Video: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler on the Cosmological Singularity, a.k.a. God

In the following video, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler discusses some of the aspects of the Cosmological Singularity, otherwise known as God:

* "Frank Tipler: The Singularity", Discovery Science ( youtube.com/user/DiscoveryScienceNews ), June 29, 2019


Christianity is objectively correct so far as can be rationally known, and to the extent that other religions/philosophies contradict it, to that extent they are incorrect. The totality of all science has been a mostly-unwitting exercise in proving Christianity correct. The people who developed the various fields of modern science for the most part weren't consciously attempting to prove Christianity true, yet they nonetheless ended up doing so. To wit:

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 Prof. 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/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

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, Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate - Pastebin.com , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate - Pastebin.… , 【魚拓】Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate - Pastebin.com .

For the historical reliability of Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection and the untenability of theories which deny his resurrection, see:

* Prof. William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ", Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought, Vol. 1 (1985), pp. 89-95, WebCite query result , Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrec… .

For more on the historicity of Jesus Christ's resurrection, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 3rd ed., 2008), Ch. 8: "The Resurrection of Jesus", pp. 333-404, particularly pp. 360 ff.

Regarding the Christ myth theory, virtually all the items which the Christ myth theorists claim as facts which show the parallels of Christianity with earlier pagan religions are completely fabricated modern claims that can't be found in the historical record. For an excellent discussion on this, see the following video:

* "Shattering the Christ Myth", DrCraigJohnson (YouTube), Apr. 17, 2009, Shattering the Christ Myth - YouTube . Mirror: "Veritas Forum: Shattering the Christ Myth", Bethel Christian Fellowship, 26:39 min:sec, https://www.bit chute.com/video/Uo1HFlDMDhtS/ , http://bethelchristianfellowship.info/flash_media/jp3ChristMythCopyCat.m4v , https://bit.ly/2PzXxtV .

The above video is an interview of James Patrick Holding (editor of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008], https://amazon.com/dp/1606472712 ) by Dr. Craig Johnson on the topic of the Christ myth theory. See also the below resources regarding the Christ myth theory on J. P. Holding's website:

* "Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry, http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20190111041306/http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html .

* "Did Jesus exist?", op. cit., http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20190611232716/http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html .

* * * * *

As Prof. Tipler points out in the first video above, rejecting empirical science is how the physics community is handling what is for them this discomfiting outcome. 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 aforecited "Physics of God" article.

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

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://www.christianforums.com/threads/societal-sadomasochism.8111033/ , https://web.archive.org/web/2019041...s.com/threads/societal-sadomasochism.8111033/ , https://archive.is/85XlV .

 

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

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

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

As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate - Pastebin.com , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate - Pastebin.… , 【魚拓】Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate - Pastebin.com .

 

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't give arguments in the first video that I provided in my originating post of this thread. That wasn't the point of the video. Rather, Tipler was describing the results of standard physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. The point of the video was to let people know about said results so that they could research the matter further.

Moreover, Prof. Tipler is one of the principal supporters of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics, since it is mathematically required by Quantum Mechanics. What Tipler rejects are the ensemble multiverse theories, whereby different universes have different laws of physics, of which there has never been any evidence for.

And yes, physicists rejecting empirical science because they do not like that it proves God's existence is an extreme form of psychopathy. One is on tenuous grounds in arguing that humans--particularly those in positions of supposed authority--behave rationally, as humans are genocidal, mass-raping apes. For the evolutionary psychological details regarding the extreme psychopathy and schizophrenia of mankind, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism | Christian Forums .

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

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

You are revealing your own subconscious sadomasochistic desire to be existentially hurt and to have others existentially hurt with your knee-jerk dismissal of what is the most existentially important topic that could logically ever exist. Somebody who actually cared about themself or others would make it a point to learn all they could about this matter, since it is simply the standard physics that has been confirmed by every experiment; and certainly wouldn't flippantly dismiss it out of hand.

To deliberately avoid what is logically the most important of all issues is to actively seek pain eternal for oneself. Such a state can only come about due to some subset program within the mind having gone horribly awry. It's no different in principle than purposefully sticking one's hand into a running meat-grinder--only far worse, as what consequences there are to be had in losing one's hand are to be incurred on this mortal coil, of which is finitary in duration.

The naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seek to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my above article entitled "Societal Sadomasochism".

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T, WebCite query result . 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, WebCite query result .

* 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, WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X, https://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H, https://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS .

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://dauns01.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer [Publisher], "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my following two articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , http://www.freezepage.com/1560446695DXLEZNRPJS .

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

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

 

See my above reply to Bungle_Bear.

 

You see. You're calling the most existentially important information that could logically exist "dross". You're evincing a strong sadomasochistic tendency toward self-destruction and social destruction.

The naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seek to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism | Christian Forums .

I already provided many peer-reviewed papers published in leading physics and science journals of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Yet you theophobes aren't interested in this extensively peer-reviewed mathematical theorem of God's existence per standard physics. If you're not interested in this extensively peer-reviewed result, you're not going to care about any other peer-reviewed research except as it already conforms to your false nihilistic Weltanschauung, as it doesn't get any better than a mathematical theorem.

Further:

Please provide peer-reviewed research that multiply stabbing monkeys may adversely affect their health. Viz.:

* "Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys", The Onion ( youtube.com/user/TheOnion ), Mar. 3, 2008

Mirror: "Study: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys", The Onion, July 16, 2007, https://www.theonion.com/study-multiple-stab-wounds-may-be-harmful-to-monkeys-1819594625 .

The point being: if you hit your thumb with a hammer, do you need a peer-reviewed paper telling you that it hurts? If you knock a drinking glass off a table and it shatters, do you need a peer-reviewed paper telling you that glass tends to break when hit hard? In turning a moving car's steering-wheel to the left, do you need a peer-reviewed paper to tell you that it tends to make the car turn left?

The word *science* simply means *knowledge*, with the allusion of both true and useful information. As such, peer-review has nothing per se to do with gaining true and useful information: at its best, it can merely act as a filter against untrue and/or unuseful information; at worst, it can act as a filter against true and useful information. However, something is true independent of whether or not it has ever undergone peer-review. What we should be interested in is gaining genuine knowledge by whatever (ethical) means it is acquired.

There's also a circular bootstrapping problem with this jejune idea of peer-review as somehow constituting an epistemology. If that were the case, nothing could ever be peer-reviewed in the first place, since the peer-reviewers would first need an idea or result to have been peer-reviewed before they would consider it.

Rather, we should use the same methodology that good peer-reviewers themselves would use in assessing an idea or result: i.e., logic, evidence and reason. In other words, it is the duty of everyone who strives to be something more than an uncomprehending troglodyte to become peer-reviewers themselves--and indeed, to the extent that we are conscious at all, we are all already peer-reviewers, though we should all make a more systematic effort in this direction. Even the cave-dwellers of ye olden times were peer-reviewers, yet not necessarily systematic or good ones.

Though to address you on this matter, I will emphasize again:

This is the same Western academia that defended and covered-up for the USSR and Mao Tse-tung's China. During which time the Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects, while the Communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own noncombatant subjects.

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

They were too busy worshiping the government as their God instead of actually worshiping God. There's an old saying that runs thus: There has only ever existed one Christian, and mankind crucified that guy. Gilbert Keith Chesterton put it this way (from Part 1, Ch. 5: "The Unfinished Temple", in What's Wrong With the World [New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1910]):

""
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.
""

Only if they subconsciously (or consciously) intend their own self-destruction and the destruction of others, since your provisos certainly do not apply in this case. As I said:

I already provided many peer-reviewed papers published in leading physics and science journals of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Yet you theophobes aren't interested in this extensively peer-reviewed mathematical theorem of God's existence per standard physics. If you're not interested in this extensively peer-reviewed result, you're not going to care about any other peer-reviewed research except as it already conforms to your false nihilistic Weltanschauung, as it doesn't get any better than a mathematical theorem.

It's difficult for those engaged in nihilistic self-destruction to imagine that there could be a better way, i.e., the Way of Christ, which is the Way of Heavenly Salvation.

Here's a pretty song about that:

* "KMFDM - Salvation", John Smith ( youtube.com/user/ExNetsle ), Oct. 19, 2014,
Mirror: "KMFDM - Salvation", DesaadOfficial, Oct. 15, 2014, youtube.com/watch?v=JawrnS3yON4 . Mirror: "KMFDM - Salvation", Fuegoyplata, Jan. 22, 2015, youtube.com/watch?v=2jJcFljK8ys .

 

Actually, it's the most interesting information that could logically exist. Rather, you are not interested in learning information that would save you, as your inner-demons have too strong a hold on you at present. The naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seek to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism | Christian Forums .

 

As if I am to believe that you went through the many peer-reviewed papers published in leading physics and science journals of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem that I provided, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Rather, you are not interested in learning information that would save you, as your inner-demons have too strong a hold on you at present. The naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seek to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism | Christian Forums .

 

Has it never occurred to you that I already addressed those faulty criticisms in the very writings of mine that I directed everyone to? That's a little thing we here in the biz call prolepsis, or procatalepsis. I address them in Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26-28 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/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , FreezePage .

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.

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), WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP by Martin Gardner | The New York Review of Books , WebCite query result .

 

Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God (NKJV):

""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
""

You are substituting God's laws for your own or other people's *a priori* desires as to how the world should be, an epistemological methodology that was the basis of Aristotelianism. You are in effect saying that you know better than God how the world actually works, and that God's laws aren't good enough--that God doesn't know what He is doing. Yet as Paul quite clearly points out in his rebuke of that position, even God's transcendent invisible and eternal attributes can be known by a study of physical reality. After all, the laws of nature are God's laws. In studying God's laws, one is necessarily studying the intellect of God.

Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.

Per your epistemic methodology, rejecting empirical science is precisely how the physics community is handling this discomfiting 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

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

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Free State Project Forum, May 31, 2018, Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism , 【魚拓】Societal Sadomasochism .