The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

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.

---

Trinities exist in other religions, but to even hope you would take an interest in comparative religion and ask why, for example, sacrifice is common to most religions (physically, emotionally, intellectually) would be to ask you to take other relgions seriously, rather than to 'deselect' them because of an eccentric concept in cosmology.

Therefore, since it is amusing and irreverant, and does't scratch the surface, this could be a starting point for comparative religion.

Comparative religion, reduced to basics

Where do we fit in?


Taoism Shit happens
Confucianism Confucius says, "shit happens."
Buddhism If shit happens, it is not really shit.
Zen-Buddhism What is the sound of shit happening?
Hindism This shit happened before.
Islam If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
Protestantism Let shit happen to someone else.
Catholicism If shit happens you deserve it.
Mormonism Shit doesn't happen to us.
Calvinism Shit is predestined to happen.
Presbyterianism Shit happens because it was planned that way.
Unitarianism We will study shit happening
Quakerism Bless the happening of the shit.
Methodism Shit will not happen to you unless you smoke, drink or dance.
Deism Shit happens everywhere
Deveel Whorship You will buy this shit.
Atheism Shit doesn't happen.
Agnosticism I don't know whether shit happens.
Dyslexism Tish happens.
Puritanism Shit happening is God's punishment.
Fundamentalism If the scriptures do not say shit happens, it does not happen.
Secular Humanism It is the fault of society that shit happens.
Liberation Theology It is the fault of the rich that shit happens
Dianetics Why does shit happen? See page 462.
Heaven's Gate Oh, my God! Shit didn't happen!
Communism Shit is required to happen to everybody.
Charasmatic Shit happens. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
New Age Theology Shit happening leads to self awareness.
Existentialism There is nothing except shit happening.
Satanism We make shit happen.
Santaism He's making a shitlist and checking it twice.
TV Evangelism Watch the shit happen. (And please send money to help keep us on the air.)
Jehovah's Witnesses {Knock, knock} Excuse me, may I have five minutes of your time to tell you exactly why shit happens?
Judaism Why does shit always happen to us?
Hippiism Hey, man, try some of this goovy Columbian shit!
Paganism Shit above, shit below.
Wicca Shit will return threefold.
Hare Krishna Shit happens, shit happens, happens happens, shit shit.

http://www.zeff.us/compare.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

Below is an article that I recently wrote. It is published under my legal name. It concerns the Omega Point cosmology by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, which is a proof of God's existence based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

---

quite pretentious isn't it?

you fall into the oldest trap in the book : thinking you know all the answers , you are wrong ......

the history of science is full of examples of those who were sure they knew evetything , until they were proven otherwise ( the earth is flat cried the scientists of the christian church , everyone who think otherwise is retarded............ ) , a true scientist knows that every conclusion arise 10 new unsolved questions.

a true scientist knows that the more facts he knows , the less he realy knows.

but I am just another moron , what do I understand? :dancing:

The late, great science writer Martin Gardner who wrote for the Scientific American for many years together with producing many books debunking fake science had this to say of Frank Tipler's magnum opus referred to regularly by Jamie in a collection of his essays The Night is Large; " I consider this the funniest crank work by a reputable physicist written in this century."

This is the beginning of his review of another book on which Tipler collaborated with the Templeton prize winning British scientist John D Barrow (the prize is awarded annually to those who've done the most to bridge the gulf between science and religion) , published in the NY Review of books in 1986. I have a hard copy but can only post the opening section of the review here.

he Anthropic Cosmological Principle
by John D. Barrow, by Frank J. Tipler, with a foreword by John A. Wheeler
Oxford University Press (Clarendon Press), 706 pp., $29.95

It has been observed that cosmologists are often wrong but seldom uncertain, and the authors of this long, fascinating, exasperating book are no exceptions. They are John Barrow, astronomer at the University of Sussex, and Frank Tipler, Tulane University mathematical physicist. Physicist John Wheeler provides an enthusiastic foreword. No one can plow through this well-written, painstakingly researched tome without absorbing vast chunks of information about QM (quantum mechanics), the latest cosmic models, and the history of philosophical views that bear on the book’s main arguments.

Just what is this “anthropic principle” that has become so fashionable among a minority of cosmologists, and is arousing such passionate controversy? As the authors make clear in their introduction, there is not one principle but four. Each is more speculative than the previous one, with the fourth blasting the authors out of science altogether into clouds of metaphysics and fantasy.

