No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:30 am

No, Atheist Scientists Are Incompetent
PJ Media

From a right wing (though not specifically creationist) site, and the argument itself is pretty much the usual {!#%@}.

The gold is down in the comment thread.

Here's a sample:

... So, what you're saying is let's start the debate by choosing a definition which effectively ends the debate from the start. ...
Scientists don't know everything, therefore my favorite flavor of stoopidz is true.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Flash » Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:39 am

Oh, Frank J. Tipler the Christian nutcase who doesn't know a good argument from a bad one. He accuses the atheist Lawrence Krauss of not knowing physics:
Lawrence Krauss is a physicist in name only. I’ve debated him in the past, and I know he does not understand either quantum mechanics or general relativity.


Lawrence Krauss happens to be one of more prominent physicists in the academia today. I think he is at the University of Waterloo in Ontario and a member of prestigious Perimeter Institute there. And he is a friend of Dawkins.

Look how Tipler starts his proof of the existence of God.
Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity.

Oh, WTF, it's all clear now Tipler tells us, God is a supernatural being who created the Universe and who is aka the cosmological singularity (or to people like us Jeebus)

Who needs {!#%@} proofs and evidence. Tipler's assumptions are all we need. From here he shows that any self respecting physicist has got to know that the cosmological singularities exist therefore God exists.

The cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause, which is how Thomas Aquinas (“The Five Ways”) and Maimonides (“The Guide for the Perplexed”) defined “God.” All competent Christian and Jewish theologians have known for the past 2,000 years that God in His essence is not an old man wearing a white gown. One of the greatest Christian theologians, John Chrysostom, said that no created being can see God as He really is. So He appears to us in a form we can comprehend, often as an old guy wearing a white sheet.

So now, according to Tipler, the cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause and we know for sure from that bubonic times religious fanatic named Thomas Aquinas that this is indeed god. And God, reveals Tipler, does not really wear white, flowing gowns people he just likes to look like he does.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:34 pm

Flash wrote:Oh, Frank J. Tipler the Christian nutcase ...


Good denunciation fodder, eh?

Never heard of him before, but I'll be on the lookout. ;)
Scientists don't know everything, therefore my favorite flavor of stoopidz is true.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Flash » Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:05 am

From Wiki;
Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. Some have argued that it is pseudoscience.[3] He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine.

So, if anyone wants to know the truth about the resurection of the dead, the time machine and the Omega point go to Tipler. On the other hand;

Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics.[18][19][20] George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience… the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[3] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis.[21] Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".[22] In a review of Tipler's The Physics of Christianity, Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[23]
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:22 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:No, Atheist Scientists Are Incompetent
PJ Media

From a right wing (though not specifically creationist) site, and the argument itself is pretty much the usual {!#%@}.

The gold is down in the comment thread.

Here's a sample:

... So, what you're saying is let's start the debate by choosing a definition which effectively ends the debate from the start. ...


Hi, Abdul Alhazred. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's argument given in his above-cited article entitled "No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent: Lawrence Krauss' claim -- all scientists must be 'militant atheists' -- conveniently fails to address the universe's origin" (PJ Media, Sept. 25, 2015) is not "{!#%@}" (sic), but rather a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics.

GuaniloDC's quote which you provide is correct: Prof. Tipler's argument absolutely does end the debate. Rejoice: physics unavoidably says that God exists. And that of course is what any sane person wants: the debate not only ended, but ended in mankind's favor--for the alternative is eternal extinction.

The definition of God which Prof. Tipler gives in his aforesaid article is a quidditative definition of God. That is to say, said definition identifies a haecceity, i.e., a property which differentiates a thing from all other things that are not that thing. If *a thing* has even a single haecceity given by the word's definition, then *by definition* that thing is *the thing* to which the word refers, as the haecceity (or haecceities) uniquely *defines* a thing.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals, is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Said known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

* * * * *

A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being.

As Prof. Tipler noted, "Any cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, "A Physicist Proposes a Theory of Eternal Life that Yields God", Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 [Oct. 1994], pp. 89 ff. [8 pp.].) This means that, e.g., any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.

Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences.

Consequently, transhumanism--if the goal by that position is immortality--is inherently theistic, not only in a lowercase-G god sense, but also in the capital-G God sense.

Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded. Thus, to believe that evolution has a finite cut-off would be to hold a belief without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief.

The concept of man being gods and becoming ever-more Godlike is simply traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings (e.g., see John 10:34), that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)", Wikipedia, Oct. 6, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =684362358 . Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been deemphasized for the last millennium.

Indeed, the words "transhuman" and "superhuman" originated in Christian theology. "Transhuman" is a neologism coined by Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72), referring favorably to a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin of the term "superhuman", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.), the first appearance being by Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, in his Al Mondo: Contemplatio Mortis, & Immortalitatis (London, England: Robert Barker, and the Assignes of John Bill, 1636).
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:35 am

The above is a good example of why I quit an Atheists Forum as it was overrun with theist arguments of the type shown. Complete word vomit. Makes me want to throw up again.....................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:57 am

JamesRedford wrote:...a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant...

Ha, courtesy of our recent shroomacle, I read several accounts of visionary partaking and imbibing in special he or she brews - Rainbow Magic, the other Green Tea. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:54 am

Flash wrote:Oh, Frank J. Tipler the Christian nutcase who doesn't know a good argument from a bad one. ...


Hi, Flash. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661, http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs ). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

After the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

... He accuses the atheist Lawrence Krauss of not knowing physics:
Lawrence Krauss is a physicist in name only. I’ve debated him in the past, and I know he does not understand either quantum mechanics or general relativity.


Lawrence Krauss happens to be one of more prominent physicists in the academia today. I think he is at the University of Waterloo in Ontario and a member of prestigious Perimeter Institute there. And he is a friend of Dawkins.


Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss is a particle physicist. Whereas Prof. Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Global General Relativity (which is General Relativity applied on the scale of the universe as a whole) is the field created by Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems, and it is the most elite and rarefied field of physics.

I give commentary on Prof. Krauss's 2007 debate with Prof. Tipler in the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

Look how Tipler starts his proof of the existence of God.
Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity.

Oh, WTF, it's all clear now Tipler tells us, God is a supernatural being who created the Universe and who is aka the cosmological singularity (or to people like us Jeebus)

Who needs {!#%@} proofs and evidence. Tipler's assumptions are all we need. From here he shows that any self respecting physicist has got to know that the cosmological singularities exist therefore God exists.

The cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause, which is how Thomas Aquinas (“The Five Ways”) and Maimonides (“The Guide for the Perplexed”) defined “God.” All competent Christian and Jewish theologians have known for the past 2,000 years that God in His essence is not an old man wearing a white gown. One of the greatest Christian theologians, John Chrysostom, said that no created being can see God as He really is. So He appears to us in a form we can comprehend, often as an old guy wearing a white sheet.

So now, according to Tipler, the cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause and we know for sure from that bubonic times religious fanatic named Thomas Aquinas that this is indeed god. And God, reveals Tipler, does not really wear white, flowing gowns people he just likes to look like he does.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, in addition to my previously-cited article:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:35 am

Flash wrote:From Wiki;
Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. Some have argued that it is pseudoscience.[3] He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine.

So, if anyone wants to know the truth about the resurection of the dead, the time machine and the Omega point go to Tipler. On the other hand;

Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics.[18][19][20] George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience… the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[3] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis.[21] Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".[22] In a review of Tipler's The Physics of Christianity, Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[23]


Regarding Prof. George Ellis's criticism, to date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Ellis and Dr. David Coule (see G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739). In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

Concerning Martin Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Tipler's part within said review. However, I do find the below exchange between Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner's aforesaid review of Barrow and Tipler's book. Note Gardner's two-word reply to Tipler.

* Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "The FAP Flop", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (Dec. 4, 1986), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4946 , 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), https://archive.is/QXsv3 , http://webcitation.org/6c7ZmxVbU .

Prof. Michael Shermer doesn't attempt to present any error on Prof. Tipler's part regarding the Omega Point cosmology.

For my reply to Dr. Sean M. Carroll's erroneous criticisms of Prof. Tipler in Carroll's blog post "The Physics of Christianity" (Preposterous Universe, May 30, 2007), see my reply to Carroll within his blog-post page entitled "The Varieties of Crackpot Experience" (Discover Blogs; and Preposterous Universe, Jan. 5, 2009), http://webcitation.org/5yDcRx6IZ , https://archive.is/56z3C .

Nor, contrary to what Dr. Carroll claimed, is Prof. Tipler a "crackpot". Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws. Under this rational definition of what a "crackpot" is within the discipline of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots.

In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler's physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler's mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler's technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss's review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss's pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it's clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details.

Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

As pointed out with Ellis and Coule's criticism, this isn't the first time that this ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

Bear in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. For much more on the foregoing matters, 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Gord » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:38 pm

"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:01 pm

JamesRedford wrote: GuaniloDC's quote which you provide is correct: Prof. Tipler's argument absolutely does end the debate. Rejoice: physics unavoidably says that God exists. And that of course is what any sane person wants: the debate not only ended, but ended in mankind's favor--for the alternative is eternal extinction.

...


Oh goody a live one. ;)
Scientists don't know everything, therefore my favorite flavor of stoopidz is true.

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:09 am

Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread. As I said in my previous post above:

""
For my reply to Dr. Sean M. Carroll's erroneous criticisms of Prof. Tipler in Carroll's blog post "The Physics of Christianity" (Preposterous Universe, May 30, 2007), see my reply to Carroll within his blog-post page entitled "The Varieties of Crackpot Experience" (Discover Blogs; and Preposterous Universe, Jan. 5, 2009), http://webcitation.org/5yDcRx6IZ , https://archive.is/56z3C .

Nor, contrary to what Dr. Carroll claimed, is Prof. Tipler a "crackpot". Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws. Under this rational definition of what a "crackpot" is within the discipline of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots.
""
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:19 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
JamesRedford wrote: GuaniloDC's quote which you provide is correct: Prof. Tipler's argument absolutely does end the debate. Rejoice: physics unavoidably says that God exists. And that of course is what any sane person wants: the debate not only ended, but ended in mankind's favor--for the alternative is eternal extinction.

...


Oh goody a live one. ;)


Two commas belong in your above sentence.

However, you are right. As I am presenting the information which demonstrates that your belief that eternal death is all life's inexorable future is incorrect.

Which makes this whole so-called "debate" ironic. (And I should know, as I'm a part-time collector of irony.) Atheists (in actuality, antitheists) such as you and Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss have already figured yourselves as existential losers. You already figure your ultimate future is nihil. From your own Weltanschauung, you're existential garbage that will be eternally discarded in due time.

So it's nonsensical to even be concerned about cultural or political matters given such a worldview.

But as Julian Jaynes observed, mankind is coming out of a condition of schizophrenia in its evolution from the animalistic mental state. The average human today still suffers from an extreme form of schizophrenia, but because almost everyone suffers from this extreme form of schizophrenia, it goes largely unremarked. There have been some studies on it, such as the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment, but this form of extreme schizophrenia that the average human is under is unremarkable because virtually everyone suffers from it. This is the cause of, e.g., the wars based upon lies whose obvious falsity are available for almost everyone to easily review.

Now by saying "extreme schizophrenia", obviously those type of schizophrenics we see today who actually hear voices are a far more extreme example of schizophrenia. Though the average human's form of schizophrenia is still an extreme form of schizophrenia, because it is due to this form of average (yet still extreme in its consequences) schizophrenia that we have all the wars, the mass-murders and the genocides. It is only due to people's ability to hold mutually-contradictory viewpoints which allows such horrors. Because doesn't every culture and society view themselves as good people? Naturally, of course.

