The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

Apparently you do not have a concept of time. Ellis's review is from 1994. Tipler stated in his 1994 book that he is still an atheist and will remain so until the Omega Point cosmology is confirmed. The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and so Tipler is now a theist. Due to the Omega Point cosmology's triune structure preferentially selecting God as described by Christian theology, Tipler is also now a Christian.

---

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

---

Step aside Jaimie, i got this one...

BECAUSE I SAY SO...BURN, HERETIC!






















Or perhaps, maybe not! :shrug

You got the truth Jericho. We will follow, oh enlightened one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

---

I love your post, Loveboof. And I agree with everything you said. If you don’t mind, I would add one more element to your description: the very logic of Christianity. It’s the story of a God who created man in such a way that he had to be saved, and who, to make sure of saving him indeed, gave Himself (as a “son”) to Himself (as a “father”) to satisfied His own wrath, yet is still not satisfied and demands that we act in the definite way you alluded to. An all mighty and omniscient God that gave himself to himself in sacrifice for the reparation of his own creation… Is it because we are born in it that we can’t see the utter absurdity of such a myth? Is it me or are we right in the middle of a schizophrenic delusion?

Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:

Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.

In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.

In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.

Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”

The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.

What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.

A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.

I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have

Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.

Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return :)

You really should read this

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

I love your post, Loveboof. And I agree with everything you said. If you don’t mind, I would add one more element to your description: the very logic of Christianity. It’s the story of a God who created man in such a way that he had to be saved, and who, to make sure of saving him indeed, gave Himself (as a “son”) to Himself (as a “father”) to satisfied His own wrath, yet is still not satisfied and demands that we act in the definite way you alluded to. An all mighty and omniscient God that gave himself to himself in sacrifice for the reparation of his own creation… Is it because we are born in it that we can’t see the utter absurdity of such a myth? Is it me or are we right in the middle of a schizophrenic delusion?

---

Yes you're right. As Jamie is apparently a scientist you would think she would abide by logic and assume a more elegant and simple position in all this. Ockham's razor.

@ Jericho, lol.

Jamie - You are convinced of Prof Tipler's thesis and I cannot change that view; but his arguments are not scientific – why do I say that? Science depends on assuming the minimum number of axioms – Tipler makes many more than are necessary. Science depends on objective and rational arguments – Tipler’s arguments are not consistent; neither does each step follow logically from the previous. Science depends on falsifiability – agreed difficult in some scientific disciplines but should always been attempted.
You make great play that (i) there have been few attempts to refute Tipler’s views, and (ii) he is a Professor. The question I ask myself – not so much why so few rebuttals? but why has no one else has taken up his views? OK, I would agree that every generally held view was once believed by one person. But are Tipler’s views in the same vein as Flat Earthers. He’s a “Professor” – well, so am I. Do we cancel each other out?
You want to believe there is a God – far enough! That is a belief but it is not science – nor is it probably capable of being within the domain of scientific explanation – it is not parsimonious, testable and all the other quantities that science demands.
What if – some non-conventional individualistic proposition suggests that on a very large scale, some imaginary lines meet in some dimension – how does that occurrence become “god” – within the normally accepted view of such a concept – deist or theist?
Dear Jamie – Believe what you wish but please do not confuse it with science.


M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

---

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:

"Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding)", rfvidz, March 30, 2012 Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding) - YouTube

The above video is an interview of J[ames]. P[atrick]. Holding (author of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008]) by Dr. Craig Johnson on the topic of the Christ myth theory [1]. 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

"Did Jesus exist?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

-----

Note:

1. For the full video of this interview, see "Craig Johnson Video Podcasts", Bethel Christian Fellowship, Agoura Hills, Cal. http://drcraigjohnson.net/podcasts/video/podcast.xml , in particular "Veritas Forum: Shattering the Christ Myth", May 21, 2009 http://bethelchristianfellowship.inf...ythCopyCat.m4v .

##########

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.

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 (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.

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, 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.

For much more on the above, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:

Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.

In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.

In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.

Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”

The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.

What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.

A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.

I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have

Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.

Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return :)

You really should read this

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html

---

Actually, Trish, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. 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]).

Regarding proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, all except for Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem share the common feature of using new laws of physics that have never been experimentally confirmed--and indeed which violate the known laws of physics--such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). (See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 [October 2005], Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.) Hence, the end of the universe in finite proper time via collapse before a black hole evaporates is required if unitarity is to remain unviolated (i.e., if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--which is what the proof of Hawking radiation is derived from--are true statements of how the world works).

