Would you like scientific proof of God?

Question

http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=[e-mail]
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/
I read the first chapter from the second link and I thought Professor Tipler had some intriguing ideas. Do you think his theories may have merit? Why or why not? This could be the information we have all been waiting for.

Answer 1

Just from a purely mathematical standpoint, the probability of creation by of our world by God is 1:2, but the probability of evolution is less than 1:1X10 to the 40000th power.
Play the odds; I believe that there is a God.

Answer 2

His theories have no merit. They equate God with a quantum singularity. There may be multiple quantum singularities in the universe.

His theories change the definition of God, and the god he presents is not the God of the Bible. A Quantum singularity is not, by definition, an intelligent being, and does not "explode into existence" with a predefined purpose. A Quantum singularity does not "care" or offer a plan of redemption. It simply exists. He is basically saying not that the Big Bang was caused by God, but that the Big Bang WAS god.

If God is the Quantum singularity, then he ceased to exist when the universe began.

I'm not a Christian, and I believe that all the universe is god, and part of god, or goddess. I think that Professor Tipler is simply trying to fit his god into physics, or physics into his idea of god. It's pointless.

Oh, and to answer the question about Electrons that he poses in his book.... I'm not a professional Physicist, but an engineer. I know what an electron is. What this professor fails to mention is that the temperature of a few electrons is not the temperature of the atoms that they are part of, or moving between. Therefore, while some electrons are quite hot, the wire itself is not. It may become so as many electrons are forced through it, but it will never reach the temperature of the electrons themselves. If it did, all wires would immediately vaporize violently.

As to computers becoming more intelligent than man, that depends quite on the definition of intelligence. Computers are having a remarkably difficult time doing even the most basic things that humans can do. While some appear to perform "human" tasks, they do so with analogues of our behavior; programming tricks that mimic intelligence. This is why we call it "artificial intelligence". The closest we've come is with neural networks that can in some way "learn", but this is far from creating a machine with actual intelligence.

We also create computers with massively parallel processing capabilities, that can solve complex problems quite quickly. Even with this awesome computing power, the computer has no real intelligence. It is executing lines of code in rapid succession, but it is not becoming aware. Adding more processors or more lines of code will not overcome this.

Invisibility, as mentioned in his chapter is a concept considered in Physics today, and an "invisibility cloak" seems a bit less than science fiction, but it is not something that physicists consider a viable project at yet.

His first chapter takes many turns, and offers no real idea as to how physics may prove the existence of an intelligent being that created the universe. It merely points to a singular cause for the universe and claims it to be god. This is bad physics and worse theology.

Answer 3

It is not a scientific ‘theory’. Maybe you can call it a hypothesis, but the one guy is right, if science can test it, then it is not supernatural – and if it is supernatural, then it is outside of the defined boundary of scientific investigation.

It also is not a proof of anything. There is no such thing as a scientific proof that includes other-worldly explanations (that is by definition); so that is proof that his proof is not a scientific proof of anything. You cannot redefine real science so that it is pseudo-science and then claim that you are doing real science (although this is the fundamental trick used by all fundamentalists and creationists).

-----------------------
Marty --

That is pathetic nonsense - not 'mathematics'.

Answer 4

Nope, just some nut blending scientific jargon into a book with hoping to use enough 5 dollars words to impress the feeble minded masses ( and donors of money) to seem like he's trying to reach out an honest hand to science. It's crap.

Answer 5

I've seen the video. The guy is way way off base, the biggest flaw being that he defines God as being the cosmological singularity, which amounts to deism- not the god of the bible. His "finding" is incredibly arbitrary and doesn't force (his word) anyone to conclude god exists, just that a singularity exists. Now, since there is theoretically a singularity at the heart of every black hole, does that mean there are multiple gods? The guy also claims he arrived at his conclusion based on "hardnosed" physics. As history has shown, physics has been anything but hardnosed or absolutely irrefutable.

I think we'd all like proof of a god or God, but with no definition, God can't possibly exist.

Answer 6

I like what he has to say about the existence of God - but I think he relies on too many contigencies when he tries to define the attributes of God.

Answer 7

It's a glorified "god of the gaps" argument. The fact that he can assign a constant to God, doesn't make it God, much less the Christian God, specifically.

Answer 8

I liked his modern physics book, but he has no scientific proof of god to offer.

Answer 9

I honestly don't need scientific proof to believe in God. It just wouldn't make any difference to me. I believe based on faith, and that's just all I need.

Answer 10

Hey, thanks for the proof - it's gonna take me a while to go through the papers - don't wait up for me, R&S kiddies.