The mind of man is still utterly coitioned. And due to that, with the very advanced technology coming up, our ass is grass.

But, as I told you: I am a collector of irony. What technology slaughtered, it will revive.

Though it will revive those who it finds made its own existence possible. Those who worked against its existence may not fare so well.
Last edited by JamesRedford on Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10738
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:10 am

JamesRedford wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
JamesRedford wrote: GuaniloDC's quote which you provide is correct: Prof. Tipler's argument absolutely does end the debate. Rejoice: physics unavoidably says that God exists. And that of course is what any sane person wants: the debate not only ended, but ended in mankind's favor--for the alternative is eternal extinction.  ...

Oh goody a live one. ;)

Two commas belong in your above sentence.

Watch out Abdul, not only is he a live one, he also knows what a comma is. :shock:

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Flash » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:14 am

JamesRedford wrote:
Bear in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.


Thank you for your reply James but...regarding the mathematical theorems, these constructs are totally abstract things not necessarily connected with a physical theory. They can be wrong if axioms used to develop them are wrong or the deductive reasoning falters. But even if they are like you say, about some physical theory if the theory is not experimentally confirmed then both the physical theory and the mathematical theorem are worth very little in the real world. The string theory is a good example of this. This is what Wiki says about it:
Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology. A scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories.


Therefore, the omega point mathematics could be admirable however it's relationship to the real world could also be nonexistent. Nobody really knows the least of all Tipler himself.

My link to the Infidels webpage has an article on the subject which lists all of Tipler's assumptions some of which seem not only over optimistic but actually look as if pulled out of the loonie bin. Like the assumption that the crunch at the end of the Universe will be controlled by an intelligent agent.

I won't list or quote all of these assumptions because these posts are becoming annoyingly lengthy and hard to read. But any willing soul can look it up.

I just would like to add that Tipler thinks that this intelligent agent with absolutely all of the info in the Universe at it's disposal is supposed to evolve from us because...well because Tipler loves de Chardin's theory of the necessary and thus inevitable rise of intelligence in the Universe.
This is not physics, it's not science. The Omega point or the big crunch at the end of times has been proposed before in science and just like the string theory it probably has some dandy mathematics connected with it. But that does not mean that it is or will be true.

Nobody knows presently whether the Universe is open and will end in a big nothingness or closed as Tipler thinks and will therefore end in a big crunch. Although, as you probably know James, the majority of cosmologists think it's open. He even confesses to not being sure about it.

So the physics and the mathematics of either permanent solution to our Universe are well known and really, not imminent . Calling the big crunch resolution to our troubled world an omega point is pompous enough but to say that it's gonna be some spook who is going to resurrect everybody one day is ridiculous. The spook is borrowed straight from the mythology of the ancients and has as much reality as all the other spooks through centuries; Zeus, Apollo, Horus, etc.

You ask the physicists, like Krauss and Stenger about the omega point and they will tell you that the mathematics and physics of it are just as good as the string theory however that plugging in the Christian superstitions into that has no basis in mathematics or physics. The latter is the product of the ages now promoted by lunatics and idiots. The former whether true or false) is just an exercise in science.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/tipler.txt
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:51 am

Flash wrote:JamesRedford wrote:
Bear in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.


Thank you for your reply James but...regarding the mathematical theorems, these constructs are totally abstract things not necessarily connected with a physical theory. ...


A physical theorem is a physical theory, yet a mathematically-true one, given true premises. The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point theory of quantum gravity is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

... They can be wrong if axioms used to develop them are wrong or the deductive reasoning falters. But even if they are like you say, about some physical theory if the theory is not experimentally confirmed then both the physical theory and the mathematical theorem are worth very little in the real world. The string theory is a good example of this. This is what Wiki says about it:
Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology. A scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories.


Therefore, the omega point mathematics could be admirable however it's relationship to the real world could also be nonexistent. Nobody really knows the least of all Tipler himself.


String Theory violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental confirmation. Whereas the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is merely nothing more and nothing less than empirical science. It is simply those known laws of physics which have been confirmed by every experiment to date, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

My link to the Infidels webpage has an article on the subject which lists all of Tipler's assumptions some of which seem not only over optimistic but actually look as if pulled out of the loonie bin. Like the assumption that the crunch at the end of the Universe will be controlled by an intelligent agent.

I won't list or quote all of these assumptions because these posts are becoming annoyingly lengthy and hard to read. But any willing soul can look it up.

I just would like to add that Tipler thinks that this intelligent agent with absolutely all of the info in the Universe at it's disposal is supposed to evolve from us because...well because Tipler loves de Chardin's theory of the necessary and thus inevitable rise of intelligence in the Universe.
This is not physics, it's not science. The Omega point or the big crunch at the end of times has been proposed before in science and just like the string theory it probably has some dandy mathematics connected with it. But that does not mean that it is or will be true.

Nobody knows presently whether the Universe is open and will end in a big nothingness or closed as Tipler thinks and will therefore end in a big crunch. Although, as you probably know James, the majority of cosmologists think it's open. He even confesses to not being sure about it.


Regarding physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's "confess[ion]" which you refer to: Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661, http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs ). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

After the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

So the physics and the mathematics of either permanent solution to our Universe are well known and really, not imminent . Calling the big crunch resolution to our troubled world an omega point is pompous enough but to say that it's gonna be some spook who is going to resurrect everybody one day is ridiculous. The spook is borrowed straight from the mythology of the ancients and has as much reality as all the other spooks through centuries; Zeus, Apollo, Horus, etc.

You ask the physicists, like Krauss and Stenger about the omega point and they will tell you that the mathematics and physics of it are just as good as the string theory however that plugging in the Christian superstitions into that has no basis in mathematics or physics. The latter is the product of the ages now promoted by lunatics and idiots. The former whether true or false) is just an exercise in science.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/tipler.txt


Yes, I'm quite familiar with virtually everything that has ever been publicly written in English regarding Prof. Tipler.

Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Victor J. Stenger are/were particle physicists. Whereas Prof. Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Global General Relativity (which is General Relativity applied on the scale of the universe as a whole) is the field created by Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems, and it is the most elite and rarefied field of physics.

I give commentary on Prof. Krauss's 2007 debate with Prof. Tipler in the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Gord » Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:38 am

JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

s13ep
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:51 am

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby s13ep » Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:04 am

New Atheists and other evils are just as spiritual as some Theists, they conduct rituals and practice magic; blood sacrifices to a God or Godhead, casting invisibility, and such (I even imagine they dabble in the 'erb), but by way of things that they have worded, and evolved, to be logical; such as by 'telling a joke', or 'group laughter' (where one on the receiving end of the joke is sacrificed). It's a sick ritual that corporations, the state and Academia have us involved in, and they are supported by the New Atheist movement---they cast invisibility upon their overlords, they sacrifice the intelligent to boost their own and Godheads will. And so, their sources of knowledge are prior magic practices, or ritualistic behaviour, worshipped by, New Atheists and other evils, as logic, in effort to pervert the course of justice.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Gord » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:36 am

s13ep wrote:New Atheists and other evils are just as spiritual as some Theists, they conduct rituals and practice magic; blood sacrifices to a God or Godhead, casting invisibility, and such (I even imagine they dabble in the 'erb), but by way of things that they have worded, and evolved, to be logical; such as by 'telling a joke', or 'group laughter' (where one on the receiving end of the joke is sacrificed). It's a sick ritual that corporations, the state and Academia have us involved in, and they are supported by the New Atheist movement---they cast invisibility upon their overlords, they sacrifice the intelligent to boost their own and Godheads will. And so, their sources of knowledge are prior magic practices, or ritualistic behaviour, worshipped by, New Atheists and other evils, as logic, in effort to pervert the course of justice.