It's known that the Bekenstein Bound is required if General Relativity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are to be mutually consistent (e.g., see Bekenstein's papers on this). There's been debate as to the proper form of the Bound (i.e., between the area form of the Bound, and Bekenstein's original energy times radius form of the Bound), but unitarity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics themselves select which form of the Bound is correct as applied to the latter universe's collapse, because if the area form of the Bound were correct in this situation then this gives a direct vioation of the Second Law, as then the universe's entropy must decrease as the radius of the universe goes to zero. So if the area form of the Bound were correct in this situation, then we either preserve the Second Law by not having the universe end in collapse, in which case unitarity is violated; or we preserve unitarity by having the universe end in collapse in finite proper time, in which case the Second Law is violated.

So logically this means that the energy times radius form of the Bekenstein Bound is the correct form to apply to the latter universe's collapse. Yet since the radius of the universe is collapsing to zero, energy must grow at a greater rate than the radius going to zero, otherwise this gives a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for then entropy would be decreasing. But the only way for the energy to grow faster than the radius of the universe going to zero is for event horizons to be eliminated (which generates gravitational shear energy much faster than the radius going to zero), thereby allowing entropy to grow as opposed to decrease, per the energy times radius form of the Bekenstein Bound.

Yet this is by definition the Omega Point cosmology, for by eliminating event horizons the universe is forced to end in a solitary-point final singularity, called the Omega Point.

The foregoing is all that is required to derive the logical necessity of the Omega Point cosmology if the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are true statements of how the world works (see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper for fuller details, particularly p. 925, see also pp. 904-905). These three known laws of physics, if they are correct, logically require the Omega Point cosmology.

In Prof. Tipler's derivation of this proof, he also notes how an Omega Point final state is of measure zero in initial data space; how the final collapse is chaotic; and how a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated (in this case, the universe's collapse trajectories being intelligently guided). But this part of the proof logically derives intelligence growing without bound going into the final single-point singularity--it is not itself required in order to prove that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics logically require the Omega Point cosmology. But it is astonishing icing on the cake, i.e., in how the laws of physics work together as a mutually-consistent and mutually-reinforcing unity. And it further reinforces that the Omega Point cosmology--and hence, the known laws of physcs--are correct, as we would not expect the known laws of physics to mesh so perfectly together in buttressing the reality of the Omega Point cosmology if it were incorrect. In the case of event horizon elimination, this is a two-for-one special: event horizon elimination is necessary in order to allow communication (and hence life) to continue, but as an automatic consequence the energy available to life diverges to infinity. Not only does this dovetailing of fundamental physics that allows for the Omega Point cosmology concern the aforesaid details, but numerous others as well, such as particle energy states automatically scaling as the universe collapses, thereby allowing life to encode its mental processes all the way into the final singularity.

The following is Tipler's 2005 paper referred to in the above:

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://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, April 24, 2007.

For much more on the above, see my below article, particularly Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" and Appendix A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe":

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. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

Quote:

---

...by eliminating event horizons the universe is forced to end in a solitary-point final singularity, called the Omega Point.

---

And yet there are event horizons.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I saw and enjoyed them very much Martin.

---

me too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

---

Unfortunately, I know in my own profession of a few academics who went of the "rails" - Eric Laithwaite (inventor the is linear electric motor) spent his latter days in believing that little green men from Mars helped spiders walk on ceilings; Arthur Bailey (amplifier design) believed that you could locate faults in complex electronics by holding a pendulum over the circuit diagram. It's an occupational hazard for academics

Old Professors never die, they just lose their faculties :dancing:

When I get too old to think clearly, I hope someone encourages me to retire and take up political punditry.

Odd because his partner in writing the book on the Anthropic Principle, John Barrow, is a very serious and respected scientists. I've met him and read several of his books.

The publication date of the Anthropic Principle with Barrow and Wheeler is 1988. The time of his paper on causality violation was 1977. The book on the omega point was published first by Double Day (not a scientific publisher) in 1994. I hear he is now dabbling in the art of denying global warming (actually blaming it on Sun Spots).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

When I get too old to think clearly, I hope someone encourages me to retire and take up political punditry.

---

LMAO. Post of the month.

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.

---

Bad grammar? You must be daft. Say what you will about me: call me a genius, say that I am freakishly intelligent, or what have you. Call me a malformed freak of nature with ungodly high IQ. But one thing that makes no sense whatsoever is to say that I have bad grammar.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

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 …

---

Notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's part. However, I do find the below exchange between Prof. Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Notice 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 (December 4, 1986). http://nybooks.com/articles/4946 , http://webcitation.org/67Fw7SAdg In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986). http://nybooks.com/articles/5121

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

---

"[L]eniency with the Catholic Church"? When did this occur? You cite that as an example of "many contradictions" I have supposedly engaged in, thereby demonstrating that you do not know what the word "contradiction" means.

In actual fact, I rebuke all the major churches in my article.

Your problem is apparently that you have not read far enough into my article, otherwise you ought to see how silly your above statements are.

Regarding academia, I respect and have learned from many genuine academicians. I never said nor implied that all of academia is corrupt. You're letting your feavered imagination run wild. Obviously you've never studied economics, and hence don't know what a tendecy is in the sense of incentive. It doesn't mean that all actors will choose that course, it merely means that there are benefits for doing so and costs for not doing so, and hence that the behavior so incentivized will become more prevalent, ceteris paribus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

"[L]eniency with the Catholic Church"? When did this occur? You cite that as an example of "many contradictions" I have supposedly engaged in, thereby demonstrating that you do not know what the word "contradiction" means.

In actual fact, I rebuke all the major churches in my article.

Your problem is apparently that you have not read far enough into my article, otherwise you ought to see how silly your above statements are.

Regarding academia, I respect and have learned from many genuine academicians. I never said nor implied that all of academia is corrupt. You're letting your feavered imagination run wild. Obviously you've never studied economics, and hence don't know what a tendecy is in the sense of incentive. It doesn't mean that all actors will choose that course, it merely means that there are benefits for doing so and costs for not doing so, and hence that the behavior so incentivized will become more prevalent, ceteris paribus.

---

I offer you your own texts:

Pope and Church Good
The originator of the Big Bang theory was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître in 1927;56 and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. Indeed, Lemaître relates that when he spoke with Albert Einstein regarding his Primaeval Atom Hypothesis, Einstein’s response to it was “Non, pas cela, cela suggère trop la création” (“No, not this—this too much suggests the creation”).
P29

Christian Religious Orders Good
It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900). With-out this salvatory and ameliorative role of the Christian church, there would be no Western civilization to speak of.
Note 72 p33-34

Church Not So Good
Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Christian church occurred with the pagan Roman government’s takeover of said group under Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant murderer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he murdered. Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves “Christian” have been hostilely opposed to actually applying Jesus Christ’s teachings, since said teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities, e.g., taxes, war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord and strife among the populace (i.e., divide et impera), etc
P48-49

Churches Verily Not Good
However, in opposition to the Messiah’s teachings, all the governments of the world instill in their subjects fear and hatred of others, not only between the subjects of different governments but also among their own subjects. And regrettably, institutions calling themselves Christian churches often act as propaganda-founts of the government while vehemently rejecting Christ’s teachings, thereby worshiping the false god of government instead of worshiping God.
P55

Academics Persecute
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 revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. 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.
P33-34

Academics Grafted to the Hip of the State, therefore BAD
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.
P96

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

Bad grammar? You must be daft. Say what you will about me: call me a genius, say that I am freakishly intelligent, or what have you. Call me a malformed freak of nature with ungodly high IQ. But one thing that makes no sense whatsoever is to say that I have bad grammar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

"[L]eniency with the Catholic Church"? When did this occur? You cite that as an example of "many contradictions" I have supposedly engaged in, thereby demonstrating that you do not know what the word "contradiction" means.

In actual fact, I rebuke all the major churches in my article.

Your problem is apparently that you have not read far enough into my article, otherwise you ought to see how silly your above statements are.

Regarding academia, I respect and have learned from many genuine academicians. I never said nor implied that all of academia is corrupt. You're letting your feavered imagination run wild. Obviously you've never studied economics, and hence don't know what a tendecy is in the sense of incentive. It doesn't mean that all actors will choose that course, it merely means that there are benefits for doing so and costs for not doing so, and hence that the behavior so incentivized will become more prevalent, ceteris paribus.

---

We all make mistakes; nobody's perfect. :)

(I took the liberty of pointing out a few spelling mistakes too)

I <3 this video it's worth the watch if you're a realisthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7lxuwLC9I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoddessAthena85

I <3 this video it's worth the watch if you're a realisthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7lxuwLC9I

---

I quite enjoyed that! Thanks :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

I quite enjoyed that! Thanks :)

---

thank you for watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Part II
The section of Jamie’s paper that deals with the social, ethical, economic
and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology interprets the whole of human history as the act of a Christian God whose plan has been laid out in the Bible, the New Testament and the Book of Revelation in particular.

I have read Jamie’s paper, and I would like to say something positive about it, but the core arguments and the interpretation of secondary literature contain no merit. There is no original research in this paper, ...

---

Actually, most of my "Physics of God" article is original research, such as virtually all of the many congruities that I show between the New Testament and the Omega Point cosmology, such as on the asiety of God, and on the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology.

So you are here shown to be a liar. Obviously you feel the need to lie because your position is wrong. The thing which you should do is change your false position in order to make it conform to reality. That way you will no longer need to lie.

Quote:

---

... there are numerous errors of fact, and distortions of historical truth, but above all, for someone who claims to be a Born Again Christian, there is an arrogance and disregard for non-Christian cultures that undermines a key value in Christianity to love one’s neighbour as oneself.

---

Your above claims are the logical fallacy of ipse dixit. Moreover, they are also false.

Quote:

---

It would be a tedious exercise to go though the paper to point out all of its errors and distortions. I have also not responded to the earlier comments to the first paper now that it has been replaced.

1) Consider Jamie’s responses to matters of life and death:
The answer as to why anything exists as opposed to nothingness is that existence is mathematics, i.e., logic. Only this and nothing more. (p37-thirty-eight).

This explanation is then undermined completely by the numerous references that are made to the narrative of Jesus’s life in the Gospels, and her own insistence that only Christians whose belief and behaviour are pure and based on the teachings of Jesus can attain eternal life. No reference to mathematics at all.

---

Hi, Stavros. Your reading comprehension is extremely low, such as to be functionally illiterate. That the universe is mathematics is simply an unavoidable consequence of the Bekenstein Bound, which itself is required by the known laws of physics. And I even have an appendix on the Bekenstein Bound. So your above claim is not only nonsensical, but also nihil ad rem.

For that appendix, See App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" 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), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote:

---

And now consider Jamie’s response to the hypothesis that there is no meaning to life:

If it could be definitely proved that God and eternal life do not exist, then the only rational course would be to commit suicide. The reason for this is because even if one is presently enjoying one’s life, tragedy and horrific pain can strike at almost any time, quite apart from how one lives one’s life. Since one can have no real control over whether one ends up in a situation of horrific pain, the only rational course if God and eternal life do not exist would be to commit a painless suicide. Since in such a hypothetical scenario one’s eternal death is certain anyway, one might as well get there in a manner which ensures the least pain. (p54).

Suicide as an option for those who reject Christ the Saviour is to me a perversion of Christ’s message. Sadly, this intolerance of other people’s views is common among doctrinal Christians who in reality are unable to love their neighbour, regardless of what the neighbour thinks or believes –I can’t imagine a real Christian recommending suicide to their neighbour.

---

Again, Stavros, you're not comprehending what you're reading. It's long been known that if God and immortality do not exist then existence is dysteleological. I'm not the first to have pointed out this basic fact.

You're also putting words into my mouth that I never said. You obviously have a yen for lying and misrepresenting other poeple's views. This is because your position is false. If your position were correct, you would not feel the need to lie.

Quote:

---

2) The negative view of the Christian Church is amplified through its association with government because all government is a wicked and violent conspiracy against Jesus:

---

"The negative view of the Christian Church"? In later posts you accuse me of being a papist apologist. Not only can you not comprehend my article, but you also can't remember your own postings.

Quote:

---

Government is a massive death-cult which requires gargantuan levels of human sacrifice. The bloody human sacrifice is still regarded by mankind as the most sacred of ritual, instead of being viewed as the depraved and ghoulish institution it is. The human-sacrifice orgies in which throngs of lamentably deceived people kill and get killed so that a relative handful of the most rich and powerful can become even more rich and powerful are made holy by the secular priesthood of power which officiates the state’s bloodstained pantheon that sits atop a mountain of rotting human corpses. Truth is the most hated thing in the world (p 56).

There is no room here for political theory, no room for any sense of the way in which government has changed over time, no room for an argument about what the meaning of sacrifice might be, and, critically, why human societies and their governments have actually striven to avoid human sacrifice. Why for example, did Japan sue for peace in 1945 when the opportunity to slaughter another million was available?

---

Actually, that quote of me is based upon veridical political theory. Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974). http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp , http://www.mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve3r05ti

Murray N. Rothbard, "Defense Services on the Free Market", Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970). http://www.webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , ftp://myebooks.dyndns.org/computers/...y%20(1970).pdf , http://flashmirrors.com/files/otempz...and-Market.pdf

Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve485kNf

Prof. David D. Friedman, "Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market", Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971). http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libert...hapter_29.html , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

Murray N. Rothbard , The Ethics of Liberty (New York, N.Y.: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982). http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp , http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995). http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp , http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

Murray N. Rothbard, "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", in Mary Sennholz (editor), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve4WQnYm

Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962). http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp , http://www.mises.org/books/mespm.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5v3cOaaAG

Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970). http://www.webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , ftp://myebooks.dyndns.org/computers/...y%20(1970).pdf , http://flashmirrors.com/files/otempz...and-Market.pdf

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963). http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5v3cWFPsd

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 4, 2011 (originally published December 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

And see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm

Quote:

---

Jamie has no interest in any faith other than Christianity, all other faiths are either dismissed as irrelevant, or in the case of Judaism, presented as essentially pagan religions that came ‘too soon’ for the truth of Christ, even though Christ was a Jew. This intolerance of other faiths is a denial of the Christian idea that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself, regardless of that person’s belief. It also trashes thousands of years of culture and civilisation which according to Jamie was created by the same God that created her. Not a democratic view of other cultures.

---

Again, Stavros, you're lying by putting words into my mouth that I never said. This is because your position is false. If your position were correct, you would not feel the need to lie.

Quote:

---

The claim that:
Not only are all governments inherently terroristic, but they are by far the largest and most murderous terrorist organizations in existence. Just within the last century governments butchered over 200 million people, almost all of them innocent noncombatants (p65)...

Ignores the devastation caused by the Plague or ‘Black Death’ in Europe and Asia, by Influenza, Malaria, Measles and Smallpox and Meningitis all over the world; yet not only have flies, fleas and mosquitoes caused vast deaths, there is no discussion of the role played by nature in ‘God’s Plan’, perhaps because Jamie thinks it unimportant. It matters because Jamie believes in Intelligent Design, and should therefore at least offer an explanation for God’s role as the slayer of billions. Presumably nothing happens by accident –tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, epidemics: these must all be acts of God, for what else can they be in Jamie’s scheme of things?

---

Since when were diseases and natural disasters "terrorist organizations"? Your responses are schizophrenic and totally nihil ad rem. Although that's a consqeuence of not comprehending what you read, so instead you simply reply to bizarre phantasms of your own mind.

And I do address the problem of evil in Sec. 7.4.1: "The Problem of Evil" 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), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote:

---

3) An inability to analyse historical events.
Jamie gets even deeper into the mire when attempting to depict the duplicity of state terrorism using ‘false-flag’ operations to start wars –the Reichstag Fire (1933) and the attacks on German units on the Polish border in 1939; Pearl Harbour in 1941, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam in 1964. The problem with these accounts is that Jamie does not know how to analyse historical events. A common mistake made by high school students is to mistake an event for a cause –the false-flag events Jamie draws attention to may have been the events that sparked war, but the cause lay somewhere else –the need for the Nazi’s to eliminate opposition parties in the Reichstag; Germany’s belief that it could not survive unless it were the dominant state in Europe; the USA’s determination to prevent Communism from taking root in South-east Asia. FH Hinsley discussed the difference between ‘occasions’ and ‘causes’ in history in Power and the Pursuit of Peace (1961), and is still worth reading as a guide to historical methods.

---

You here admit that the US government did engage in the false-flag terrorism events that I detail in my "Physics of God" article, but your position is that wasn't the cause of the wars because there were underlying reasons why the US government staged said mendacious terrorist attacks.

You here again show your inability to comprehend what you read. My point in bringing up these government false-flag terrorist attacks is simply to show that governments engage in false-flag terrorist attacks, and in this I accomplished my goal. Your inability to comprehend what you read causes you to read into texts phantasms of your own mind, which you then proceed to attempt to rebut. Yet your rebuttals are nihil ad rem as they don't have anything to do with what I wrote.

