[late]

I'm going to regret this, it's like handing cave men a grenade.

But the idiocy is just infuriating...

Anyway, this is a video from Philosophy Tube. You will need to watch a number of her videos (used to be his videos, the older ones are his) to get a feel for how philosophy works.

This has been like watching a baseball game where most of the players don't know how to hit a ball, and even if they did, don't know where first base is.

But a couple of people just might learn something, so here goes:

[James Redford]

I'm going to regret this, it's like handing cave men a grenade.

But the idiocy is just infuriating...

Anyway, this is a video from Philosophy Tube. You will need to watch a number of her videos (used to be his videos, the older ones are his) to get a feel for how philosophy works.

This has been like watching a baseball game where most of the players don't know how to hit a ball, and even if they did, don't know where first base is.

But a couple of people just might learn something, so here goes:

Hi, Late. I watched the above April 22, 2022 video by Abigail Thorn entitled "Transhumanism: 'The World's Most Dangerous Idea'". Her presentation was rather muddleheaded by being mired with fallacious collectivist ideology.

For those who would like to know much more about transhumanism and where technology is ultimately headed, see my following articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", God and Physics Wiki, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013), https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

* James Redford, "God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics", Theophysics: The Physics of God, May 16, 2022, https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/god ... by-several , https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1373133123700658189 , https://steemit.com/cosmology/@jamesred ... rd-physics .

* James Redford, "Immortality via Technology", Medium, July 18, 2018, https://medium.com/@jamesredford/immortality-via-technology-a0e449bc8352 , https://megalodon.jp/2018-0724-0609-53/medium.com/@jamesredford/immortality-via-technology-a0e449bc8352 , https://archive.is/8bwZV .

[late]

Hi, Late. I watched the above April 22, 2022 video by Abigail Thorn entitled "Transhumanism: 'The World's Most Dangerous Idea'". Her presentation was rather muddleheaded by being mired with fallacious collectivist ideology.

I did not see that coming.

So, thanks, but I am afraid I must disagree with your disagreement.

Inside academia, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. The work is over a century old, and has never faced a serious challenge.

I found your comment 'collectivist ideology' mildly amusing. It says a great deal more about you than Abigail.

Btw, speaking of academic imperatives, you would need to show why her analysis was muddleheaded. I pretty much know where you have to go, so I am asking you to not go there. Let it be our little secret...

[James Redford]

I did not see that coming.

So, thanks, but I am afraid I must disagree with your disagreement.

Inside academia, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. The work is over a century old, and has never faced a serious challenge.

I found your comment 'collectivist ideology' mildly amusing. It says a great deal more about you than Abigail.

Btw, speaking of academic imperatives, you would need to show why her analysis was muddleheaded. I pretty much know where you have to go, so I am asking you to not go there. Let it be our little secret...

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", God and Physics Wiki, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013), https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

As said, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

⁂

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 arithmetical operations 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon *a priori* philosophical ideals. One of the *a priori* ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656, https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/ ... ochism.pdf , https://archive.org/download/Societal-S ... ochism.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ .

[late]

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", God and Physics Wiki, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013), https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

As said, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

⁂

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 arithmetical operations 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon *a priori* philosophical ideals. One of the *a priori* ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656, https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/ ... ochism.pdf , https://archive.org/download/Societal-S ... ochism.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected, which is also why I asked you not to say it...

Popular science is a business, and 'new' work that proves what cannot be proven pops up every year, with a depressing regularity.

[James Redford]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected, which is also why I asked you not to say it...

Popular science is a business, and 'new' work that proves what cannot be proven pops up every year, with a depressing regularity.

Ever since Newton's physics, and especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either separately or combined), God has always been a mathematically-unavoidable result. For details on this, see my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.

[Robert Urbanek]

I would prefer that posters give a summary in their own words instead of demanding we sit through a long video. In any case, I am not going to be lectured to by a woman who looks like a villain from Barbarella.

[late]

Ever since Newton's physics, and especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either separately or combined), God has always been a mathematically-unavoidable result. For details on this, see my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.

Thanks for the laugh.

Russell showed how all arguments for the existence of a deity are flawed.

What you need, and do not have, is evidence.

Because you lack evidence, using logic, you wind up assuming your conclusion.. there's no magic.

Because god assertions are not falsifiable, they are not allowed in science.

[James Redford]

Thanks for the laugh.

Russell showed how all arguments for the existence of a deity are flawed.

What you need, and do not have, is evidence.

Because you lack evidence, using logic, you wind up assuming your conclusion.. there's no magic.

Because god assertions are not falsifiable, they are not allowed in science.

Bertrand Russell never gave a proof of God's nonexistence, which is logically impossible to give since God is defined as the being possessing infinite knowledge, and mathematics is infinite, i.e., it allows for infinite computation, i.e., infinite thought. As I pointed out, ever since Newton's physics, and especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either separately or combined), God has always been a mathematically-unavoidable result. In addition to the several proofs of this within General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that I already mentioned above, for more details on this, see my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.

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 a previous 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.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... tation.pdf . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... of-God.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... Theory.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... nciple.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171 ... chaton.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... lation.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... iation.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... ockets.pdf . Full proceedings volume: https://web.archive.org/web/20100525230 ... 021520.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://web.archive.org/web/20150819193 ... v03n02.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://megalodon.jp/2019-0920-0621-46/ ... 9-0629.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://web.archive.org/web/20110712221 ... mology.pdf . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theo ... ything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://web.archive.org/web/20140812163 ... larity.pdf .

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:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", God and Physics Wiki, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013), https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

And see the following website:

* James Redford, Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, https://archive.org/details/Theophysics , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.byethost31.com .

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.

[late]

Bertrand Russell never gave a proof of God's nonexistence

True, but what he did was destroy all the arguments purporting to demonstrate the existence of a deity, or deities.

Let me remind you of Russell's teapot...

IOW, less BS, please.

[ingliz]

@James Redford

Singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance.

Tipler's 'Omega Point' is theology masquerading as pseudoscience.

[James Redford]

@James Redford

Singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance.

Tipler's 'Omega Point' is theology masquerading as pseudoscience.


:)

Not so. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler is himself one of the world's leading experts on singularity studies within physics. His Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

Prof. Hawking wrote about how attempts to avoid the Big Bang singularity were dashed in the form of the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems (pp. 66-67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988]):

""
The final result [of the Singularity Theorems] was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. ...
""

Hawking subsequently in the same book mentions that "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." (Page 179.)

Physics is valid all the way up until the cosmological singularity itself, i.e., until infinity is output in the equations. Stopping at any point before the singularity is reached requires violating one or more of the known laws of physics.

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 arithmetical operations 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon *a priori* philosophical ideals. One of the *a priori* ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656, https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/ ... ochism.pdf , https://archive.org/download/Societal-S ... ochism.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ .

[ingliz]

@James Redford

The Big Bang as a singularity is only a speculation. Many observations in cosmology support the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, but there is no direct evidence that this expansion started with a singularity.

[James Redford]

@James Redford

The Big Bang as a singularity is only a speculation. Many observations in cosmology support the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, but there is no direct evidence that this expansion started with a singularity.


:)

Actually, as I already pointed out, there are mathematical theorems (i.e., logical proofs) that the universe must have begun at the Big Bang initial singularity given General Relativity and attractive gravity called the Singularity Theorems, which were formulated by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in the 1960s. And there are several other mathematical theorems within standard physics which require the cosmological singularity to exist. Physics is valid all the way up until the singularity itself, i.e., until infinity is output in the equations. Stopping at any point before the cosmological singularity is reached requires violating one or more of the known laws of physics. 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].) For more details on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics", Theophysics: The Physics of God, May 16, 2022, https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/god ... by-several , https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1373133123700658189 , https://steemit.com/cosmology/@jamesred ... rd-physics .

[ingliz]

@James Redford

Any scientific hypothesis must be inherently falsifiable.

Yours is not.

Where neither confirmation nor refutation is possible, science is not concerned

— Mach's Dictum

[James Redford]

@James Redford

Any scientific hypothesis must be inherently falsifiable.

Yours is not.

Where neither confirmation nor refutation is possible, science is not concerned

— Mach's Dictum


:)

Ernst Mach's reasonable principle that "Where neither confirmation nor refutation is possible, science is not concerned" is a violation of Karl Popper's faulty falsification methodology. Popperian epistemology is logically incoherent and self-refuting, because it purports to say something about empirical real-world subjects, yet it itself is not taken to be merely contingent and subject to falsification. Popperian epistemology is a self-refuting logical mess that is skewered on its own epistemic sword.

Not that Popperian epistemology actually has anything to do with the subject of standard physics' several mathematical proofs of God's existence, since as pointed out above, the physics community's method of handling these uncomfortable theological theorems is to simply abandon empirical science. As logically nonsensical as Popperian epistemology is, it would actually be a great improvement were the physics community attempt abiding by its pretense at empiricism.

Falsifiability is not a logically-coherent methodology of science *per se*, as it's easy to conceive of possibly-true statements about physical reality which are impossible to disconfirm yet possible to prove. As an example, if we currently existed on a level of implementation in a powerful-enough computer simulation, there is no experiment that we could possibly conduct which could reveal that to us *unless* the beings running the computer simulation wanted us to know. Hence, there would be no possible way to empirically disconfirm this possibly-true statement about physical reality, yet it would be easily proven *if* the beings running it decided to make their presence known to all humanity.

Undoubtably a great deal of what people accept as quite obviously true about our physical reality falls into this category. Take the proposition, or hypothesis, made by some person, any person: "I have a mind." How could such a hypothesis made by a person possibly be disconfirmed by them? Is it possible to observe one's own complete nonobservance? Yet the hypothesis "I have a mind" is proven true to oneself just by proposing it.

Or take the proposition, or hypothesis, "There exists a ball in physical reality that is both pure solid red and pure solid blue all around its outer surface." This hypothesis can never be empirically disproved without investigating all of physical reality: even so, empirical disconfirmation of this statement is possible! But it would be the hight of absurdity to start looking for this ball to either empirically prove or disprove its existence, for it does not exist in any reality given the very meaning of its words! It is an untrue statement by logic.

[Saeko]

I tried, probably in vain, to find a statement of the supposed "mathematical theorem" and its proof for like half an hour in the links you posted. What a complete and total waste of time.

[late]

the physics community's method of handling these uncomfortable theological theorems is to simply abandon empirical science.

You can get away with your dumbass BS because most have never studied science.

There are different types of science, but for this we can restrict ourselves to work grounded in evidence, and modeling.

There is simply no evidence to support the assertion of the existence of a deity. Academia has been that way for over a century.

While there is more room for speculation in modelling, there are limits. Ironically, I have seen actual physicists, like Sabine Hossenfelder argue that theoretical physics has drifted away from their experimental grounding with endless speculative theorizing. (What I mean by that is that there is an implied opposition to theorizing that isn't well ground in the actual work. Which deals with theist arguments summarily)

This is Sabine talking about the potential for an innate intentionality in the Universe. It's a step down from talking about gods, but that's as far as science can let you go.

It's about time for me to to mention what I think does work. My fave philosopher of science is the Perspectivism of Ronald N Giere.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Perspectivism-Ronald-N-Giere/dp/0226292134/ref=sr_1_5?crid=318JME8F0OEJO&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1695929308&sprefix=ronald+n+giere%2Caps%2C100&sr=8-5

[James Redford]

I tried, probably in vain, to find a statement of the supposed "mathematical theorem" and its proof for like half an hour in the links you posted. What a complete and total waste of time. :roll:

I see that you have difficulty with your reading-comprehension. You should inquire with your local elementary schools to see if any of them offer remedial reading courses to the general public.

See here:

* James Redford, "God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics", Theophysics: The Physics of God, May 16, 2022, https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/god ... by-several , https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1373133123700658189 , https://steemit.com/cosmology/@jamesred ... rd-physics .

The below concerns the Omega Point Theorem specifically:

####################

Why Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Cosmology

based on articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler; see:

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, https://web.archive.org/web/20070329220 ... ything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, https://webcitation.org/6ZgOg8nug . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

* Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity", Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 14-23, https://webcitation.org/6ZgPWx0VD .

* Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time", Tipler's Tulane University website, 2001, https://webcitation.org/6avlac1pl , https://web.archive.org/web/20090506125 ... wired.html .

----------

Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) exist, but Hawking [1, 2] and Wald [3] have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere [4]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy--the amount of complexity--in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule [5] and Tipler [6] have shown that the amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound states the universal entropy S is less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. If there are no horizons then the gravitational shear energy due to the collapse of the universe itself will increase to infinity much faster than the radius of the universe going to zero at the final singularity [6, 7]. The absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe's future c-boundary (causal boundary) is a single point [8], call it the Omega Point. MacCallum [9] has shown that a 3-sphere closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting only under blind and dead forces). Barrow [10, 11], Cornish and Levin [12] and Motter [13] have shown that the evolution of a 3-sphere closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al. [14, 15] have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) must be present all the way into the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner [16, 17, 18] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S) diverges to infinity there, requiring divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.

During life's expansion throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life's energy requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the process, the annililation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse [7, 19, 20].

References:

[1] S. W. Hawking, "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse", Physical Review D, Vol. 14, No. 10 (Nov. 15, 1976), pp. 2460-2473.
[2] Stephen Hawking's paper which attempts to solve the black hole information issue without the universe collapsing is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). That is, it's based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 (Oct. 15, 2005), Art. No. 084013, 4 pp. Also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005, https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 .
[3] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
[4] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (Dec. 15, 1986), pp. 835-844, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..835B .
[5] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739.
[6] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494, Appendix C: "The Bekenstein Bound", pp. 410-411. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics", arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, Nov. 28, 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520 , Section 2: "Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe", Subsection a: "Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics", p. 7.
[7] Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, https://webcitation.org/6ZgOg8nug . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .
[8] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, pp. 217-221.
[9] M. A. H. MacCallum, "Mixmaster Universe Problem", Nature Physical Science, Vol. 230, No. 13 (Mar. 29, 1971), pp. 112-113.
[10] John D. Barrow, "Chaotic behaviour in general relativity", Physics Reports, Vol. 85, No. 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
[11] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, "Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Jan. 26, 1998), pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9706065, June 20, 1997, https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706065 .
[12] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, "Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale", Physical Review D, Vol. 55, No. 12 (June 15, 1997), pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9612066, Dec. 30, 1996, https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612066 .
[13] Adilson E. Motter, "Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, No. 23 (Dec. 4, 2003), Art. No. 231101, 4 pp. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/0305020, May 5, 2003, https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305020 .
[14] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, "Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, No. 26 (Dec. 24, 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[15] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, No. 19 (May 11, 1992), pp. 2863-2866.
[16] Charles W. Misner, "The Isotropy of the Universe", Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (Feb. 1968), pp. 431-457, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..431M .
[17] Charles W. Misner, "Quantum Cosmology. I", Physical Review, Vol. 186, No. 5 (Oct. 25, 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
[18] Charles W. Misner, "Mixmaster Universe", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, No. 20 (May 19, 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
[19] F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, https://web.archive.org/web/20180622171 ... ything.pdf , Section 11: "Solution to the cosmological constant problem: the universe and life in the far future". Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .
[20] Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing. But as the following paper demonstrates, there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse: Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 (Oct. 1999), pp. 1453-1459. Also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, Apr. 1, 1999, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 . The reason for that is because that is dependant on the actions of sapient life in annihilating baryons.

[James Redford]

You can get away with your dumbass BS because most have never studied science.

There are different types of science, but for this we can restrict ourselves to work grounded in evidence, and modeling.

There is simply no evidence to support the assertion of the existence of a deity. Academia has been that way for over a century.

While there is more room for speculation in modelling, there are limits. Ironically, I have seen actual physicists, like Sabine Hossenfelder argue that theoretical physics has drifted away from their experimental grounding with endless speculative theorizing. (What I mean by that is that there is an implied opposition to theorizing that isn't well ground in the actual work. Which deals with theist arguments summarily)

This is Sabine talking about the potential for an innate intentionality in the Universe. It's a step down from talking about gods, but that's as far as science can let you go.

It's about time for me to to mention what I think does work. My fave philosopher of science is the Perspectivism of Ronald N Giere.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Perspectivism-Ronald-N-Giere/dp/0226292134/ref=sr_1_5?crid=318JME8F0OEJO&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1695929308&sprefix=ronald+n+giere%2Caps%2C100&sr=8-5

To reiterate:

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", God and Physics Wiki, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013), https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

As said, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

⁂

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 arithmetical operations 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon *a priori* philosophical ideals. One of the *a priori* ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656, https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/ ... ochism.pdf , https://archive.org/download/Societal-S ... ochism.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ .