Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:38:44 EDT, tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

science has always been the enemy of religion in the past.

and in the present it seems , they support eachother.

now that all sounds good ...

but if we think about it a little bit : how and why ?

1) because religion cant fool mankind anymore with flat earths and other nonscientific nonsence : if you cant beat them join them.

that way religion still reaches it goal.

they have bet on the wrong horse in the past.

but now religion calls itself " science ".

and religious scientists " confirm it ".

2) to fund and support religion/science by " recommending eachother "

3) so that people like hawking could develop their physics theorems based on " religious axioms " in mathematical perspective.

which are btw very weird theorems with 2 dimensional time etc

4) to create a feeling of " i told you so " for the ones who defended religion and became a scientist later.

regards

tommy1729

The modern discipline of science is a product of the Christian
institutions of the universities, and Christian theological training
has traditionally placed heavy emphasis on training in the natural
sciences. For much more on this, see the below article and book by
Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:

"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," LewRockwell.com,
May 2, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.:
Regnery Publishing, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387

Below one can obtain Chapter 3: "How the Monks Saved Civilization"
from the above book for free:

http://www.catholicchurchbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=CH001

For the reasons behind the Galileo Galilei and Catholic Church affair,
see:

Prof. Jerry Bergman, "The Great Galileo Myth," Investigator, No. 95
(March 2004), pp. 36-47
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

----------

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 regarding it as
lending credence to the traditional theological position of creatio ex
nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to a singularity
itself. The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman
Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was
enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the
scientific community finally came to accept it. In an article by Prof.
Tipler, he points out that many in the field of physics abandon
physical law when it produces results they're uncomfortable with,
i.e., in reference to religion. As regards the Big Bang, Tipler gives
the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven
Weinberg:

""
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. <b>Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that
certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable
theoretical and experimental effort.</b>" [My emphasis--J. R.]

.... 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. ...
""

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. 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).
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf Also
published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by
John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about
concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion,
resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), pg. 62,
Hawking wrote:

""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably
because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the
other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially
pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were
therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had
been a big bang.
""

On pg. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe
has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to
spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the
Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pg. 113:

""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause]
is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under
conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a
product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that
happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the
implications, he would be traumatized.
""

For more quotes by Robert Jastrow on this, see:

John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, "Science and Discomfiting
Discoveries" in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United
Church of God, 2000)
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/discomfitingdiscoveries.htm
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf

For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below
article:

Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I," Atheism's
Assertions, February 20, 2007
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-see.html

Contrast that ad libitum approach to doing physics with that of Prof.
Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the
Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of
Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of
Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first
person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and
winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize
for his work). They both believe we have to take the known laws of
physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless
said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.

----------------------------------------

James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," revised and expanded
edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published December 19, 2001)
http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

Theophysics (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's
Omega Point Theory) http://geocities.com/theophysics/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/omega-point/
http://www.myspace.com/theophysics
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... that way religion still reaches it goal. ... and also because no laws of physics can apply ... The originator of the Big Bang theory, ... For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... The position of scientists is that the laws of physics are identical ... �A clock in S' drops in a time of t'=1, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... The position of scientists is that the laws of physics are identical ... �A clock in S' drops in a time of t'=1, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics really a matter of belief?
    ... cannot be proved by scientists. ... nature, then a science such as physics is impossible. ... Also a belief that the laws of logic are correct and that contradictions ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dogma, the false god of audio
    ... scientists are interested in evidence. ... science is merely a system of investigation. ... In a physics class, a physicist says things like, "In our part of the ... try to make a religion of science, ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
Loading