Frank? Is that you, Frank?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Flash » Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:44 am

Oh {!#%@}. Another dildosopher! What the hell is s13ep raving about? :nuts:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:05 am

Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.


Hi, Gord. Within the rationalistic description of a crackpot in the field of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots, since it is a mathematical theorem per the know laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

For the details on that, see my following article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. It is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:19 am

s13ep wrote:New Atheists and other evils are just as spiritual as some Theists, they conduct rituals and practice magic; blood sacrifices to a God or Godhead, casting invisibility, and such (I even imagine they dabble in the 'erb), but by way of things that they have worded, and evolved, to be logical; such as by 'telling a joke', or 'group laughter' (where one on the receiving end of the joke is sacrificed). It's a sick ritual that corporations, the state and Academia have us involved in, and they are supported by the New Atheist movement---they cast invisibility upon their overlords, they sacrifice the intelligent to boost their own and Godheads will. And so, their sources of knowledge are prior magic practices, or ritualistic behaviour, worshipped by, New Atheists and other evils, as logic, in effort to pervert the course of justice.


The nature of the state is to aggrandize all allegiance to itself. Thus, the notion of ultimate truth, of ultimate intelligence and knowledge, of which no government or king can alter, is among the greatest heresies to the state, since the natural tendency of the state is to make itself God in the eyes of its subjects: to make itself the source of all truth.

As Noam Chomsky correctly observed, the so-called "New Atheists" are themselves quite religious. They worship a God, but their God is the state. (Not that Chomsky himself isn't guilty of state-worship in a number of areas, but nevertheless, despite his many faults, he does sometimes make penetrating observations.) Their objections to others' religions, such as Christianity, is simply nothing more than attempting to eliminate their competition. However, as Chomsky also astutely noted, the New Atheists' religion is by far the most bloodly and murderous religion to ever exist. Eliminating God in the 20th century didn't make the governments more liberal; instead, it simply removed any higher notion of truth to which those governments were expected to abide. The state made itself God.

The foregoing process which I describe is actually logically unavoidable. If God in the literal sense of the infinite sapient being does not exist, then all is permissible. Even if one can prove that, say, libertarianism is apodictically true in the same degree that 2+2 = 4 is true, so what? In the end, we're all dead anyway. The only thing that could give life any meaning beyond mere delusion is if God exists, since then an infinite computational state would exist, thereby allowing finite minds to endlessly grow in complexity toward infinite perfection (per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem). Only then would one's life-work avoid coming to naught. Only then would what one does now actually matter in the end.

As it turns out, the universe is a machine that will diverge to infinite computing power. For the details on that, see my above posts within this thread.
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Gord » Sat Oct 24, 2015 4:53 am

JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.


Hi, Gord.

Hi!

Within the rationalistic description of a crackpot in the field of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots, since it is a mathematical theorem per the know laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.

No it's not. It's a theology that's been gussied up with fancy physics words to sound plausible to people who can't see past them.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/tipler.html

Rant / Review by John Walker
October 26, 1994

I just finished Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2) which I'd really looked forward to reading ever since I heard it was out, and my reaction is…ouch—what a disappointment! Nothing prepared me for just how B-A-D it is....

...What a pile of crap. I'm just glad he didn't base his arguments too heavily on nanotechnology, AI, or von Neumann probes; it would have given them all a bad name. The review in Nature called POI a “masterpiece of pseudoscience”. I disagree; I don't think it's that good.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:33 am

Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.


Hi, Gord.


Hi!


Hello. It's so good to hear "Hi!" from you, Gord. We so rarely get the opportunity to exchange such pleasantries with each other. Such is the way of mortal life that it often occurs that two people as ourselves can go long in temporality with barely saying a Good'ay! So when I see that greeting, such as you have made, it makes me say to myself, "Well, that's something." And something is not nothing--I'll be the first to tell you that!

However, perhaps nothing is everything. Indeed, it is: mathematically speaking. And I think that's swell.

Within the rationalistic description of a crackpot in the field of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots, since it is a mathematical theorem per the know laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.