The simplest of the four is called (the authors are fond of acronyms) WAP, or the Weak Anthropic Principle. Although it goes back to Protagoras’s famous declaration that “man is the measure of all things,” its modern cosmological form seems first to have been stated by the physicist Robert Dicke in the late 1950s. As Barrow and Tipler readily admit, it is a trivial tautology, totally noncontroversial. It merely proclaims that because we exist the universe must be so constructed as to allow us to have evolved. The laws of nature clearly must be such as to permit, if not actually force, the formation of CHON (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), the four elements essential to life as we know it.

Does this mean that all life must be carbon based? Although the authors believe this, it does not follow from WAP. Even if there is noncarbon life elsewhere in the universe, the fact that we are carbon imposes a variety of tight restraints on the universe and its past. For example, the cosmos has to be about 15 billion years old. Why? Because, the authors argue, elements necessary to organic molecules are cooked inside stars. If the universe were much younger, those elements would not be available and we wouldn’t be here. If the universe were much older, all the suns would have burned out, and we wouldn’t be here either.



WAP was invoked over and over again in earlier centuries by proponents of the design argument for God. It was WAPish to point out that if the earth were slightly closer to the sun, like Venus, water would boil away and carbon life would be impossible. If the earth were slightly farther from the sun, water would freeze and Earth would have the barren deserts of Mars. Theists liked to note that when water freezes it expands and floats on water, otherwise lakes and rivers would freeze to the bottom in winter and all their life be destroyed. If Earth did not have an ozone atmosphere, animals could not survive ultraviolet radiation. And so on. Hundreds of similar …

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

Regarding the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:

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 uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

[...]

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 (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) 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 the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction 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.

[...]

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics, through 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 all times at the edge 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.

---

Thanks for the response. Let us say for arguments sake that I accept your rationale for the existence of God, there is still not enough to go on to assume Christianity as truth.

You have said 'Christian theology is preferentially selected' over other possible religions. When your whole argument is so water tight that it cannot be refuted by any current scientific approach, it seems incredibly weak to form your conclusion on the basis of such a loose correlation of interpretive points.

It must be Christianity because 'miracles are possible' - therefore Jesus performed them. 'The cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure' - therefore it matches the holy trinity.

This doesn't even get close to explaining the dogma of the church, the anomalies of the scripture, the unreliability of the gospel accounts, etc.. It is not possible to refute these issues with mathematics and physics!

And then after this huge problem, which variant of Christianity are you referring to? Roman Catholicism? Protestant? Anglican? Methodist? Baptist? Orthodox? Presbyterian? Lutheran? (there are just so many I could be here all day! ... That should be enough for you to understand my point)

You're a scientist! How can you not see that this is a glaring issue with your theory. I want you to prove it to me. I can go along with all the science and accept that the end point could be argued to be some definition of God, but fall short at the final hurdle because you are claiming Christianity as the source of all this science...

Why & how? You have not come close to explaining away my concerns. I appreciate that you are defensive of your work - I probably would be too. But I am open to hearing your ideas. If you can't prove this to a willing participant then you'll have no chance with everyone else...

Pentecostalism- I can't understand any of the shit you just said.

I just thought of that one but otherwise what a list:)

Glossolalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

Thanks for the response. Let us say for arguments sake that I accept your rationale for the existence of God, there is still not enough to go on to assume Christianity as truth.

You have said 'Christian theology is preferentially selected' over other possible religions. When your whole argument is so water tight that it cannot be refuted by any current scientific approach, it seems incredibly weak to form your conclusion on the basis of such a loose correlation of interpretive points.

It must be Christianity because 'miracles are possible' - therefore Jesus performed them. 'The cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure' - therefore it matches the holy trinity.

This doesn't even get close to explaining the dogma of the church, the anomalies of the scripture, the unreliability of the gospel accounts, etc.. It is not possible to refute these issues with mathematics and physics!

And then after this huge problem, which variant of Christianity are you referring to? Roman Catholicism? Protestant? Anglican? Methodist? Baptist? Orthodox? Presbyterian? Lutheran? (there are just so many I could be here all day! ... That should be enough for you to understand my point)

You're a scientist! How can you not see that this is a glaring issue with your theory. I want you to prove it to me. I can go along with all the science and accept that the end point could be argued to be some definition of God, but fall short at the final hurdle because you are claiming Christianity as the source of all this science...

Why & how? You have not come close to explaining away my concerns. I appreciate that you are defensive of your work - I probably would be too. But I am open to hearing your ideas. If you can't prove this to a willing participant then you'll have no chance with everyone else...

---

Loveboof here is an extract from Jamie's paper that might help you with your query and will probably be shorter than any reply she gives. For someone who sees empires and states as mass murderers, her leniency with the Catholic Church is one of many contradictions, not the least of which is her inability to explain that academics are joined by the hip to the Beast, but why this pejorative view of academics does'nt seem to apply to Prof. Tipler. Etc etc. Enjoy

6 Science Comes Home
Science and Christianity have been closely intertwined since the birth of science. Both the university system and the field of natural science as a systematic discipline are the inventions of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique development in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g., Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic study of His creation—as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans that made serious investigation into the physical world a dubious proposition as contrasted with the idealized perfection of geometry. It was this change in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for the advancements made by Christian civilization.71
Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn’t exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibusorbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543.72 Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the ancient Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which maintained the verity of geocentrism predicated on philosophical premises. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the pope and several of the churchmen were quite enthusiastic about Galileo’s observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics.
Many of the top names in the history of science have been deeply devout Christians, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, and Georges Lemaître, just to name a few. For these men, their scientific investigations were driven by their desire to better know the intellect of God.

Notes
71For much more on the matters discussed in this section, see the books on this by Prof. Woods [482], and Dr. Hannam [172]. Note that by antitheist I mean one having a positive belief in the nonexistence of God, which popularly goes by the etymologically incorrect name atheist. Atheist etymologically means one lacking a positive belief in God.

72Of which publication is itself the resultant product of Christian scientific thought going back to such academicians as Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln; Albertus Magnus, Bishop of Regensburg; the Franciscan friars Roger Bacon and William of Ockham; and the intellectual and academic groundwork laid by the monastic and cathedral schools beforehand, which date to before the Sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 [482, p. 44]. It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900).
Pages 33-34.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Loveboof here is an extract from Jamie's paper that might help you with your query and will probably be shorter than any reply she gives. For someone who sees empires and states as mass murderers, her leniency with the Catholic Church is one of many contradictions, not the least of which is her inability to explain that academics are joined by the hip to the Beast, but why this pejorative view of academics does'nt seem to apply to Prof. Tipler. Etc etc. Enjoy

[cut]

---

Thanks Stavros. That excerpt is completely fallacious though (as I'm sure you're already aware! lol).

"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages" ~ Ruth Hurmence Green

The Dark Ages represents the height of Christian power and influence, so why did we have to wait until the enlightenment for science to flourish? Also science is actually much older than Christianity, so the statement 'Science and Christianity have been closely intertwined since the birth of science' is just nonsense!

I would point Jamie towards the Index Librorum Prohibitorum if she believes Christianity has been such a champion of science throughout the ages... (Johannes Kepler made it on to their list btw Jamie!)

I believe it was not until 1992 (!!!) that the Pope acquitted Galileo of his heresy. What does that tell you of the church's 'enthusiasm for Galileo’s observations' (as Jamie puts it)

"Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck"... I can't be bothered to go on, but really? ... really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I am still bemused as to why the clearly very intelligent regular contributors to this board like Trish and Stavros devote quite so much time to debating the ludicrous fallacies of Jamie's work - bad grammar, gratuitous insults and all.

---

I am of the same mind. My comments in visual form have been left elsewhere.

I saw and enjoyed them very much Martin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I am still bemused as to why the clearly very intelligent regular contributors to this board like Trish and Stavros devote quite so much time to debating the ludicrous fallacies of Jamie's work - bad grammar, gratuitous insults and all.

---

One of course knows by now that one will never dissuade Jamie from her pursuit of celestial silliness.

But I do have some respect for Frank Tipler. Some years ago I read some really nicely argued technical papers by him on causality violation and topology. It is strange to me how someone of Frank's abilities can just sort of casually slip off into never-never-land. It doesn't require much a of dip into his book The Physics of Immortality to see that he has completely metamorphosed into a crackpot. Reading it is like watching a Big Al Yankovc parody of modern cosmology. Its amusing to see how ideas with which one is quite familiar are twisted, misinterpreted and misapplied in such maddeningly misguided ways. Part of the job of a theoretical physicist is to seek out the unsuspected twists and paradoxes hidden in modern theory and figure out how to correctly resolve resolve them. It can be fun and instructive. Unfortunately most of Tipler's paradoxes come about through misapplied logic rather than misapplied physics. Admittedly less fun. Less instructive.