Quote:

---

The inability to understand historical events is evident in the depiction of secretive societies such as the Illuminati, the Freemasons and the Bilderberg Group as leading actors in the conspiracy of the Beast at war with Jesus. The ‘Rothschilds’ are trotted out as the manipulators of power behind the thrones, although Jamie claims

---

Again, you have an inability to comprehend what you read. I specifically reject the Illuminati as playing any role in the globalist oligarchy's self-termed New World Order world government, world religion and depopulation agenda. For that, see p. 94 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), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote:

---

…the current head Rothschilds are Jewish by ancestry only, not by religion or culture: as given the pagan, neo-Egyptian occult symbolism of the Israeli Supreme Court building built by the Rothschilds the Rothschilds obviously hold Jewish religion and culture in contemptuous mockery (p91)

To confirm that the modern state of Israel is integral to the creation of the beast’s one world government, Jamie quotes Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, but out of context in order to promote her point. Thus Jamie claims

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, stated in a 1962 article for Look magazine that this court in Jerusalem would become “the Supreme Court of Mankind”…(p92)

In fact, in 1962 Ben-Gurion was responding to a common page-filler used by newspapers and journals, and asked to predict what the world would be like in 25 years time, the brief article is here;

"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years."
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/...hp?f=21&t=1641

---

Again, you have an inability to comprehend what you read, Stavros. Not only is my quote in-context and accurate, but I also link to the very image of the article that I cite so that anyone can read it for themselves. You don't say above that there was anything specifically wrong with my quote of Ben-Gurion, you simply say that what Ben-Gurion said doesn't really count because it was "page-filler". In other words, everything I said about Ben-Gurion is true and accurate, but I'm in the wrong because you somehow clairvoyantly know that Ben-Gurion didn't really mean it and hence that it shouldn't count.

Quote:

---

4) Jamie attacks her Inspiration
On page 96 she writes:
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.

Does this also apply to Prof. Frank Tipler of Tulane University? Jamie’s paper is rooted in the belief that Tipler has proven the existence of God. But he has tenure on the hip of the Beast.

---

Again, Stavros, you have an inability to comprehend what you read. This causes you to fill in the blanks of your understanding with phantasms of your own mind. You repeatedly attribute to me positions that I have never taken nor ever even impied.

You remind me of what it's been like to attempt to have conversations with schizophrenic people. Your responses to my article are off the wall and nihil ad rem. For the most part they have nothing to do with anything I actually wrote, but are simply replies to your own imaginings. Even when you provide a direct quote of me you are unable to understand the quote you have provided and then proceed to just make up bizarre responses that have nothing to do with what I said.

I never said nor so much as even implied that all academics have completely absorbed the state's inculcation.

Quote:

---

I could go on and on, but it just gets more embarrassing. Arguing in a footnote that Karl Marx did not invent the concepts of class and class struggle –something every sociology undergraduate has known for years, Jamie (n223, ninety-eigt) goes on to give ‘early examples’ of class struggle but they are all references to the books of the Bible, and I couldn’t find any that referred to class or class struggle.

---

That's hardly surprising, Stavros, since you are unable to comprehend what you read. But it just so happens that I've written an article on this very subject. On the matter of politics in relation to Christianity, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 4, 2011 (originally published December 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

Quote:

---

5) Beheading is the natural form of execution for the Beast One-World Government, but it will end in tears for the anti-Christ:
Of course, the heads of all the innocent people beheaded for their witness of Jesus Christ and their refusal to accept the Mark of the Beast, if they were to be cryogenically stored as part of the world government’s program into researching mind-uploading, would be nicely preserved and available for technological resurrection if the world government were deposed, as Revelation says it indeed will be. Such people—the meek—would reign on Earth and go on colonize space, never to die again. Their minds will be immortal minds with vastly more computational resources than current human minds, and hence they could create any reality they could conceive via computer simulation. That is, they would live in literal heaven, i.e., paradise (p106-107).

Destined for colonial rule, the world is not enough for superhumans. If there are ‘alien beings’ on the new planets the new superhumans colonise, will they be exterminated if they refuse to accept the message of Christ?

---

This is an excellent example of how you are unable to comprehend what you read, Stavros, whereupon you proceed to eject some some detritus of your mind in an attempt to fill in the blanks of your incomprehension.

