God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

You have not stated anything that can be proved.

Only presented a theory that cannot be disproved.

As with everything in science, the onus is on the person offering the theory to shoulder the burden of proof.

The same un-provable theory can be offered in a single sentence... just because that sentence has been padded out extensively does not make it any more accurate.

And this coming from an astrophysicist who would love to prove the existence of god

 

You seem to think that you know all, have all wisdom, can prove God and are better than the rest of us apes. Which by default makes you an idiot.
Any mysticist and philosopher will agree on that, although they might not say you are an idiot, but just that you are very ignorant and need to learn humility.

As for not reading into 'proof' that God exists; I have heard it millions of times and not a single one of them presents any valid proof. Mostly it's either just failed logic or giving God unjustifiable parameters.

 

Ha'Mashiach declared that we are gods. (See John 10:34; Yeshua is quoting Psalm 82:6.) A god (lowercase G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite; whereas God (capital G) is the infinite sapient being. Although immortality is not itself a desirable goal unless the immortal life is a pleasurable one.

And indeed the Omega Point = God, because it has all the unique properties (i.e., haecceities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. And so by definition the Omega Point is God.

I've noticed that often when humans come across veridical information which they would rather not take seriously, that they make up out of whole cloth supposed things about the subject in order so that they can pretend to themselves and others that they have a rational reason for not having to learn about the matter in question or change their Weltanschauung.

Your above comment is truly bizarre. The Omega Point cosmology is fully global-general-relativistic. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe.

Keep in mind that with Prof. Frank J. Tipler, whatever one's uninformed initial feelings about him, we're quite conservatively talking about the most elite physicist who has ever lived. His Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and additionally he is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics), and computer theory. Not even Profs. Penrose and Hawking have all those qualifications, let alone Einstein or Newton.

Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Omega Point cosmology--which is now a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)--has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal Physics Nobel Laureate Prof. Richard Feynman also published in during the 1980s), etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the physicist who gave black holes their name and the father of most relativity research in the US) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in his "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. On p. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

The reason for that is because that is dependent on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

See my comments to you above.

 

The Omega Point cosmology is now a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) per the known laws of physics: viz., 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].) Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

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

 

All the Omega Point does is give God some attributes, but by all means not all attributes. So in that logic I could say that a chair is an animal if the definition of an animal is that is has two or more legs.

Ofcourse that is oversimplifying it, but for the sake of making my point I think it is valid.

 

Yes, humanity will become immortal gods via technology. Sometimes this is called transhumanism, and this event of obtaining immortality is sometimes referred to as the Technological Singularity (though one should keep in mind that "singularity" is not used in that phrase in the sense of a singularity in physics, but rather is used in a figurative and not literal sense; the Omega Point final cosmological singularity is a literal physics singularty). It will be literal Heaven on Earth, since these beings will be superintelligent and will have such vast computational resources that they will be able to render any environment in which to live that they find to be pleasurable via computer simulation. They will then begin colonizing the universe, eventually transforming all matter into living superintelligent computers.

Leading technologists are forecasting that this event (i.e., the obtainment of immortality, called the Technological Singularity) will take place within the natural lifetime of most of those alive today (circa 2045), and I agree with their forecasts.

For the answers to your other questions, see under the heading of "Worlds within Worlds", pp. 39-43 of my "Physics of God" article.

 

Then that wouldn't be a unique property, i.e., a haecceity, since that property would also be possessed by other things that are not that thing. For more on this, see under the Glossary entry "haecceity", pp. 131-132 of my "Physics of God" article.

 

The Omega Point theory assumes a Big Bang. While I acknowledge that the Big Bang is the current popular scientific solution for the universe, it is by no means proven beyond a doubt that the universe started out of nothing with a Big Bang. Philosophically it is just as plausible as an infinite and eternal universe.

 

None with any sense have suggested that.

The basic idea of the omega point is based on newtonian physics and for it to occur, the universes expansion would have to have been decelerating from its initial forceful expansion.

The omega point theory ignores dark energy and dark flow, two directly observable behaviours.

Acceleration indicates an omega value of less than one, indicating never-ending expansion.

I respect your grasp of the subject, but I'm afraid I see conclusions that contravene observable behaviour.

 

Ok, I stand corrected there.

However the Omega Point theory assumes a personal God and not a metaphysical God. To me it seems that there need to be a lot of prerequisites for the OP theory to hold up.

 

I actually like that analogy as it somewhat mirrors a recent "spiritual" experience.

The autonomy of the god-like being I experienced has been bugging me.

It gave me a very matrix-like feeling.

Outside of this point, time would be meaningless.

 

An infinite eternal universe violates the known laws of physics which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. For more on that, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhys...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334

 

How can the known laws of physics explain the fact that something suddenly comes into existence from nothing?

Sure, the comtemporary laws of physics might be able to explain the workings after the first cause, but it can not explain the first cause itself.

As mentioned before, philosophically there is no difference between something that comes into existence out of nothing and eternity. Both are just as paradoxal. Therefore your argument in favor of a Big Bang does not hold any ground since scientifically it's just as illogical as its counteroption.

Edit: just wondering, are you James Redford, the writer of the paper or are you someone defending his paper?

 

Yeah.

And we can observe dark matter, too.

Anyways, nothing you can say will change the fact that you're condescending AND intellectually dishonest........

I think that OP may have autism/aspergers. He's got a giant catalogue of papers and such that he is able to draw conclusions about and from, and though those conclusions obviously don't quite mirror the real world, they're still based on quite a knowledge of this stuff. And being self-absorbed and pretentious is another autistic thing.

I mean, the autistic mothers groups would lynch me for this. But autistic people are often real fuckers, partly BECAUSE of those mothers groups and such..... like yes, you're interested in physics and god, so you're better than all those ants, like you say. Or whatever. Not to say autism automatically makes one a real fucker. But they have a tendency to be quite insufferable.

 

Many people have made that claim. You also made that claim. To quote you: "... they [i.e., Prof. Frank J. Tipler's works on the Omega Point cosmology] do not take into account the accelerating expansion of the universe ....", and "Acceleration indicates an omega value of less than one, indicating never-ending expansion."

As I previously told you:

Your above comment is truly bizarre. The Omega Point cosmology is fully global-general-relativistic. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe.

Keep in mind that with Prof. Frank J. Tipler, whatever one's uninformed initial feelings about him, we're quite conservatively talking about the most elite physicist who has ever lived. His Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and additionally he is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics), and computer theory. Not even Profs. Penrose and Hawking have all those qualifications, let alone Einstein or Newton.

Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Omega Point cosmology--which is now a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)--has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal Physics Nobel Laureate Prof. Richard Feynman also published in during the 1980s), etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the physicist who gave black holes their name and the father of most relativity research in the US) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in his "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. On p. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."

The dark matter is a result of the interchange of energy between the Standard Model Higgs field and the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The dark energy is the positive cosmological constant. The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) solves the dark matter and dark energy problems.

Again, as I already told you:

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

The reason for that is because that is dependent on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

See the above.

 

Why don't you buy into the big bang theory? It does seem to be the best explanation available.

 

As I explained before - because it's just as illogical and paradoxal as the idea of eternity.

 

Again, the only way to avoid the Big Bang cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. As I said, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my below article.

The question you are asking is why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, which is a different issue than what type of physics applies to our universe. For the answer to this question, see Sec. 7.2: "The Aseity of God", pp. 37-43 of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhys...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334

Yes, I am James Redford, the author of the foregoing article.

 

I mis-interpretted the word "obviate".

Because there is no evidence for the collapse, it will happen... that's in effect what you're eluding to.

The observable universe disagrees with you assertion.

My assertion would simply be that the pull of a vacuum is more potent than that of gravity. A point that is currently observable.

For a following collapse, the distribution of energy is illogical and the contents of the universe (the omega value) too low.

Knowledge and an agenda lead to an attempt to prove that agenda... you're a little naive if you can't see that.

Degrees do not make an in-tune creative mind - heck, einstein was merely a patent clerk when he first devised his theorems... theorems that form the basis of the conclusions you've drawn.

Stop focusing on his material achievements and try discussing the concepts instead, perhaps?

You're focusing on the wrong thing.

Just because he attempts to link in quantum, does not make the underlying principle based around quantum.

The very essence of the omega point theorem is based on newtonian physics that define a specific amount of material in the universe of which is observably wrong. It is also based on an initial surge and subsequent depletion - not a continued acceleration as has been observed.