Technological Immortality

[James Redford]

---

Regarding how physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, Christian theology:

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 (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

Okay, so first of all? Bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit. In fact, you've completely tipped your hand here in the most hilarious of ways, because christian theology has a whole hell of a lot more than just those three qualities in it, doesn't it? The christian god does things, creates life, smites people, Jesus-es it up, and none of that is contained within what you just said. What you've actually presented here, at best, precisely matches deist theology, not specifically christian theology, and in fact could be used as support for any other god claim out there, since all other gods tend to have the same attributes. The fact that you've made this enormous leap to claiming that it supports the christian god specifically shows that this isn't about following the evidence where it leads at all, but taking whatever evidence you think can support the conclusion you'd already come to before you'd even started searching.

Besides, taking your point as true, you claim you've got this binding scientific truth that points directly to the christian god, and yet somehow the majority of scientists are still atheists. One wonders why they don't agree with what you're claiming here; for all your pretensions to scientific rigor, this claim is not one that has been adopted into mainstream science, is it?

Maybe it's because it's all pseudoscience. Maybe that's it? :thinking:

Hi, Esquilax. In the very post of mine which you partially quote, I then go on to show how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to Christian theology. For much more on this matter, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything"; and my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread.

Regarding your second paragraph above, 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 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 ff. of my aforesaid "Physics of God" article.