The physics of Christianity

Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
The physics of Christianity

This new book contains proof of God........You all should read it, should be in the best sellers list very soon. The book is by a scientist, Frank Tippler......Loo for it to outsell the crap by Dawkins and Harris.......

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
well, thanks for posting the

well, thanks for posting the title.

 

[edit:nevermind, I guess the book title is the topic title. So much for being a smartass] 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
So you've decided to abandon

MOD EDIT {Never Mind}

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
i thought the bible was

i thought the bible was suppose to be the book that was proof of god? oh, well, i guess that one failed so they had to try, again..

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Well, they are really

Well, they are really getting desperate. First the Bible... nope. Aquinas proofs... nope. Pascal's wager... no way. Now more crap? Ugh.

 

And don't try the ad hominem towards Dawkins and Harris, particularly Dawkins. He is one of the most eminent and respected scientists living today.

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
This is a misnomer, the

This is a misnomer, the proof is actually a statement:

"I'm right and your wrong, na na na boo boo."

Then the writer put his fingers in his ears and goes:

"La la la la la la la la, I can't hear you" for 600 pages. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Have you read it then BGH?

Have you read it then BGH?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
hmmm, any chance this new

hmmm, any chance this new book will be as laughably bad as the anti-dawkins rant, "the god solution"?

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Have you

deludedgod wrote:
Have you read it then BGH?

No, I did a mathematical proof that showed this was the only argument that fit the numbers....

LOL 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger wrote: i

djneibarger wrote:
i thought the bible was suppose to be the book that was proof of god? oh, well, i guess that one failed so they had to try, again..

You're supposed to take it on faith.

God's PR just finaly realized that faith isn't good enough. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Loo for it to

Lux wrote:
Loo for it to outsell the crap by Dawkins and Harris.......

Seeing as that there are vastly more christians than non-christians in the US, it's not a big deal that a christian book would outsell Dawkins and Harris. The real miracle is that these "atheistic" books have done so well.


mavaddat
mavaddat's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline

Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
When a religious person

When a religious person tries to scientifically prove the existance of a "god", their Actually Unknowingly stepping down from their "religion pedistoll" and stepping onto the "Creator" theory. But they don't realize that this Creator is just simply ENERGY, which has Always existed...

 Slimm, 

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Here's A Short Description From Amazon.com

They lose me when they say that the virgin birth is possible, lol. I know that some species reproduce A-Sexually, but that does not pertain to us.

"From Publishers Weekly
The relationship between science and religion has long been a tenuous one. Some have worked to put these disciplines in "dialogue" with each other, while others have dismissed any possibility of a collegial relationship. To his credit, Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, attempts the former. He proposes that Christianity can be studied as a science, and its claims, if true, can be empirically proven. "I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well then, God exists." After a cogent description of modern physics, Tipler embarks on a crusade to prove that God exists, that miracles are physically possible and the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus do not defy scientific laws. The author's arguments are somewhat intriguing—his knowledge of science seems exhaustive and this may attract other scientists to consider the importance of religion. Many of his theological insights, however, are problematic. Dubbing Christianity a "science" does not automatically make it so, and Tipler seems to dismiss the centuries-old importance of the apophatic tradition in Christianity, that is, approaching the mystical nature of the Divine by positing what cannot be said about God. Tipler's interest in integrating science and religion is noble, but his method is uneven."

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
mavaddat wrote: Check

If you noticed the artical says that Tipler can prove the issues of the birth and death of Jesus. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.....AND MIGHT I ADD........HA!

It will assert the "god did it" in any case. In any case his argument will be completely dissimaler to the words in the bible. He will take ambiguous words out of the bible and incert some meaning after the fact to prop up his myth.

We have seen this before.

"The bible/quran/ect ect ect proves scientific knowlege of space"(I've heard this tactic from prior Christians, and Jews and Muslims about their viersions as well)

Then you go to the bible quote and discover that the lights in the sky besides the sun and moon were called stars. No mention of galaxies or planets or super novas.

I highly suspect is going down the same route. "Since asexual reproduction exists". Or something similar to that.

Here is what you  wont see in the book.

"I will show you the mechinisms God used and the process he used to impregnate Marry". 

What he wont do is show a direct replication solely based on the exact words of the bible. What he will do is basterdize science by claiming that unrelated topics justify belief in his myth.

So his final argument is, "Look, I am smart so therefor hocus pocus exists" .

He doesnt have any spirit sperm. He doesnt have any test of how the egg was able to get a second set of dna witout the sperm. He doesnt have any godsperm to show us.

And I doubt he would be willing to spear himself or anyone else in the side to let the blood completely drain out of their body to replecate surviving rigor mortis.

He is not going to adress these directly or attempt to explain the mechinisms as to how these claims would be possible.

He will use "If this(unrelated topic) can happen(not the claim in the bible) then this(unrelated topic) justifies the hocus pocus of the bible.

That is what he will do. How do I know? No magic. I could be wrong. But having seen this tactic used countless times by apologists, I can reasonably predict that he will do no differently in this book.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As I already pointed above,

As I already pointed above, Tipler's theories about theology and science coinciding all depend on his Omega Point theory about the physical manefestation of God. Tipler wrote that in an oscillatory universe that was undergoing contraction, the information gradient should exponentially rise very fast. He is obviously correct here, even a child could understand the concept. It's all theoretical, but an intense point of energy should be visible from all points in the universe, which could be utilized by an intelligent civilization. The steep information gradient should allow for a quantum computational state so powerful that all quantum brain states could be resurrected. To anyone inside the simulation, the contraction of the universe would go unnoticed because it would be perceived as infintie time by the quantum manifestations. In effect, we could ressurect everyone.

This was the basis of The Physics of Immortality. That was published in 1994. However...since then. In 2002, astronomers in Hawaii spotted intense supernovae that indicated the expansion of the universe was accelerating, an astonishing discovery. Coupled with the recent discovery of the bulk of the unvierse constructed by WIMP (Dark Matter) and Dark energy which was resisting gravity, his theories all collapsed because they were based on a cosmologicial topology that has hitherto been demonstrated false. There are some vague quantum foam theories that weakly argue against this, but none with much weight. Surely Tipler must concede that oscillation is imposible, thusly, the Omega Point (The cornerstone of the quantum computer) is impossible. There is only slightly too little matter to beat the dark energy. Omega cannot be >1. Why is he publishing again five years after these discoveries. Surely, in 1994 it was understandable. In fact, in 1994, oscillatory universe was popular, but not now, not anymore...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
There is some good stuff in

There is some good stuff in the comments section here about this scientist and his proofs.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Too bad, if Lux was a

Too bad, if Lux was a scientologist he would post 'The Psychiatry Of Scientology'. LOL.

Physics does not seem to be christianity's strong suit.

Worldwide flood - not physically sound.

6 Day creation - not physically sound.

Walking on water - not physically sound.

Physical resurrection - not physically sound.

 

Even the cruxifiction as depicted by most christian religions is not biologically or physically sound. The nails would have pulled through his hands and the nails in his feet would not have been able to support the body.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Physics does not

BGH wrote:
Physics does not seem to be christianity's strong suit.

LOL!!

It is not my strong suit either, but it confuses me that they continue to try prove god's existence with it.  It seems more like they are proving their ability to twist and re-define words while defying the laws of physics.


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Xtains believe that we

Xtains believe that we "atheist" believe what we believe because some scintist threw a bunch of large words, and some scientific situation at us, and in our awe we left god. I have been confronted with that accuse my whole life from my family on my belief. Now xtains, are trying to make up big words, and apply them to made up scientific situations to stop the rational migration of people away from xtainatity. I compare it xtain rock bands in the 80's.

 

This is all really sad, reading these xtains points of views is like watch the special olympics. Everyone wins, so at the end of the day nothing has been proven, just the players feel better about themselves.

 

 

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Another good book coming out

Another good book coming out June, 2.......

search

The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe

To help us see what random mutation and natural selection can really do, this book takes an unusual approach. In order to get a realistic idea of the power of Darwinian evolution, it leaves behind most of the popular images—dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, pretty Galapagos finches—to focus mainly on the invisible foundation of biology, the molecular world of the cell. There are two vital reasons for this: First, mutations—the fuel of Darwinian evolution—are themselves molecular changes, where the DNA of an organism is accidentally altered from that of its parents. Second, the most intricate work of life takes place at the level of molecules and cells. Imperceptible molecules are the foundational level of life. So, to locate the edge of evolution, we have to examine life’s foundation.

Keep the good books coming boys

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Another good

Lux wrote:
Another good book coming out June, 2....... search The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe To help us see what random mutation and natural selection can really do, this book takes an unusual approach. In order to get a realistic idea of the power of Darwinian evolution, it leaves behind most of the popular images—dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, pretty Galapagos finches—to focus mainly on the invisible foundation of biology, the molecular world of the cell. There are two vital reasons for this: First, mutations—the fuel of Darwinian evolution—are themselves molecular changes, where the DNA of an organism is accidentally altered from that of its parents. Second, the most intricate work of life takes place at the level of molecules and cells. Imperceptible molecules are the foundational level of life. So, to locate the edge of evolution, we have to examine life’s foundation. Keep the good books coming boys

Many posters really dislike the way you ignore their posts and go on to another topic, or just disappear from the discussion.

This is very trollistic behaviour and not very respectful. I hope your religion has taught you one thing you can use here and that is respect for your fellow man. Please start exercising some respect. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote:

BGH wrote:

Many posters really dislike the way you ignore their posts and go on to another topic, or just disappear from the discussion.

This is very trollistic behaviour and not very respectful. I hope your religion has taught you one thing you can use here and that is respect for your fellow man. Please start exercising some respect.

BGH, first of all, I have mixed feelings about your new avatar. That's a very nice nebula you have there, but I can no longer look at your face. Smiling

As for Christianity teaching respect for your fellow man, surely you jest? Christianity teaches that people are unworthy wretches because of Original Sin and that in order for god to even be able to look at a person, he had to kill his son as a blood sacrifice.

A lot of fundy Christians don't like themselves. They don't like each other and they hate us.

"He must increase; I must decrease."

"I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless, I live, but not me. Christ liveth in me."

You are only loved insofar you are like Christ. Christians lose their identity to the cult. Having gone through it, I can tell you it sucks.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: BGH,

Iruka Naminori wrote:

BGH, first of all, I have mixed feelings about your new avatar. That's a very nice nebula you have there, but I can no longer look at your face. Smiling

Awwww, thanks.

 

Iruka Naminori wrote:
As for Christianity teaching respect for your fellow man, surely you jest?

I guess I should have said, "theists CLAIM religion teaches them respect for their fellow man."

That would have been a more correct statement. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Lux

BGH wrote:

Lux wrote:
Another good book coming out June, 2....... search The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe To help us see what random mutation and natural selection can really do, this book takes an unusual approach. In order to get a realistic idea of the power of Darwinian evolution, it leaves behind most of the popular images—dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, pretty Galapagos finches—to focus mainly on the invisible foundation of biology, the molecular world of the cell. There are two vital reasons for this: First, mutations—the fuel of Darwinian evolution—are themselves molecular changes, where the DNA of an organism is accidentally altered from that of its parents. Second, the most intricate work of life takes place at the level of molecules and cells. Imperceptible molecules are the foundational level of life. So, to locate the edge of evolution, we have to examine life’s foundation. Keep the good books coming boys

Many posters really dislike the way you ignore their posts and go on to another topic, or just disappear from the discussion.

This is very trollistic behaviour and not very respectful. I hope your religion has taught you one thing you can use here and that is respect for your fellow man. Please start exercising some respect. 

I respond to the posts that make the best arguement, obviously, there haven't been many. Don't get mad because I don't get to EVERY single one of them ,If I were an atheist you wouldn't have this problem.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I respond to the posts that

I respond to the posts that make the best arguement, obviously, there haven't been many. Don't get mad because I don't get to EVERY single one of them ,If I were an atheist you wouldn't have this problem.

Are you going to respond to my post Lux? I felt I made a pretty good argument. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: If I were an

Lux wrote:
If I were an atheist you wouldn't have this problem.

Not true. Atheists who start threads and ignore others who respond are not well respected.

This is not the only thread, nor the only time you have avoided responses. Other members have mentioned this tactic from numerous other discussions.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Lux wrote: If I

BGH wrote:

Lux wrote:
If I were an atheist you wouldn't have this problem.

Not true. Atheists who start threads and ignore others who respond are not well respected.

This is not the only thread, nor the only time you have avoided responses. Other members have mentioned this tactic from numerous other discussions.

What tactic? I'm not intentionally ignoring posts, could it be that I'm not seeing them all? Like I said, I get to them as I read them....Jeeeeezzzzz

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:
....Jeeeeezzzzz
Warming up for your blasphemy challenge? Smiling
Should be interesting to see more reviews come in of this one. Seems like a rather large chasm to cross from "when people say god, they're referring to a singularity really.. which are real" to "therefore christianity as laid out in the bible is true"


Here's another view on the book: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426032.000-ithe-physics-of-christianityi-by-frank-tipler.html [MOD EDIT - fixed link] 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote:Lux wrote:If I

BGH wrote:

Lux wrote:
If I were an atheist you wouldn't have this problem.

Not true. Atheists who start threads and ignore others who respond are not well respected.

This is not the only thread, nor the only time you have avoided responses. Other members have mentioned this tactic from numerous other discussions.

Avoiding responses is disrespectful, but slamming another person's beliefs with insults is not? I mean if you have a point to make that disproves God, great, make your point. But are the arrogant remarks completely necessary? Being right does not require being arrogant. Arrogance is the attitude I get from about 90% of all the atheists I've ever talked to. Arrogance is not a very persuasive attitude. If you really are seeking converts, you might try a more humble approach. But since I don't want to see any more converts, I say keep on being arrogant. lol You are right, and you should really be proud of that, and rub people's noses in it any chance you get. If a certain belief system is the most important thing in someone's life, that is no reason to not take a pot-shot at it.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: If you

Musicdude wrote:

If you really are seeking converts, you might try a more humble approach.

There are many different people involved in this sort of discussion, all over. Some are kind and warm and fuzzy, some are "in your face" and ruthless. If 90% of the atheists you have encountered come across as arrogant, you might start to wonder why that is. Are they all just jerks? Or is there something about the topic that makes you extra sensitive? 

BTW, "converts" lol

Quote:
If a certain belief system is the most important thing in someone's life, that is no reason to not take a pot-shot at it.

If someone volunteers their belief system for debate ... we should make sure that we only debate it in ways that make everyone feel warm and fuzzy? I'll tell you, if I am insecure about a belief system that defines the core of my being, I might be hesitant to volunteer this tender topic to a bunch of people that I know have opposite ideas. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
BGH wrote:

BGH wrote:

Too bad, if Lux was a scientologist he would post 'The Psychiatry Of Scientology'. LOL.

Physics does not seem to be christianity's strong suit.

Worldwide flood - not physically sound.

6 Day creation - not physically sound.

Walking on water - not physically sound.

Physical resurrection - not physically sound.

 

Even the cruxifiction as depicted by most christian religions is not biologically or physically sound. The nails would have pulled through his hands and the nails in his feet would not have been able to support the body.

I take personal umberage to the absurdity that a human body cannot surive rigor mortis. SHIT MAN! Back in highscool after disecting a frog, we speared one of our classmates in the side and let the bood drain out of their body. We stuck the student on a slab and 3 days later she got up as if nothing had happened. DUDE! THAT IS BIOLOGY 101 YOU IDIOT!

If that is not taught in every biology class we are doing a great disservice to humanity! HOW DARE YOU DENY EDUCATION TO OUR YOUTH!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37