God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

[scratchy]

What utter cobblers.

We don't possess anywhere near the technology to completely map every brain neuron down to the quantum level, which is what would be needed to upload a mind into a computer. And even if we did, what you would have uploaded would be a simulation of a mind, not the mind itself. To do that you'd need a computer that perfectly copied the manner in which neurons work, and even that might not be adequate to completely mimic the way a mind works.

And however perfect it could be made, it would still be another mind. Which endeed would believe it was your mind that had migrated, but the first mind would still be in its original place and eventually experience death. So it wouldnt be the way to escape death.

 

[Pardalis]

So God is a super-evolved human?

Kind of sucks.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't think you actually need physics to prove the existence of God. Careful defining and calling stuff names would already do the trick quite nicely. Just take for example the necessary bits of the whole world, and call them God and assert that it could also be said to be omnipotent etc - et voila God exists. Not that this is exactly overwhelming, but hey what is? And of course you could go as far as to indentify the whole shebang with some omega point.

Or you could not.

 

[Pardalis]

Yet another way of thinking about it is that existence is an infinite feed-back loop with an infinite number of step between recursion, and with causality flowing in both time directions.

snip

Furthermore, the universe is the body of God.[4] All that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist is God.

So this negates the need for a heaven and hell?

Also, there's no need for "In the beginning..." in the Bible I guess.

 

[RoboTimbo]

... that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

So God won't exist until then?

 

[Foster Zygote]

In a conversation with Michael Shermer, Kip Thorne mentioned that while each step in Tipler's argument is sound, the leaps between the steps are completely unfounded.

 

[TraneWreck]

Philosophy dressed up as science. Futile as always. Some conceits never die.

As someone with a philosophy degree I wish you change that to "Bad philosophy dressed up as science..."

 

[TimCallahan]

Actually, Tipler does accept the idea of multiple universes. However, that is beside the point. I reviewed his last book (whose title escapes me just now) for Skeptic and found that he sees both the initial singularity at the beginning of the big bang and the omega point at the future end of the universe as two of the three persons of the Trinity. He also sees the origin of evil, the "fall" if you will, as beginning at the point when predation began - which he sees as the Cambrian period. He also sees Jesus as a double X male (i.e. XX as opposed to XY) as a way to "scientifically" justify the virgin birth. Further, he also has some kind of "scientific" rationale to explain the immaculate conception.

Given all this, I would find any "proof" he might tender of the existence of God from physics to be highly suspect.

 

[Elizabeth I]

X--the Omega Point--is equivalent to God

Why? What if I say Godiva hazelnut truffles are equivalent to God?

The laws of physics require sapient life to expand out and take control over all the resources of the universe.

Why? If man-made global warming persists, we may be the means by which sapient life on this planet wipes itself out.

We are the means by which life perpetuates itself. All life on Earth will be incinerated as the Sun goes off the main sequence in becoming a red giant. If life hadn't found a means in which to shove off terra firma, then life would be obliterated.

So you are assuming that Earth is the only place in this enormous universe where life exists? That may be true, but it seems that equally likely it may not be true.

Pertaining to your sixth point, some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse.

It sounds as if you are saying the mechanism by which vaccination works did not exist until Edward Jenner postulated that infecting people with cowpox would inoculate them against smallpox. The mathematical models developed to describe the functioning of the universe do not drive the functioning of the universe. They merely describe.

 

[Pardalis]

In a conversation with Michael Shermer, Kip Thorne mentioned that while each step in Tipler's argument is sound, the leaps between the steps are completely unfounded.

I'd say the theories would be interesting if it wasn't for these huge unnecessary non-sequiturs about god and Chritianity.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'd say the theories would be interesting if it wasn't for these huge unnecessary non-sequiturs about god and Chritianity.

I would like an answer about why all that nonsense is relevant at all.

Is he claiming that the people who wrote the Bible had some knowledge of this impending Omega-farce? That somehow Matthew was informed about quantum physics and general relativity?

I don't get it.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I would like an answer about why all that nonsense is relevant at all.

Is he claiming that the people who wrote the Bible had some knowledge of this impending Omega-farce? That somehow Matthew was informed about quantum physics and general relativity?

I don't get it.

That would have been against their religion.

 

[X]

That is - to me - remarkably circular.

"I define God as X"

"X exists."

"Therefore, God exists."

Worship me.

Rather, X--the Omega Point--is equivalent to God, therefore X is God.

That's what theMark pointed out. Worship me.

1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise.

As I understand it, the Omega point would only be able to simulate people who have lived before. Would the simulations know they were simulations? I don't know, I don't care, all that the question can bring is long-winded arguments about nothing that can be proven to exist.

2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.

Then the Omega point is logically impossible.

5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component.

I agree with PixyMisa: nonsense.

6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

I agree with PixyMisa: incoherent.

7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity.

No... It just thinks it's infinite.
I agree with PixyMisa: nonsense.

8.) The Omega Point creates the universe and all of existence.

Huh? The Omega point, created by the collapse of the universe (which is, to put it mildly, a poorly-supported supposition) creates the universe in turn?
So we all live in a universe created by circular reasoning?



--------


Worship me.

 

[Gate2501]

Let me get this straight.

Tipler believes that eventually we will create a self-improving machine consciousness, an uber AI. I'm down with this.

Tipler then goes on to call this computing entity "Omega Point" and says it is god?

Tipler then goes on to say that this computing entity will run simulations of all life that has ever lived, in the history of the universe. He says that this is resurrection. Alright, I could be down with calling this resurrection, if you could explain to me what the motivation would be for this being to run such simulations? It certainly would be some manner of "god" to the simulated people, even if they didn't know it.

I am OK with all of this being theoretically possible. This is fine so far.

[WTF] Tipler then explains that this uber AI is the Judeo-Christian God, and that Jesus Christ was able to preform his miracles because he had HAXLOL. [/WTF]

Did I get all of that right?

 

[Gate2501]

I would like an answer about why all that nonsense is relevant at all.

Is he claiming that the people who wrote the Bible had some knowledge of this impending Omega-farce? That somehow Matthew was informed about quantum physics and general relativity?

I don't get it.

I am pretty sure that Tipler thinks that we are living inside one of this computers(Omega Point's) simulations. This is the first time that I have heard of this though, so I could be wrong.

It seems like he uses the bendable rules of the simulation to explain Jesus.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I could certainly believe Tipler's been mainlining something.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Let me get this straight.

Tipler believes that eventually we will create a self-improving machine consciousness, an uber AI. I'm down with this.

Tipler then goes on to call this computing entity "Omega Point" and says it is god?

Tipler then goes on to say that this computing entity will run simulations of all life that has ever lived, in the history of the universe. He says that this is resurrection. Alright, I could be down with calling this resurrection, if you could explain to me what the motivation would be for this being to run such simulations? It certainly would be some manner of "god" to the simulated people, even if they didn't know it.

I am OK with all of this being theoretically possible. This is fine so far.

[WTF] Tipler then explains that this uber AI is the Judeo-Christian God, and that Jesus Christ was able to preform his miracles because he had HAXLOL. [/WTF]

Did I get all of that right?

Oh, I get it! Redford read Phillip José Farmer's Riverworld Trilogy¹⁰ series and thought it was history!

 

[The Atheist]

Been there, done that.

Here's the photo.

 

[D'rok]

As someone with a philosophy degree I wish you change that to "Bad philosophy dressed up as science..."

Philosophy dressed up as science is necessarily bad philosophy. But point taken.

 

[CasaRojo]

OK, so as I understand it, here is the line of reasoning:

1.) We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
2.) We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
3.) We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
4.) God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24.
5.) We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
6.) We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
7.) God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
8.) God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
9.) We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
10.) Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8.
11.) The reality of multiple worlds: Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
12.) God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew, althought he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)
13.) ?????
14.) God == Omega Point

Can you elaborate on step 13?

Step 13 is the MAGIC step o' course.