New Orleans physicist claims proof God exists.

I hope the links work. I found this interesting due to the use of science to explain Religion. Read, watch, discuss and enjoy.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_129171109.html
http://cbs11tv.com/video/[email protected]

Does God Exist?
(CBS 11 News) NEW ORLEANS Does God exist?

It's been a debate for centuries.

But now a physicist from New Orleans says he has definitive scientific proof that God does exist.

Frank Tipler, Ph.D., is a professor of math and physics at Tulane University. He says he can prove that god is real. "It's coming out not of paleontology or religious mysticism but that of hard-nosed physics, which is what I like."

"Cosmological singularity." Sounds like he's defining God as a unifying principle; not quite God of the Bible or mysticism.

Though one could argue, I suppose, that what Tipler is talking about (and he never really does explain anything) is that this God Principle is the physical manifestation of a transcendent consciousness.

But then, it would have to be demonstrated that such a relationship exists, and the relationship can exist only if that transcendent reality exists.

But empirical science can not investigate a reality beyond matter...so for the moment, I am impressed more by Tipler's credentials than by his claim.

I found the article/video interesting and a nice thought exercise. I think your post is a good interpretation though.

The video was pretty weak. It focuses too much on theological ideas and doesn't actually describe his theory. They throw around "cosmological singularity" a few times but the report is dumbed down for people who want to remain healthy skeptics about whatever they want to believe....it doesn't challenge any pre-conceived notions.

And this singularity....is it something like a unified field theory? It's an old scientific theory....but he mentioned that this singularity exists outside space and time, which confused me a bit, because it doesn't suggest a coherent whole but rather a seperate god-entity that is apart from creation.

Any other links about this guys that shed light on the subject?? Because it seems interesting....the report was just incomplete.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The video was pretty weak. It focuses too much on theological ideas and doesn't actually describe his theory. They throw around "cosmological singularity" a few times but the report is dumbed down for people who want to remain healthy skeptics about whatever they want to believe....it doesn't challenge any pre-conceived notions.

And this singularity....is it something like a unified field theory? It's an old scientific theory....but he mentioned that this singularity exists outside space and time, which confused me a bit, because it doesn't suggest a coherent whole but rather a seperate god-entity that is apart from creation.

Any other links about this guys that shed light on the subject?? Because it seems interesting....the report was just incomplete.

Here's what I could dig up on the good professor.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html
http://www.math.tulane.edu/faculty/tipler.html
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780385514248
http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385514248

Originally posted by Badabing
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_129171109.html
http://cbs11tv.com/video/[email protected]

BULLSHIT.

This is a complete disaster and totoal bullshit...

...historically...
...scientifically....
...religiously...
...philosophically...

What about sexually?

I didn't detect any sex.

Honestly, maybe I'm jsut twenty, but I just want to go up to them and beat them untill they realize this is NOT the 16th century.

NEWTON claimed his theory of gravity proved God...

I don't know how long science can survive if under attack from religion and its own idiotic scientists...

And whats with all the effing "= GOD" on the blackboard.

I would like to see that so called proof. Also more opinion of other mathematicians and physicists.

And I guess Tipler is pretty well known for his more science fiction approach to subjects...

Someone claiming that they can prove God does not exist via science is like me saying I can prove he does via science.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Someone claiming that they can prove God does not exist via science is like me saying I can prove he does via science.

I misread it. Still, take what I said and reverse it.

Its still crap.

someone proving that God exists via science? I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Science simply cannot address this kind of issue.

I know many of you aren't believers but just assume that God does exist for a moment. Now, say God actually performed a miracle in front of a group of skeptics' eyes. This would be direct evidence that God did exist. However most all of them would likely reason that it was anything other than God.

So, are people saying that science can't show proof the God exists and also show proof the God doesn't exist? I also believe science and Faith are separate. I find it interesting how some of the greatest minds have used science to prove God exists or to "speak" to God. I don't mind the mixing of Faith and Science as long as it's kept in perspective. I find it a good thought exercise to dwell on the possibilities of existence.

Originally posted by Badabing
Do you always need to be such a stickler? The Unified Field Theory is old but scientists are getting closer to proving it with such ideas as 11 dimensions and the M Theory/Brane Theory. I'm not one of your students so quit giving me homework. durfist

Here's what I could dig up on the good professor.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html
http://www.math.tulane.edu/faculty/tipler.html
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780385514248
http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385514248

Thanks. You get an A.

😛

Anyway, the 1st link seemed fairly grounded in solid logic (i.e. skepticism). Since there's really no rational justification for proving anything "beyond" this state of existence....anything spiritual (in my mind) would need to come from something empirical like scientifc study. So in that sense, I admire Tipler's pursuit.

But Tipler's theory, while intriguing, seems to me like an example of just another zealot....except he's got more scientific toys to play with. But it's still just a 21st-century version of theologians justifying a God that we have no actual proof of.

The link elaborates on some of the logical flaws of it, but it's a sketchy idea at best to begin with. Physicists are still light-years away (pun intended) from being able to fully support and endorse theories about much of what would be needed to even consider something like Tipler's Omega Point theory.

...

Still, an interesting read. And I liked a few of the comments made about the possibilities of free will in Tipler's quoted comments.

Originally posted by Badabing
So, are people saying that science can't show proof the God exists and also show proof the God doesn't exist? I also believe science and Faith are separate. I find it interesting how some of the greatest minds have used science to prove God exists or to "speak" to God. I don't mind the mixing of Faith and Science as long as it's kept in perspective. I find it a good thought exercise to dwell on the possibilities of existence.

Empirical science is in no position to explore a transcendent reality (ie, a reality beyond matter and mind). However, theoretically, one could use scientific method to explore transcendent realities, as long as the tools used and the data collected reflect the domain being studied.

For example, while it is entirely sound to use a microscope to study the brain, it would not be fair to use a microscope to study the mind (to do so would be to commit a category error). Likewise, it would not be fair to use a telescope or mathematics to prove the existence of a transcendent God.

Traditionally, meditation is the tool of choice for exploring phenomena of insight, ie, opening the eye of contemplation, as opposed to relying on the eye of flesh or eye of reason. And as for determining whether these insights are valid, one could take the same route as with "facts" revealed by empirical science: how well do these insights enable one to understand the world, to make testable predictions? Of course, any correlation of insight with physical phenomena would be a bonus.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks. You get an A.

😛

Anyway, the 1st link seemed fairly grounded in solid logic (i.e. skepticism). Since there's really no rational justification for proving anything "beyond" this state of existence....anything spiritual (in my mind) would need to come from something empirical like scientifc study. So in that sense, I admire Tipler's pursuit.

But Tipler's theory, while intriguing, seems to me like an example of just another zealot....except he's got more scientific toys to play with. But it's still just a 21st-century version of theologians justifying a God that we have no actual proof of.

The link elaborates on some of the logical flaws of it, but it's a sketchy idea at best to begin with. Physicists are still light-years away (pun intended) from being able to fully support and endorse theories about much of what would be needed to even consider something like Tipler's Omega Point theory.

...

Still, an interesting read. And I liked a few of the comments made about the possibilities of free will in Tipler's quoted comments.

Originally posted by Mindship
Empirical science is in no position to explore a transcendent reality (ie, a reality beyond matter and mind). However, theoretically, one could use scientific method to explore transcendent realities, as long as the tools used and the data collected reflect the domain being studied.

For example, while it is entirely sound to use a microscope to study the brain, it would not be fair to use a microscope to study the mind (to do so would be to commit a category error). Likewise, it would not be fair to use a telescope or mathematics to prove the existence of a transcendent God.

Traditionally, meditation is the tool of choice for exploring phenomena of insight, ie, opening the eye of contemplation, as opposed to relying on the eye of flesh or eye of reason. And as for determining whether these insights are valid, one could take the same route as with "facts" revealed by empirical science: how well do these insights enable one to understand the world, to make testable predictions? Of course, any correlation of insight with physical phenomena would be a bonus.

Originally posted by Ytse
Science simply cannot address this kind of issue.

I know many of you aren't believers but just assume that God does exist for a moment. Now, say God actually performed a miracle in front of a group of skeptics' eyes. This would be direct evidence that God did exist. However most all of them would likely reason that it was anything other than God.

I agree with you on the fact that if God performed a miracle in front of a group of skeptics that they would be like "Hey, what's the trick? That's just a trick!!!"