and Protestants are divided in interpreting science, yet you claim to see a way to attack the whole of Christianity, in every sect. What is it?

I used to think Christianity could be set on a right footing, but that period was very brief. I no longer accept that Jesus performed any miracles, or that Christianity saves anyone. You seem to be intent on saving this religion, where I gave up on it. Yet I’d say if you succeed in saving Christianity, you haven’t succeeded in saving Christians. You seem very sharp. Can you point me to the scripture where Jesus promised exactly that men could go to Heaven after one lifetime? He never said it, and the doctrine came from Paul.

You are an extraordinarily confused person with severe reading-comprehension problems. I am not physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler. That is readily apparent to anyone who hasn't been driven blind with hatred against truth.

The only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 it. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the aforesaid known laws of physics.[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. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, https://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit .)

* 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 previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.host56.com .

As said, 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.

[jayceeii]

You are an extraordinarily confused person with severe reading-comprehension problems. I am not physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler. That is readily apparent to anyone who hasn't been driven blind with hatred against truth.

The only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 it. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the aforesaid known laws of physics.[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.

jr: You are an extraordinarily confused person with severe reading-comprehension problems.

jc: This is a surprisingly vicious accusation where you fail to establish cause, showing it reflects on you, not on me.

jr:I am not physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler.

jc:I did not say you were Tipler. I was referring to your 200 page paper published in 2012, to which you provided a link and where you seemed conversant with the math of the physicists. You now seem to be distancing yourself, admitting the math to be beyond you.

jr: That is readily apparent to anyone who hasn't been driven blind with hatred against truth.

jc: Again, your anger is directed at a straw man, as you have misinterpreted my words. Who is really blind with hatred, here?

jr: The only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 it. 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].)

jc: As you insist only extreme irrationality can argue against this point, I’d again ask why the other physicists (besides Tipler, not yourself), are not swayed. Hawking is misquoted here, who was an atheist. Unless yours is the only rational mind on Earth, other rational minds should hear and accept what you argue to be the truth, if you can argue effectively.

jr: Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the aforesaid known laws of physics.[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.

jc: With just a quick check on Wikipedia I found this: “Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics.” And this: “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’”

In any case I was not arguing against you, since I believe mathematics will eventually point to God, but instead asking for clarification of some of your points. What is the specific fault that you see in Christendom? Which of the preachers has offended you?

[JamesRedford]

You are an extraordinarily confused person with severe reading-comprehension problems. I am not physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler. That is readily apparent to anyone who hasn't been driven blind with hatred against truth.

The only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 it. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the aforesaid known laws of physics.[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.

jr: You are an extraordinarily confused person with severe reading-comprehension problems.

jc: This is a surprisingly vicious accusation where you fail to establish cause, showing it reflects on you, not on me.

It is your inner-demons who are vicious. A simple "Thank you" by you would have sufficed.

For more on that, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", *Free State Project Forum*, May 31, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20190419171853/https://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28925.0 , https://archive.is/Flah8
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0420-0219-34/forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28925.0 .

jr:I am not physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler.

jc:I did not say you were Tipler. I was referring to your 200 page paper published in 2012, to which you provided a link and where you seemed conversant with the math of the physicists. You now seem to be distancing yourself, admitting the math to be beyond you.

You said, "I have a hunch that you are correct that the math will eventually point to God, but I’m a bit skeptical that you have already achieved it, unless you can sway the other physicists."

It is not I who has achieved this result, nor am I a physicist. That would be physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler.

Nor did I "admit[]" any such thing. Your demons are getting the better of you again. I understand the Omega Point Theorem quite well, as anyone who isn't blind with hatred can see for themselves by reading 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 .

jr: That is readily apparent to anyone who hasn't been driven blind with hatred against truth.

jc: Again, your anger is directed at a straw man, as you have misinterpreted my words. Who is really blind with hatred, here?

jr: The only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 it. 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].)

jc: As you insist only extreme irrationality can argue against this point, I’d again ask why the other physicists (besides Tipler, not yourself), are not swayed. Hawking is misquoted here, who was an atheist. Unless yours is the only rational mind on Earth, other rational minds should hear and accept what you argue to be the truth, if you can argue effectively.

Humans are mentally-retarded apes. Humans are apes, and so act as apes. That humans are a great deal brighter than their closest Great Ape cousins, the chimpanzees, still doesn't diminish that humans are severely mentally-retarded creatures--as compared to what truth is. Humans are ornery goats against the truth--i.e., Jesus Christ--and docile lambs to horrifically-destructive lies.

Humans are vicious and malicious; violent and pernicious. Humans are truly sick and vile creatures. And that's the supposed "good" ones--other than the immortal Messiah.

In Christian theology, this is known as original sin.

Humans are a criminally-insane lot possessed by demons. So-called "normal" people, especially those in positions of power and influence, readily accept genocide, mutilating torture and lifelong mass-gang-rape done in their name. For the evolutionary psychological reasons for that, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", *Free State Project Forum*, May 31, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20190419171853/https://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28925.0 , https://archive.is/Flah8
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0420-0219-34/forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28925.0 .

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

jr: Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the aforesaid known laws of physics.[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.

jc: With just a quick check on Wikipedia I found this: “Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics.” And this: “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’”

In any case I was not arguing against you, since I believe mathematics will eventually point to God, but instead asking for clarification of some of your points. What is the specific fault that you see in Christendom? Which of the preachers has offended you?

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

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

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

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

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

* Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "The FAP Flop", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (Dec. 4, 1986), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4946 , https://webcitation.org/67Fw7SAdg . In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986), https://archive.is/QXsv3 , https://webcitation.org/6c7ZmxVbU .