Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's interesting that so afraid is Gawdzilla of the information that I provide that he simply reposts via the forum's quotation function a long post of nonsense text by a previous poster

You're new here, aren't you?

I can't recall you reposting a long post of nonsense text by James Redford.

"previous poster" might include himself, but I'm not leaning that way.

[James Redford]

In reading over all the responses since my previous post, I see that none of the members of this forum could formulate a logically valid response. All of these aforesaid posters' responses read as if they came off an episode of Family Guy. Apparently so shallow are they that this television show is their model for life, particularly their intellectual life.

With such inane and nihil ad rem responses, it's as if the movie Idiocracy is a documentary of our present time, and I'm simply experiencing parts of the documentary that didn't make the final cut. This forum's usual inhabitants make about the best case for eugenics that can be made. Not that eugenics can ever actually be justified, but in scanning over the brain-dead hulks of humanity who have replied to my recent posts, I can at least begin to understand why the oligarchy consider the mass of mankind to be cockroaches that ought to be eliminated.

For those here who might not yet be mentally dead--in the sense of higher degrees of reasoning--investigate physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), via my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOf ... Everything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford ... of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

[FBM]

In reading over all the responses since my previous post, I see that none of the members of this forum could formulate a logically valid response. All of these aforesaid posters' responses read as if they came off an episode of Family Guy. Apparently so shallow are they that this television show is their model for life, particularly their intellectual life.

With such inane and nihil ad rem responses, it's as if the movie Idiocracy is a documentary of our present time, and I'm simply experiencing parts of the documentary that didn't make the final cut. This forum's usual inhabitants make about the best case for eugenics that can be made. Not that eugenics can ever actually be justified, but in scanning over the brain-dead hulks of humanity who have replied to my recent posts, I can at least begin to understand why the oligarchy consider the mass of mankind to be cockroaches that ought to be eliminated.

For those here who might not yet be mentally dead--in the sense of higher degrees of reasoning--investigate physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), via my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOf ... Everything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford ... of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1181527

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(Also, the mere fact that something is published is not sufficient to assert that its contents are widely agreed with, just that it contains something worth looking into.)

Lots of beer reviewed articles to support his position.

[James Redford]

In reading over all the responses since my previous post, I see that none of the members of this forum could formulate a logically valid response. All of these aforesaid posters' responses read as if they came off an episode of Family Guy. Apparently so shallow are they that this television show is their model for life, particularly their intellectual life.

With such inane and nihil ad rem responses, it's as if the movie Idiocracy is a documentary of our present time, and I'm simply experiencing parts of the documentary that didn't make the final cut. This forum's usual inhabitants make about the best case for eugenics that can be made. Not that eugenics can ever actually be justified, but in scanning over the brain-dead hulks of humanity who have replied to my recent posts, I can at least begin to understand why the oligarchy consider the mass of mankind to be cockroaches that ought to be eliminated.

For those here who might not yet be mentally dead--in the sense of higher degrees of reasoning--investigate physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), via my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOf ... Everything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford ... of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1181527

You're included in my above comments. I already read that reply by you. Based upon that reply, you don't appear to have actually read, or understood, my "Physics of God" article.

Perhaps your dead body will make good compost for an elitist's garden.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, the good old "persecuted truth syndrome".

[Thumpalumpacus]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1181527

You're included in my above comments. I already read that reply by you. Based upon that reply, you don't appear to have actually read, or understood, my "Physics of God" article.

Perhaps your dead body will make good compost for an elitist's garden.

Have you considered a career in the exciting field of fellatio?

[James Redford]

Ah, the good old "persecuted truth syndrome".

What are you referring to? The people replying to my recent posts here are pathetic losers who couldn't reason their way out of a totalitarian collapse of society if their immortal souls depended upon it--which they do.

Such effectively brain-dead losers aren't persecuting me. About the only things they could manage to persecute is if they had jobs as CPS workers raping stolen children.

[FBM]

You're included in my above comments. I already read that reply by you. Based upon that reply, you don't appear to have actually read, or understood, my "Physics of God" article.

Perhaps your dead body will make good compost for an elitist's garden.

This fails to address the content of my post. "You obviously don't understand because you don't agree with me" is a nonsense response. If you want intellectual exchange, you need to be prepared to uphold your end of the conversation. I read the abstract you supplied in your first link, and it adds nothing substantial to your position.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, I see. Cranial-rectal insertion runs in your family.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Such effectively brain-dead losers aren't persecuting me. About the only things they could manage to persecute is if they had jobs as CPS workers raping stolen children.

Ah, so this is a grudge issue with you?

[James Redford]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1181527

You're included in my above comments. I already read that reply by you. Based upon that reply, you don't appear to have actually read, or understood, my "Physics of God" article.

Perhaps your dead body will make good compost for an elitist's garden.

Have you considered a career in the exciting field of fellatio?

No, but obviously you have, per your response.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, but obviously you have, per your response.

What a disappointment, here I thought you a world-class thinker ... and the best you can manage is "NO U".

Why should I believe you know jack-shit about physics, when you can't even think your way through an Internet exchange without cribbing from your interlocutor?

You're clearly an unoriginal thinker, and unworthy of my attention. Luckily for you, I'm bored.

[FBM]

OK, I skimmed several of the published works you linked to and I don't see God mentioned in any of them. For example:

Abstract: I shall present three arguments for the proposition that intelligent life is very rare in the
universe. First, I shall summarize the consensus opinion of the founders of the modern synthesis
(Simpson, Dobzhanski and Mayr) that the evolution of intelligent life is exceedingly improbable.
Secondly, I shall develop the Fermi paradox: if they existed, they would be here. Thirdly, I shall
show that if intelligent life were too common, it would use up all available resources and die out.
But I shall show that the quantum mechanical principle of unitarity (actually a form of teleology!)
requires intelligent life to survive to the end of time. Finally, I shall argue that, if the universe is indeed
accelerating, then survival to the end of time requires that intelligent life, though rare, to have evolved
several times in the visible universe. I shall argue that the acceleration is a consequence of the excess
of matter over antimatter in the universe. I shall suggest experiments to test these claims.

http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW


Sounds to me like he's saying that if f(x) = a, therefore God. Physicists agree that f(x) = a, so I'm right, there is a god and physicists agree with me. Do you see the flaw in this, James?

(Also, the mere fact that something is published is not sufficient to assert that its contents are widely agreed with, just that it contains something worth looking into.)

*bump*

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, Jimmy, you missed this freethought forum: http://thinkinguniverse.org/index.php

There are people there who think you're wrong. Eeek!