Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Have we got a "bollocks" icon in here?

No. But we have a bullshit one. And a delete spammer button. I am trying hard to think of a reason not to use it.

[beige]

From what I can see, Tipler's stuff doesn't provide for any past or present God, it proposes the possibility of one existing at some point in the far flung future.

[James Redford]

Have we got a "bollocks" icon in here?

No. But we have a bullshit one. And a delete spammer button. I am trying hard to think of a reason not to use it.

Citations of a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals is not spam. It's called the scholarly method.

[cowiz]

Have we got a "bollocks" icon in here?

No. But we have a bullshit one. And a delete spammer button. I am trying hard to think of a reason not to use it.

Citations of a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals is not spam. It's called the scholarly method.

Did you cut and paste that all by yourself? Aren't you a clever boy.

[Azathoth]

miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.

Or a reasonably competent illusionist plying his trade.

Then it wouldn't be an authentic miracle.

There are no authentic miracles though. Show some evidence of a "miracle" actually occuring and then the hypothesising about it's cause can begin. So far all there is is anecdotal evidence in a book of fairy tales about a magic man.

[Tigger]

Have we got a "bollocks" icon in here?

No. But we have a bullshit one. And a delete spammer button. I am trying hard to think of a reason not to use it.

Citations of a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals is not spam. It's called the scholarly method.

Seems an odd way to enter a new forum, though, vomiting woo all over the place like someone with theistic Tourette's.

[James Redford]

From what I can see, Tipler's stuff doesn't provide for any past or present God, it proposes the possibility of one existing at some point in the far flung future. :what:

Physics has many decades ago already proved that God exists in all of existence's ultimate past.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself (i.e., quite literally, the 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 the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time).

The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it.

Rabbi Moses Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas, from their readings of biblical scripture, had both defined God as the Uncaused First Cause (which accords with Aristotle's conception of God as the Unmoved Mover), and so the physics community was quite reluctant to confirm with the Big Bang that God exists per this traditional definition of God.

As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang, in an article by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:

""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort." [My emphasis--J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_Peer ... 070103.pdf Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 62, Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
""

On p. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), p. 113:

""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
""

For more quotes by Dr. Jastrow on this, see:

John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, "Science and Discomfiting Discoveries" in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United Church of God, 2000). http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/d ... veries.htm , http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf

For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below article:

Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I," Atheism's Assertions, February 20, 2007. http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... e-big.html

##########

Moreover, different times are merely examples of different universes in the multiverse. According to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), the Omega Point is logically required to exist in order to avoid their violation (such as unitarity being violated, or entropy decreasing). So if the known laws of physics are true descriptions of the world (and there exists no rational reason to think that they aren't, as they have been confirmed by every experiment to date), then the Omega Point exists apodictically. That is to say, if the known laws of physics are true, then existence could not exist in the first place without the Omega Point existing.

The Omega Point is the Final Singularity. This is God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity. It consists of infinite entropy and infinite information. Another way of thinking of it is God in all His fullness, since, given that it has infinite computational resources, anything that will ever exist will be perfectly rendered on some level of implementation at this Final Singularity. It knows all that can logically be known.

The All-Presents Singularity exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse. This is God the Son, or the Second Person of the Trinity; or God in the world. Its entropy and information goes from zero to infinity.

The Initial Singularity was the start of the Big Bang. If one desires, one can also call it the Alpha Point. This is God the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person of the Trinity. It started at zero entropy and zero information. Think of it as a guiding influence upon all of existence, since the laws of physics come from it (going by the usual way in which humans think of causation, since the Initial Singularity exists in our past--although in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity).

In classical (i.e., relativistic) cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don't expand out from the Bing Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity. At the Theophysics website there exists a diagram that shows this process.

These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually One Singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a triune homoousian.

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 (with its Three-in-One structure) has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So each Person of the Trinity at all times has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

[cowiz]

I must say you are very good with this copy and paste thing. Very impressive.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Theophysics and atheismisdead are not peer reviewed journals - they are incoherent piles of woo. You are a spammer. Take a last look around. You are about to be deleted, along with your rubbish.

[James Redford]

Have we got a "bollocks" icon in here?

No. But we have a bullshit one. And a delete spammer button. I am trying hard to think of a reason not to use it.

Citations of a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals is not spam. It's called the scholarly method.

Did you cut and paste that all by yourself? Aren't you a clever boy.

I wrote it all by myself.

[Tigger]

I must say you are very good with this copy and paste thing. Very impressive.

I was more of the tl;dr school of thought.

What utter cack.

[cowiz]

Theophysics and atheismisdead are not peer reviewed journals - they are incoherent piles of woo. You are a spammer. Take a last look around. You are about to be deleted, along with your rubbish.

Let him play. He's very good. Maybe he's even all grown up enough to use the big peoples toiiet to go poo poos.

[James Redford]

Theophysics and atheismisdead are not peer reviewed journals - they are incoherent piles of woo. You are a spammer. Take a last look around. You are about to be deleted, along with your rubbish.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

For some of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory, see my second post above.

[cowiz]

I would like to have the honor of being the first one to say "tits" in this thread.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I would like to have the honor of being the first one to say "tits" in this thread.

Can't say tits without posting a tasteful pic of a huge pair - it's the rules.