START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Scientist Proves Gods existence using Bible.

Posted 24 months ago|62 comments|1,459 views
Naked Singularity
Written by
RLwoods
Victorville, CA
Scientist Proves god exists…
Science and religion have hated eachother for a long time, There have been a few people that have tried to merge them, but pretty much failed. There has been a new attempt at this, and only time and other readers will tell.
New orleans, Frank Tipler, a professor at Tulane University, has been studying god, and he claims to have undeniable proof that God Exists. He started off in a Christian childhood, he then became an atheist at 16 when he began studying science. Recently he has converted back due to his newest discovery. To use his own words,
"God is the cosmological singularity, out of which the universe sprang. God created the universe, he will guide the universe, and until finally the universe will recollapse into him. The final singularity which is the same as the initial singularity. The cosmological singularity at its fullest extent is, in fact, God."
He claims that his math coincides with Exodus in the bible, describing god referring to himself as "I am that I am" meaning that god is referring to himself as both past and future tense. By his logic this proves that god is with the universe from beginning to end.

He says that he does not know what will become of his work, "But I do know, and this I know for certain, that if the laws of physics that we know now, they are correct, and the singularity has to exist and has the essential properties of God."

It is not yet certain what aspects made him come to belive it was the Christian god at the beginning, nor is it certain why the expanding univers would be the son or the collapsing universe is the holy spirit, but in time I guess it will all be explained.
I am hoping seriously that he has a much more sophisticated reasoning than that, and he is simply afraid of talking over people heads. Certainly this alone can not convince someone of anything.

I can not say with any certainty, for either side, but I can certainly say that this proves nothing by itself.

I just hope that we don't have a new Kent Hovind in the making
for the other articles I've written
http://rlwoodsiii.blogspot.com/

for the original article
http://www.examiner.com/x-47473-Rational...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
24 months ago: You find some interesting tidbits RL.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
24 months ago: I need as much proof that G-d exists as I need proof that I will die. Because while there is circumstantial evidence that both are a reality in our world. There is no definitive proof of either effecting me directly. Faith is at the heart of why we believe in the inevitability of both. The Irony is that the Bible declares G-d to be Life and its source, the exact opposite of death. Go figure!
RLwoods
RLwoods
Victorville, CA
24 months ago: but death itself is a much stronger set of circumstances.
Death can be seen around us as relating to disease, those diseases break down the body in somewhat predictable ways, and with a breakdown that continues it stops the functions of the body. death. Things eventually have to stop functioning if the are broken.

That is the necessity of function that allows us to see th inevitablity of death. we know we bleed, we know we get sick, so we have a strong set of evidence that we will eventually die.

The set of evidence that god exists is purely emotional, it has no foundation other than other people with those same emotions. We can reference all of those, but we can also point out how easily those sensations are made simply by wanting them to happen with a sort of mind over matter.

we have no evidence that anyone has been touched or even effected directly by god.
24 months ago: Nobody times Nothing = Everything.

Makes zero sense to me in regard to being rational. Oh, well.
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
24 months ago: A friend of mine calls God the "Creator".

Because there is always a beginning, a constant and an end in every cycle.

Someone or something or some force created us and everything else.

We are in the constant stage of the cycle of life right now.

And someday mankind and this Earth will end.

There are people who believe that God does not exist. But whoever or whatever created us does exit. We were not just an accident of life.

I believe that we are here to learn our karma, and evolve to another level.

I worry not about God or who or what created us.

I worry that we will let sociopathic idiots rule us and bring us too soon to the end of mankind's cycle.

So, right now I worry about today, I worry that we we elect another power hungry ruler, that will try to suppress our rights and bring us to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

I have faith that the American People will RISE up and take our country back.

RISE UP NOW!!! OR FOREVER STAY DOWN.

I tell it like it is, I pull no punches, tell no lies, and I am as I am

THE ONE AND ONLY RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-...

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_tre...
24 months ago: Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, January 1999, pp. 111-119).

Out of 50 articles, Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything--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," Rep. Prog. Phys. website.)

Rep. Prog. Phys. is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Rep. Prog. Phys. 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.

Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
24 months ago: Tipler's physics may be correct and he traces all things back to the singularity, the Big Bang. Then the question becomes why and how did the original singularity do what it did?

Tipler falls back on the old, we can't understand it so it must be God argument.

I think that something so far away in distance and time may always be shrouded in mystery. That doesn't mean that we should take the intellectually lazy step of blaming it on God.

Science and religion has not always been opposed. Both originated with the need to explain how the world works. Until recently only the religious were educated so all of the scientists were religious. The schism came when scientists like Galileo were persecuted when reality differed with written scripture.
24 months ago: Hi, Altruist.

Both the university system and the field of natural science as a systematic discipline are the inventions of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique develpment in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g., Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic study of His creation; as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the Greeks and Romans. It was this change in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. For much more on this, see the below article and book by Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:

"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," LewRockwell.com, May 2, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40...

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387

Below one can obtain Chapter 3: "How the Monks Saved Civilization" from the above book for free:

http://www.catholicchurchbook.com/offers...

Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn't exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which held to geocentrism based upon philisophical ideals. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the actual churchmen and the pope were quite enthusiastic about Galileo's observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics. For the details on that, see:

Prof. Jerry Bergman, "The Great Galileo Myth," Investigator, No. 95 (March 2004), pp. 36-47 http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGal...
24 months ago: Welcome aboard James.
24 months ago: Intellectually laziness comes from believing everything we see originated without cause, because we refuse to consider seriously the potential reality and ramifications of the alternative.

Pursuit of understanding the creation and the cause behind it all is a huge step AWAY from ignorance. In fact, it's the ultimate life-long learning process and the only one that will have eternal significance.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
24 months ago: My point is that life works. It is ordered and very mathematical. All out scientific discoveries and advancements have come from the study and mimic of organic life. Life is as much proof of its Creator as a written book is proof of it's author. Life just happens to be signed anonymous. Nevertheless it is proof.

Death likewise happens to everything but is there proof that it will happen to you or me specifically? Therefore there is room for speculation, as with who is G-d there is speculation but the circumstantial evidence is there and that evidence is life.
24 months ago: Yep.
24 months ago: RLwoods, ever considered becoming a vampire? they live for a long, long time i am told.
24 months ago: Another "I can't explain it so it must be God explanation". And really, Huey, "Intellectually laziness comes from believing everything we see originated without cause, because we refuse to consider seriously the potential reality and ramifications of the alternative."

This is more to the truth:
Intellectual laziness comes from believing everything we see had to have originated with cause, because we refuse to consider seriously the potential reality and ramifications of the alternative that natural events occur without the intervention of an all powerful deity.

RL, your title is misleading; this guy has proved nothing except that there are many who will grasp at all straws proffered in order to shore up their crumbling fortress of the all powerful deity.
24 months ago: Two sided coin.

Nobody + Nothing = Everything is not rational thought.

And it is intellectual laziness to refuse to consider the possibility of a Creator. All the evidence points in that direction. People are just so damn sinful and self-centred they don't want to deal with that potentiality.
RLwoods
RLwoods
Victorville, CA
23 months ago: agreed, there is a double sided argument there.

claiming that nothing with no method created everything is a ludicrous statement.
oddly enough, the creation argument does wonders illistrating that point.

However, to assume that it needed a "somebody" is far to large of an assumption. just as much as to say that it does not require one.

simple logic would tell us that the universe is in a set patterns, patterns we can observe. this is the maximum we can know via observation.

we can assume that the universe is one of multiple possibilities, or we can assume that this was the only way it could have happened.

there is no reason to say that either method or assumption would require intent.
you must understand one thing, and one that no one has apperntly thought of is that religion is man made, and thus can have errors.

one of those errors may have been that he created a universe. the potentiality of our moral sins being a problem and that god does supply us with true morality is not phased by this in the slightest.

this is why the potentiality has nothing to do with people ignoring evidence that is claimed to point to a creator. gods creation and moral guidance are two sepperate issues.
23 months ago: Hi, RLwoods. God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofe... Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper 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. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE ) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists.

See also the below resource for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.110mb.com
23 months ago: Everything + All energy = Everything in a functioning universe. No where in that statement is there room for "all powerful deity", nor is there any need for one.

No one said the "possibility of a Creator" wasn't considered, just that the possibility was considered and rejected because there is no need to have one.

All evidence from the standpoint of a person who needs a God to exist in order to validate their own existence, points in that direction. Since I do not need a God to exist to validate my existence and the universe around me, I do not need a God to exist, therefore I reject the theory that God is the "Omega Point" or that the existence of God has been proven by this or any other theory.

I may be intellectually lazy, doesn't mean I haven't considered the different theories about the origins of the universe and until the advent of "Intelligent Design" there were a lot less convoluted ways to explain the Big Bang and how religious fanatics wanted it presented to school children. Since then it has been nothing but one crackpot theory after another, this one just tops all the others in it's absurdity of trying to "prove" that God exists. When it's all boiled down, it is just another person saying "this is a Rose because I said it was a Rose" all the while he is pointing at a Sun Flower.

As mentioned before, all the intelligence/knowledge in the universe, gathered into one point does not make for conscious thought. In other words, the super-super-duper-brainiac-of-the-world computer is still just a machine, even with the best AI operating system ever written, it's still just a machine.

In case you missed it, what I said was "the Omega Point" is just dumb energy and matter, whole bunch of it for sure, but still just "stuff".
24 months ago: That's getting to root of it, Huey. And that's the truth.
Content Removed by Edward Lee
23 months ago: There is only one truth, all others are opinions, Jesus rose from the grave, all others are still in theirs.
23 months ago: Blind obedience to what you call "one truth" will not win your battle for you. You ignore all the other "truths" around you because they conflict with what you call the "one truth".

Please provide proof of what you speak, that only Jesus rose from the grave and all others are still in theirs. The books of man are not proof and that includes all versions of the man inspired and written book called "The Bible".

A bit hard to do isn't it? You have only one book and you site that as proof of what you speak. Pretty much a self-fulfilling statement since you use one to prove the other and neither are verifiable.

You're "opinion" that Jesus rose from the grave, the Bible is God inspired and all the other things you have stated are just that, your opinion. Same as my statements are my opinion and are no less true than yours. Biggest difference, I don't have to have "Faith" that mine are based on fact. You do. In fact, without "Faith" your entire religion will fall on its face and if you truly believe in your Bible, you will have to admit that I am correct.
23 months ago: "claiming that nothing with no method created everything is a ludicrous statement."

I couldn't agree with you more. People ignore the evidence of what they do not want to deal with all the time. This is just the supreme example.

James Redford - I have a great appreciation of the perspectives you bring to this issue. Thank you for the references and your contribution.
23 months ago: Thank you, Huey Newton.
23 months ago: Evidence that God exists: None
Evidence that Nature exists: all around you
Evidence that the Bible is a true representation of truth: None
Evidence that man made all religions up, including the stories in the Bible: overwhelming

This "scientists" theory is just more "I said it was so, so it must be" BS from the religious fanatics.

Can anyone "prove" him wrong? Maybe, won't be me, I'm not a scientist. Can anyone "prove" him right; not likely, it's just another exercise in over stating the rules of nature and saying they are caused by an all powerful, omnipotent being.
23 months ago: Poor argument Six. No substance whatsoever. You are usually better than that.

All evidence points in the direction of a Cause behind the universe, not the other way. You just don't want to consider or believe it. Okay. That's up to you. But it changes nothing.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
23 months ago: Also, you keep bringing up the Bible. Obviously you have a problem with the God of the Bible and religion in general. New Flash: That's your issue, but not what is even being discussed here as far as I am concerened. Those are surface issues. The real issue is deeper.

"Evidence that God exists: None"

Baloney. You just choose not to see how nature can honestly be seen as evidence.

Also I see the burden of proof wanting on the other side. The entire universe is evidence for those who have eyes to see it.

If you don't. That's okay. But to say that there is none is either blindness, ignorance, or both.
23 months ago: Hi, sixholdens.

The initial Big Bang singularity is the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

Yet Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory demonstrates that the known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final form of the cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God. The universe was also brought into being by the Omega Point, as the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity).

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

For the details on that, see the below resources:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofe... Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.110mb.com
23 months ago: Why does the Omega Point have to be identified as "God"? Why does it have to be a "being"? Why can it not just be a natural phenomenon that puny humans cannot fully explain? Why does there have to be some being that human have to bow down to?

Because your religion says there does. Get rid of your religion and all its man made teachings and superstitions and you will not need to have a being named God at the start of anything that occurs naturally in the universe.

"These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God." This is purely the tail wagging the dog.

Yes Huey, I barely have time to read anything anymore so I apologize for the poor quality of my responses.

As for a Cause behind the Universe, yes there is, but it does not have conscience thought, does not think and certainly does not give a rats **** what I do, what I believe in or that there might be creatures that live and breathe in the Universe. It is purely natural phenomenon.
23 months ago: Hi, sixholdens. As I previously explained, the four properties that I listed (i.e., the creator of existence, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence) are the four main traditional quidditative definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God. That is, to maintain that the Omega Point is not God is to enagage in a logical contradiction, on the same level as maintaining that 2+2 does not equal 4, since 2+2 = 4 is true by definition.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-part structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.
23 months ago: Christian theology is preferentially selected by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Omega Point cosmology and due to existence having come into being a finite time in the past (i.e., the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo).

Moreover, the Standard Model of particle physics provides the mechanism by which the miracles recorded in the New Testament could be achieved without violating any known laws of physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don't exist on a level of implementation in a computer simulation (in that case, then such miracles would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation, even though it would seem amazing from our perspective). This process uses baryon annihilation, and its inverse, via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the cosmological end state of the Omega Point (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity). If the coming of Jesus Christ and the miracles that He performed were necessary in order to lead to the Omega Point, then the probability of said event occuring is exactly 1: certain to happen.

Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.
23 months ago: Having all the marbles does not equal being the "God" of all things, it just means you have all the marbles. There is no intelligence behind all of what you stated, just immense matter and energy. Just because "everything" is contained in a single point (Omega), does not bequeath it self awareness or wisdom, both qualities a God must have, at least the one you seem to think has been proven to exist.

You can explain and cross reference till you turn blue in the face, you will not be able to "prove" there is a God by using this theory unless you are talking to someone who needs to believe in the existence of a or any God.
23 months ago: "As for a Cause behind the Universe, yes there is, but it does not have conscience thought, does not think and certainly does not give a rats **** what I do"

I strongly beg to differ.

I believe the Cause is intelligent and that the Intelligent Cause/Creator has concern for the creation.

I believe the Creator loves both you and me and everyone else for that matter. You are free to believe as you like. If you believe there is no supreme being, no created purpose for your life or for this universe, so be it. That's your choice.

But as for the absolutely "No evidence argument" that is non-sense in the highest order.
23 months ago: The one true God, will not reveal Himself to proud humans, but he looks on the heart of men, the God of the Bible is alive, not like other religions, He reviles Himself through his Holy Spirit there are hundreds of thousands of documented testimonies of miraculous healing, answers to pray, but most of all the presence of God.

The reason that we share scripture from the Bible is because, it's the truth and directly from God Himself, God resists the proud, and to them it's all foolishness, for Satan have blinded the eyes of the unbeliever.

God instructs to pray for you, God Himself came to earth to die and rose from the dead, so that anyone who believes will not perish but have eternal life.

Be careful when you curse God, you are choosing who's side you are on.
But He will forgive you if you call on Him, yes He is a God of Love.
23 months ago: EL, your arrogance is showing.

God himself did not come to earth to die, not if your read the Bible, even I, an un-believer in religious dogma know enough about YOUR book to know that.
23 months ago: John 1:1-14 if you want to go biblical. But that a whole 'nother issue.
23 months ago: And where in that reference did it state that God died?
23 months ago: Who is the Word that was God in verse 1?
23 months ago: Sixer - since there was no response, I'll just assume you figured it out.
23 months ago: Huey, I will not manipulate the text to make it say what you think it does. It is confusing enough as it is but no where in that section of scripture does it say God died.

It is a good example of the circular logic behind most religions. I am he, he is I, I think therefore I am, I wrote this therefore it is true and you must bow down to it because I said it is true and since I wrote it you have to bow down to me because I wrote it and it is true.

I also searched on a reference to God dieing in the Bible, couldn't find one so if he existed as per the writers of the Bible, he never died and had he died, he would still be dead since there is supposed to be no other being with his powers, there would have been no one to raise him from the dead and as for his being able to raise himself from the dead, not going there because it is just illogical.
23 months ago: Six, I did not manipulate the text and it is certainly not circular logic or reasoning. I purposefully did not interpret the verses so that you could draw your own conclusions.

It says what it says.

"In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God." That Word that became flesh in Jesus the Christ.

The purpose was not to show you that God died, but to show you that Jesus is God. And in his humanity, Jesus did in fact die.

You can say it's confusing, illogical, or you don't believe if you want. That's your prerogative. I'm not trying to convince you of anything either, I'm just showing what is clearly stated.

One thing that should help in understanding is realizing that death in the Bible does not mean cessation of consciousness. Consciousness goes on after physical death.

"as for his being able to raise himself from the dead, not going there because it is just illogical. "


John 2:18-22 "`What sign dost thou shew to us -- that thou dost these things?'

19Jesus answered and said to them, `Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.'

20The Jews, therefore, said, `Forty and six years was this sanctuary building, and wilt thou in three days raise it up?'

21but he spake concerning the sanctuary of his body;

22when, then, he was raised out of the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this to them, and they believed the Writing, and the word that Jesus said. "


It says what it says. We can receive it or reject it. That's our choice.

Be that as it may, what's illogical to you, gives LIFE to me. Not just me either, but many, many others.

I see my life as a gift from God. What I do with my life is my gift back to Him.

Jesus is Lord.

It's alright. You stick with what you have. I'll stick with Who I have. Peace.
23 months ago: JR, as I said, take religion out of the equation and you have nothing left but natural phenomenon. You and others who must rely upon religion to maintain your way in this world will always fall back on the "God caused it" argument and many, like you will cite all manner of "proof" that what you say is true and irrefutable because you have no other explanation of "why" things happen.

If you had never been brainwashed with religion and had only your senses and intelligence to rely on, would you have dreamed up an all powerful, all knowing, being to blame it all on, or would you have considered the evidence in front of you in the natural world and universe around you that energy and matter and other forces act and react with each other and things occur and that humans can attempt to explain many of them but others are still not within our ability to explain?

There doesn't have to be a God-like being pushing the buttons, pulling the strings or even blowing the breath of life into any of it. Only those who have a psychological need to have an all powerful, all knowing being in control have a need for a God as you have described.

23 months ago: Hi, sixholdens. God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofe... Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper 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. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE ) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists.

See also the below resource for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.110mb.com
RLwoods
RLwoods
Victorville, CA
23 months ago: Omega point is an all knowing object due to its withholding a large list of factual points? Its intelligence is arrived at only because it has a prime list of initial factors?

this is purley robotic at best and does not fit any clasical version of waht we precie to be a god.

and that all the characteristics of god that we see in the different thologies allow him to have a consious will and not just simpy, a set of facts and rules to allow expansion of himself.

your other point that was made that particle physics could allow for the miracles to have occured, without violating the laws of physics. the only logical place this can come from is that we first have to esablish that they did infact occur.

Unless i have tragically missed your point, which is entirly within the realm of possiblity, this seems to be a subtle but definite redefinition of what god is. i think this, because the way that it seems to me is that the way you describe it, is that god really had no chice in the matter, and he is every bit as much of a controlled force as the rest of the issues.

i guess what i am getting at, is that the initial point had to have all of the necessary information to create the outcome that we have now. Where did that come from? is that a choice from gods design? or is that mechanic aswell and thos factors as well had a separate source.

or am i miss understanding entirly?
23 months ago: Hi, RLwoods.

The initial Big Bang singularity is the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

Yet Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory demonstrates that the known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final form of the cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God. The universe was also brought into being by the Omega Point, as the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity).

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.
RLwoods
RLwoods
Victorville, CA
23 months ago: okay, see here is where what you are saying makes no sense.

"The initial Big Bang singularity is the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions."

you then proceed to define the Omega Point as something that contains all of the original information about the universe, and then define it as the entire universe its self after expansion thus being omnipresnet and omnisient.

"
The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God
"

this is correct james, but this is not the sole property of "God" according to any religion let alone the abrahamic religion. this does open a hole to say that god could exist and this was him, but at no point does this prove that the original omega point was sentient. it does have a few of the ear marks of god, such as containing all of the information in the universe, and being in all places at all times for eternity.

however you have not demonstrated that this intial point had any form of intelligence, meaning that it made a consious decision to be a certian way and not another.

if the omega point god has no active sentience, then you might allow for some sort of diesm, but even then the god of deism made a decision and then does not intervene past that initial setting of the original variables.
23 months ago: Hi, RLwoods. The Omega Point is the Final Singularity. This is God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity. It consists of infinite entropy and infinite information. Another way of thinking of it is God in all His fullness, since, given that it has infinite computational resources, anything that will ever exist will be perfectly rendered on some level of implementation at this Final Singularity. It knows all that can logically be known.

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

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

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

These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually One Singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.
RLwoods
RLwoods
Victorville, CA
23 months ago:
The Omega Point as the final singularity after all compacting and receding is done. this means that it contains all of the knowledge that the univers holds ALL knowledge.

Now, You have the All-Present Singularity. The represents the Son due to it being a reoccurance but separate of the original "father"

The you have the intial point, this exists as mainly potential, this exists and is represented by the "spirit".

These three points are joined due to the All present singularity and the only thing that truly seperates the original and the final is time.

This is a Very good analogy for what is going on. This i will admit. However,

You have yet to address the main point. In order for this to work, the Omega point would have to pass its information directly into the alpha point via the All-present. Which is also admitadly possible.

So once again the analogy holds up Very well.

However, God the creator, who started this whole univrse had the entire set of knowledge of the universe from the begining. This God allows for no true entropy.

All of this information is static, and could only capitulate what is already here.
to say other wise, you must prove that god is also wilfull, meaning that he has the ablity to design.

if he does not have this capability, then he is again robotic, not someone who is alive and self consious.
this is not a God by any classical definition.

Tipler set up a very interesting analogy, but that is all it really comes out to be without evidence of consiusness.
23 months ago: Huey, it would be a nice thing if there was a Creator who cared for his/her creation. Observing the world in both the present and throughout history, I would/do say that if there is a Creator, he/she does not care or has "left the building". Could I believe in a being with the power to manipulate matter and create life, sure, but when all the other crap is added to mix I begin to have my doubts about the real force behind it all and so far it has all come down to man. His greed, his vanity, his need to have power over his fellow dwellers on this ball of rock, his jealousy of others, and now a man has made a verbal link to tie God to the Omega Point and the theory of the Big Bang and all the other theories about how matter, energy and other forces act and react with each other all so that he could say he has PROVEN God exists. He has PROVEN nothing. All he has done is express a theory of how it might have happened and how it might come full circle.

When someone proves that God exists, please send me his address, phone number, web site or something so I can get in touch with him and have a discussion of a few things that need attending to. I'm not able to take care of them, but if God exists, he can and if he cared, he would.
23 months ago: I respect what you have to say Sixer, but that is one of the most hopeless and nearsighted things I have ever read.

There is a better way and I hope you find it.
23 months ago: Yes God had to come back to Earth to die, but even more to rise again from the grave do you know why?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: What is there to prove? Are we not alive? That is all the proof I need.
Content Removed by sixholdens
23 months ago: Sorry about the above, double posted my comment.

EL, obviously you have read a different Bible than I and a few million/billion other people have read. Or maybe the phrase "sent his only begotten son to die" has no meaning to you. Even if I don't believe in it, doesn't mean I can't understand the words written in it.

EL, you are the perfect example of why I do not believe in your (and others) fairy tales. You can't get your story straight and you are so sure that you have the answer that you can't be reasoned with. You can't even read the Bible and interpret it without bending the words into some far out fantasy that God came to Earth and DIED.
23 months ago: SS, that is a bit open ended. All the proof you need for.......?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Six,
Think about what life means to you for a minute. Don't set anything aside; indulge your mind in what it means to be alive. Now, recount to yourself what you saw one by one. What did you see? Were they man made things or natural things? Now what are the chances of you reconstructing the man made things? Difficult perhaps, but with enough instruction not impossible. Right? Now what about the Natural things? What are the chances you can reconstruct those things? Perhaps impossible huh? Yet If you squint your eyes between the man made and the natural the difference is barely noticeable. It is only as you become a student of science that you realize how much more intricately complex is the natural world.

It is in this infinitely complex microcosm of interconnected systems that I find the proof of the almighty's existence. Like I said. I imagine myself to be a secular Christian. My religion is very important to me and perhaps it might resemble yours in some way but you can't partake of my spiritual nutriments in as much as you can't participate in my physical ones either. What I've digested is only helpful to me Six. Sorry! I suggest that you stop trying to find answers in the confusing quagmire that is peoples personal ideas.

You seem like a man of strong countenance that requires faith. So if you have faith, all that is missing now is to ask yourself in what. You'll be surprised to see what you find if you just ask.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: ... a man of strong countenance. That requires faith.
23 months ago: For me I know God exists. I talk to Him, he hears my prayers, He answers my prayers. I see His hand in my life everyday. I hear His voice, I cannot imagine having to prove to anyone His existence. If you knew me I hope you would see Him
23 months ago: I'm sure I would.
23 months ago: Chrissy, with out a trial, it's is a hard sell, sometimes it's because of financial independence, or some thing that they don't want to give up.
23 months ago: Believing in a Creator is no fairy tale. It's a logical conclusion based upon the empirical, biological and scientific evidence available.

The only time when it can can approach being fairytale-ish to some is when philosophies and belief systems are wrapped around the acceptance of the fact of a Creator. We all have a journey. We are all learning and none of us has arrived.

The "If there was a God there would be no pain and suffering" argument is intellectually lazy and cop out. Not to mention lame.

For many it is easier to dismiss God because of pain than to embrace Him in the midst of it.

It takes guts and strength not weakness to thank God in the midst of disaster. To see blessings in the midst of struggle. To be positive in spite of overwhelming opposition. It's nice to know in that situation that the Creator has your back regardless of what it looks like. That builds character and fortitude in those who refuse to be shaken. The world cannot overcome them for they have overcome the world.

For those who choose not to acknowledge, it tends to make them bitter, negative and cynical. Often times actually blaming the Creator for problems they have created or tragedies that are simply a part of life.

Everyone can embrace a God that does exactly what THEY want exactly when THEY want Him to do it. Or dismiss Him when He doesn't dance to their tune. However, that does not negate reality.

Seeking is not always an easy road, but to me it's a heck of a lot better than ignoring God and doing it my way.

Reality is that this is on purpose and it is not an accident.

What we do about it from that point is up to us.

For those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
23 months ago: Great answer Huey, you left out one word of which most people know nothing about, that is the main reason, they do not believe, God will never revile Himself to them, because He resist the PROUD.

It takes guts, strength and "HUMILITY"not weakness to thank God in the midst of disaster. To see blessings in the midst of struggle. To be positive in spite of overwhelming opposition.
23 months ago: Thank you.
23 months ago: The Bible was written long ago, was written by scholarly men. It is their words that so much trust is placed in. Quite likely they were the most holy, well-learned and spiritually inspired men of their day.

And, perhaps it could be said they recorded, word for word, that which came into their head from on high.

Such words have not been taken lightly.

Most of us, however, realize a person's spoken or written words are proof they can make words. Rather than thinking that words, by themselves, prove something.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave