The existence of God cannot be impericaly proven.
This isn't a discussion on physics, it's a theological discussion.
God's Existence Is a Mathematical Theorem within Standard Physics
- Thread starter James Redford
- Start date
This isn't a discussion on physics, it's a theological discussion.
![Blues63](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>){kind=avatar}
Of course not, and I fail to see how physics could 'prove' the existence of such an entity.
I'm so tempted to ape Maxwell Smart with: 'Ah! The old metaphysics and physics switch trick'.
Last edited:
You could in all seriousness greatly benefit from taking a reading-comprehension course. There may be elementary schools in your area which offer such courses to the general public. You should inquire with them to find out.
As I said in my previous response to you on this matter: regarding the accelerating expansion of the universe, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 16 and 18-19 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 , WebCite query result .
Moreover, never in my life have I posted any spam. Indeed, I have nothing for sell, nor have I ever offered anything for sell online. You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.
I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.
Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that 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 said 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].)
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.
You obviously haven't read much about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, since it has nothing in the slightest to do with any traditional Cosmological Argument in apologetics, all of which are based upon a priori reasoning and not on empirical physics.
The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point quantum gravity 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].)
Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)
Hi, CtC. The following is from my second post in this thread (viz., God's Existence Is a Mathematical Theorem within Standard Physics ):
""
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.
""