My "Physics of God" article repeatedly addresses the issue of ethics. In regards to what is actually in my article on said topic, your above statement is utterly bizarre. But you're never one to let facts get in the way of spewing forth the phantasms of your own mind.

Quote:

---

6) Are we really human, if we are evolving into computers? Last word to Jamie:

Left to their own devices, the Sun will eventually move off the main sequence (main sequence stars use hydrogen in their cores as their fuel by fusing it into helium via nuclear fusion) and become a red giant; in the process, in approximately 7.6 billion years from now the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun and incinerated. Although before this destruction can take place, the future immortal beings will dismantle the Earth and convert its mass into computing machines, upon which the Earth’s biosphere will be preserved through simulation. However, during the eventual collapse phase of the universe, the temperature of the universe will diverge to infinity. The matter of the universe will eventually become hot plasma. As the temperature continues to increase, it will subsequently become too hot for the atomic elements to exist, at which point information processing and storage will have to be encoded via traveling waves and standing waves, eventually using using elementary particles to directly compute on, with the universe itself acting as the container to enclose the waves. The matter which now makes up the Earth will eventually be ionized into plasma, but by then life will have gained control over all matter in the universe and converted it into superintelligent computers (p112).

---

For much more on the above, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):

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), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

We all make mistakes; nobody's perfect. :)

(I took the liberty of pointing out a few spelling mistakes too)

---

There is no bad grammar in your example. But then, your posts are replete with horrendous grammar, so it's not as if you even know what good grammar is.

Because I'm not perfect, I do sometimes commit typos, as do even the best writers.

Commit a typo, or make a typo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

There is no bad grammar in your example. But then, your posts are replete with horrendous grammar, so it's not as if you even know what good grammar is.

Because I'm not perfect, I do sometimes commit typos, as do even the best writers.

---

Spelling 'fevered' with an A is not a typo. It is a mistake though, which was exactly what I said. We all make mistakes.

Therefore the observation that I have made mistakes is absurdly redundant in response to my comment.

(However, it is refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you are fallible. Who knew?! You are not always right after all...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I offer you your own texts:

Pope and Church Good
The originator of the Big Bang theory was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître in 1927;56 and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. Indeed, Lemaître relates that when he spoke with Albert Einstein regarding his Primaeval Atom Hypothesis, Einstein’s response to it was “Non, pas cela, cela suggère trop la création” (“No, not this—this too much suggests the creation”).
P29

Christian Religious Orders Good
It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900). With-out this salvatory and ameliorative role of the Christian church, there would be no Western civilization to speak of.
Note 72 p33-34

Church Not So Good
Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Christian church occurred with the pagan Roman government’s takeover of said group under Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant murderer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he murdered. Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves “Christian” have been hostilely opposed to actually applying Jesus Christ’s teachings, since said teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities, e.g., taxes, war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord and strife among the populace (i.e., divide et impera), etc
P48-49

Churches Verily Not Good
However, in opposition to the Messiah’s teachings, all the governments of the world instill in their subjects fear and hatred of others, not only between the subjects of different governments but also among their own subjects. And regrettably, institutions calling themselves Christian churches often act as propaganda-founts of the government while vehemently rejecting Christ’s teachings, thereby worshiping the false god of government instead of worshiping God.
P55

Academics Persecute
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 revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. 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.
P33-34

Academics Grafted to the Hip of the State, therefore BAD
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.
P96

---

Hi, Stavros. You have an inability to comprehend what you read. This causes you to invoke phatasms of your own mind in order to fill in the blanks of your own lack of understanding.

My position, as is quite clear in my "Physics of God" article, is that individuals can be either good or bad, or mixtures of good or bad, depending on their own actions. Institutions can also be good or bad, or mixtures of good or bad. Some institutions are inherently evil, such as the ancient institutions of human sacrifice, slavery and government. Such institutions are evil by their very nature, and hence cannot be reformed; they can only be abolished.

In my aforesaid article, I also repeatedly make the distinction between what people call a thing as opposed to the actual thing itself. Just because people call themselves something does not mean that they are that something.

But such subtleties completely go over your head.

For more on the above, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):

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), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 4, 2011 (originally published December 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

And see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...rtarianism.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

Spelling 'fevered' with an A is not a typo. It is a mistake though, which was exactly what I said. We all make mistakes.

Therefore the observation that I have made mistakes is absurdly redundant in response to my comment.

---

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.