Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post Reply
User avatar
James Redford
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by James Redford » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:10 pm

Twiglet wrote:Could be all about the money. The Templeton foundation, for example, is known to be rather generous to physicists who get God.
Look at the judges who award the prizes of the John Templeton Foundation: it's a multi-faith, multicultural board:

"The Templeton Prize – Judges" http://templetonprize.org/judges.html

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is hardly winning Brownie points with this crew, given the Omega Point cosmology's Christian theological implications. If Tipler had come out with some namby pamby, mush-headed, milk toast, nebulous New Age syncretism of all religions with a light spattering of physics mixed in, then he would pretty much be guaranteed to win the Templeton Prize.

As the below New Scientist article points out, it's pretty much a gaggle of atheists who nowadays run the John Templeton Foundation:

"Templeton prize is bad news for religion, not science," Michael Brooks, New Scientist, March 25, 2010 http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... ws-fo.html

If the John Templeton Foundation's actual intent were to reward scientists who show that science and religion are compatible, then Prof. Tipler would have gotten the Templeton Prize decades ago, as he's the only physicist who has been doing physics research on this subject in a serious manner (i.e., with peer-reviewed physics papers, etc.).

Instead, the John Templeton Foundation is a completely milk toast organization that has no desire to rock any boat. The John Templeton Foundation's version of "religion" has no religion--or God--in it. The Templeton Foundation is the limpest of soggy noodles.
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 Theory and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by Tigger » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:13 pm

FUCKING STOP IT WITH THE TEXT WALLS. STOP IT. NOBODY CARES.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:20 pm

I read them ... they made little sense ....so I forgot them again and went looking for Tipler on the net .


I do wish I hadn't ...Like Scientology ANYTHING supported by the Discovery Institute would be laughable apart from the BIG money invested in selling us insane lies.
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
mindyourmind
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:02 pm
About me: Why?
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by mindyourmind » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:23 pm

Feck wrote:I read them ... they made little sense ....so I forgot them again and went looking for Tipler on the net .


I do wish I hadn't ...Like Scientology ANYTHING supported by the Discovery Institute would be laughable apart from the BIG money invested in selling us insane lies.
A few months ago I also had a look at Tipler, and the Omega Twaddle, and the best thing I can say for Tippler is that I think he really believes that stuff. Which makes me worry about him.
So you are saying that the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering, and the extinction of most species, is so that at the end of all of that a select few humans could be with him forever. I see.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:25 pm

mindyourmind wrote:
Feck wrote:I read them ... they made little sense ....so I forgot them again and went looking for Tipler on the net .


I do wish I hadn't ...Like Scientology ANYTHING supported by the Discovery Institute would be laughable apart from the BIG money invested in selling us insane lies.
A few months ago I also had a look at Tipler, and the Omega Twaddle, and the best thing I can say for Tippler is that I think he really believes that stuff. Which makes me worry about him.

So If the answer comes to 3 there must be a God .....that's Good science that is :tup:
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
James Redford
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by James Redford » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:28 pm

Ghatanothoa wrote:
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."
Nice quote mining. He goes on to explain that he was glad that the Pope couldn't follow his maths as singularities are abolished when imaginary time is factored into the equations leaving no room for a creation event or a creator.
That's incorrect. What Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his said book is that he attempted to develop a cosmology based on imaginary time, in which singularities would not exist. But the actual physics of cosmology is based upon real time, and not imaginary time. Hawking's attempt at a cosmology based on imaginary time never went anywhere, and so he dropped it.
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 Theory and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

User avatar
mindyourmind
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:02 pm
About me: Why?
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by mindyourmind » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:31 pm

James Redford wrote:
Ghatanothoa wrote:
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."
Nice quote mining. He goes on to explain that he was glad that the Pope couldn't follow his maths as singularities are abolished when imaginary time is factored into the equations leaving no room for a creation event or a creator.
That's incorrect. What Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his said book is that he attempted to develop a cosmology based on imaginary time, in which singularities would not exist. But the actual physics of cosmology is based upon real time, and not imaginary time. Hawking's attempt at a cosmology based on imaginary time never went anywhere, and so he dropped it.
Unlike Tipler, whose imaginary cosmology never went anywhere, but who has still not dropped it.
So you are saying that the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering, and the extinction of most species, is so that at the end of all of that a select few humans could be with him forever. I see.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:33 pm

James Redford wrote:
Ghatanothoa wrote:
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."
Nice quote mining. He goes on to explain that he was glad that the Pope couldn't follow his maths as singularities are abolished when imaginary time is factored into the equations leaving no room for a creation event or a creator.
That's incorrect. What Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his said book is that he attempted to develop a cosmology based on imaginary time, in which singularities would not exist. But the actual physics of cosmology is based upon real time, and not imaginary time. Hawking's attempt at a cosmology based on imaginary time never went anywhere, and so he dropped it.

Your Grammar is not so good when you actually engage and write, rather than copy /paste is it ?
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by normal » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:35 pm

Oh, come on, Feck. Grammar? :hehe:
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:39 pm

Normal wrote:Oh, come on, Feck. Grammar? :hehe:

that was quick Normal :clap: it's like me spotting a spelling mistake innit Look it's a thro away Troll thred and I could be bovered posting Huge mamaries !
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
James Redford
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by James Redford » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:39 pm

Ghatanothoa wrote:You seem to like Hawking quotes. How about this one
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility. In this, there would be no boundary to space-time. Thus, there would be need to specify behaviour at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to god or some new law to set the boundary conditions of space-time. One could say: " The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just be.
Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated Theory of Everything, pp.81-82

Now stop quote mining him. Theres a good chap
What Prof. Stephen Hawking is saying there is that it is his hope that when the theory of quantum gravity is discovered, that it shows that no singularities occur, hence that everything can be explained per this hypothetical quantum gravity theory: as no form of physics can be applied to a singularity (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).

What the actual quantum gravity theory (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity theory) demonstrates is that singularities are unavoidable: the equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 49 and 279, "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."
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 Theory and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

User avatar
mindyourmind
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:02 pm
About me: Why?
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by mindyourmind » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:41 pm

James Redford wrote:
Ghatanothoa wrote:You seem to like Hawking quotes. How about this one
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility. In this, there would be no boundary to space-time. Thus, there would be need to specify behaviour at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to god or some new law to set the boundary conditions of space-time. One could say: " The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just be.
Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated Theory of Everything, pp.81-82

Now stop quote mining him. Theres a good chap
What Prof. Stephen Hawking is saying there is that it is his hope that when the theory of quantum gravity is discovered, that it shows that no singularities occur, hence that everything can be explained per this hypothetical quantum gravity theory: as no form of physics can be applied to a singularity (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).

What the actual quantum gravity theory (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity theory) demonstrates is that singularities are unavoidable: the equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 49 and 279, "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."
... therefore Jesus :naughty:
So you are saying that the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering, and the extinction of most species, is so that at the end of all of that a select few humans could be with him forever. I see.

User avatar
James Redford
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by James Redford » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:44 pm

Feck wrote:
James Redford wrote:
Ghatanothoa wrote:
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."
Nice quote mining. He goes on to explain that he was glad that the Pope couldn't follow his maths as singularities are abolished when imaginary time is factored into the equations leaving no room for a creation event or a creator.
That's incorrect. What Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his said book is that he attempted to develop a cosmology based on imaginary time, in which singularities would not exist. But the actual physics of cosmology is based upon real time, and not imaginary time. Hawking's attempt at a cosmology based on imaginary time never went anywhere, and so he dropped it.
Your Grammar is not so good when you actually engage and write, rather than copy /paste is it ?
Perhaps you have your own personal ideas as to what proper grammar consists of. I would like it if you would share with the class your ideas on this.
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 Theory and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by Tigger » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:56 pm

James Redford wrote: What Prof. Stephen Hawking is saying there is that it is his hope that when the theory of quantum gravity is discovered, that it shows that no singularities occur, hence that everything can be explained per this hypothetical quantum gravity theory: as no form of physics can be applied to a singularity (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).
James Redford wrote:Perhaps you have your own personal ideas as to what proper grammar consists of. I would like it if you would share with the class your ideas on this.
Well that first paragraph is one mother of a sentence, it it not? :funny:
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
James Redford
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

Post by James Redford » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:57 pm

Pappa wrote:
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
Twiglet wrote:Could be all about the money. The Templeton foundation, for example, is known to be rather generous to physicists who get God.
The Tipler page at wikipedia is part of their tidy-up project for articles dealing with ID. :eddy:
Weird.... that page doesn't have the usual "Criticisms of his theories" section. :think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Nor does the Omega Point page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29

Very odd.
It's not actually odd at all. 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.

If peer-reviewed physics articles were to be newly-published that attempt to refute Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, then the Wikipedia articles which you mention would no doubt cite them.
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 Theory and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything [TOE]), http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.host56.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests