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 →

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

Religious peopple will come up with any kind of bullshit to prove they are "right".

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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.]