God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics

submitted by TetrahedronOmega from (self.Christianity)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Actually, what I presented above are proofs of God's existence in the strongest sense of "proof": they are mathematical theorems, i.e., logical proofs.

The only way they could be wrong is if the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are wrong. However, these known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the above physics theorems is to reject empirical science. As Prof. 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].)

Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Standard redneck christian style shout down but with a wall of text. It's just superstition backed with made up "proofs".

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You wrote, "Standard redneck christian style shout down but with a wall of text. It's just superstition backed with made up 'proofs'."

You're confused, as I am not a redneck, nor am I superstitious about anything, unlike you with your scientificophobia and theophobia. Continuing:

In addition to the other mathematical theorems within standard physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) proving God's existence as mentioned in my originating post in this thread, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology.

[Continued in a following post.]

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[Continued from a previous post.]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an invited paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer [Publisher], "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website, ca. 2006, https://archive.is/pKD3y , https://megalodon.jp/2013-1120-1334-44/archive.is/pKD3y .)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see the following two articles:

And see the following website:

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated 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. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

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

Note:

  1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.