No it's not. It's a theology that's been gussied up with fancy physics words to sound plausible to people who can't see past them.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/tipler.html

Rant / Review by John Walker
October 26, 1994

I just finished Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2) which I'd really looked forward to reading ever since I heard it was out, and my reaction is…ouch—what a disappointment! Nothing prepared me for just how B-A-D it is....

...What a pile of crap. I'm just glad he didn't base his arguments too heavily on nanotechnology, AI, or von Neumann probes; it would have given them all a bad name. The review in Nature called POI a “masterpiece of pseudoscience”. I disagree; I don't think it's that good.


Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661, http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs ). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

After the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Concerning the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity, see my following article, which details Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the aforesaid known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Gord » Sat Oct 24, 2015 10:54 am

JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.


Hi, Gord.


Hi!


Hello. It's so good to hear "Hi!" from you, Gord. We so rarely get the opportunity to exchange such pleasantries with each other.

I say "hi" a lot. It's one of my most commonly posted one-word responses.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Why do you think this is important information? Most people don't set out to become crackpots; they come about it in the course of doing other things.

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

:facepalm:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Mladjoni
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:33 pm

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Mladjoni » Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:42 pm

That is just one simple ad hominem...

User avatar
JamesRedford
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:53 pm
Custom Title: Lux et veritas
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby JamesRedford » Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:50 am

Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.


Hi, Gord.


Hi!


Hello. It's so good to hear "Hi!" from you, Gord. We so rarely get the opportunity to exchange such pleasantries with each other.


I say "hi" a lot. It's one of my most commonly posted one-word responses.


I didn't ask for that information, but something about you telling me that made you feel better.

Buy, hey, "Hi!" it is for you.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).


Why do you think this is important information? Most people don't set out to become crackpots; they come about it in the course of doing other things.


Within the rationalistic description of a crackpot in the field of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots, since it is a mathematical theorem per the know laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).


:facepalm:


For the details on that, see my following article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. It is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford- ... of-God.pdf , https://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... QWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

"The State is the coldest of all cold monsters."--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29469
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:44 am

JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:
JamesRedford wrote:
Gord wrote:Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hZx3HpVhBc


Hi, Gord. You are not paying attention to the conversation within this thread.

Yes I am.

Frank Tipler is a crackpot.

Within the field of physics, the only sensible definition of a "crackpot" is one who rejects the known laws of physics or who proposes theories which violate said physical laws.

There are much more sensible definitions of a "crackpot", but Frank Tipler fits yours as well.

Hi, Gord.

Hi!

Hello. It's so good to hear "Hi!" from you, Gord. We so rarely get the opportunity to exchange such pleasantries with each other.

I say "hi" a lot. It's one of my most commonly posted one-word responses.


I didn't ask for that information, but something about you telling me that made you feel better.

Mmmm, nope.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Why do you think this is important information? Most people don't set out to become crackpots; they come about it in the course of doing other things.

Within the rationalistic description of a crackpot in the field of physics, those who reject the Omega Point cosmology are crackpots, since it is a mathematical theorem per the know laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.

Mmmm, nope again.

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

:facepalm:

For the details on that, see my following article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

Oh, hell nope.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions.

I agree, it is a load of BS.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4211
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby gorgeous » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:59 am

more and more scientists believe there is a Creator based on their observations...----Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." ------------------------Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming" -"--------Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural' plan."-
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:03 am

gorgeous wrote:more and more scientists believe there is a Creator based on their observations...----Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)
Fred Hoyle died 15 years ago, you complete idiot, how can the there more and more scientists if they are already dead? :D

Are you really this stupid all the time?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:06 am

Hoyle is dead, Penzias nearly so, Davies said so much more. HEY!==you forgot to add Einstein!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8242
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: No, *Atheist* Scientists Are Incompetent

Postby Poodle » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:03 pm

Having just read this thread, I cannot accept the arguments of JamesRedford on the grounds that he began a sentence with a proposition.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest