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.
And below was my review of your review:
----------
Tim Callahan in his review "The Physics of Nonsense" (eSkeptic, August 1, 2007) disputes Tipler's theology contained in The Physics of Christianity (PoC). One of the world's leading theologians, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, defends the theology of the Omega Point Theory (OPT) in the articles "Modern Cosmology: God and the Resurrection of the Dead," Innsbruck Conference, June 1997; and "God and resurrection--a reply to Sjoerd L. Bonting," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 10-14.
Callahan errs in claiming that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's writings on the OPT are motivated by Christianity. Tipler has been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the OPT which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (PoI). And Tipler even mentions in said book (pg. 305) that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the OPT. Yet Tipler's first paper on the OPT was in 1986 ("Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661).
What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion--indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God--but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, Issue 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460; can be found as the file dyson.txt on Anders Sandberg's Sweden-domain website aleph).
Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in PoI (pg. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the emulation).
So Callahan gets the motivational causation in reverse. Tipler's present Christianity derives from following the known laws of physics. Christian theology is preferentially selected due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Omega Point (OP) cosmology and due to existence having come into being a finite time in the past, hence deselecting the other sometimes-triune religion of Hinduism.
Callahan accuses Tipler of using "straw man arguments to dismiss those who might disagree with him," i.e., "those nasty atheists" (Callahan's words). But such is not the case, as Tipler does not dismiss his colleagues. Tipler is merely pointing out the fact that many in the field of physics abandon physical law when it produces results they're uncomfortable with. He even gives a number of examples of this, of which two follow:
""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "[O]ur mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort."
... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""
And,
""
This past September, at a conference held at Windsor Castle, I asked the well-known cosmologist Paul Davies what he thought of my theory. He replied that he could find nothing wrong with it mathematically, but he asked what justified my assumption that the known laws of physics were correct. ...
""
For those and many more such examples, see Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003).
Callahan suggests that the universe's current accelerating expansion seems to obviate the OP. But as Profs. Lawrence Krauss and Michael Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" astro-ph/9904020, cosmological observations cannot tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.
Callahan also calls the multiverse an "untested and highly theoretical concept." (Although note that the physics of the OP itself are not dependant on a multiverse formulation.) As Tipler points out on pg. 95 of PoC, "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book [PoI, pp. 483-488] ..." As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the MWI: see Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation" arXiv:quant-ph/0003146. Regarding Callahan's theological dispute on this matter, see Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
