-
"" Mr Redford, 1. Before I laid out the syllogysm, I quoted word for word, in the same post, where it comes from. Are you saying that you have contradicted yourself in that paper? If not, please explain what you did mean in that paragraph. 2. Thank God for the internet! The Omega Point, or is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has given us Wikipedia
-
[quote user="Bert"] See Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God" of the article. Don't reference it, just explain it here and now. [/quote] The whole point of my writing this article is to explain such matters. The article is available for free, in case you didn't know. [quote] I see that you're an adherent of epistemological
-
"" Almost witty, but it was tl;dr. "" Then why are you even bothering to post to this thread if you have no intention of reading the following article which it concerns? James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 13, 2012 (orig. pub.
-
"" How long does it take you to write one of those montrous tl;dr? My goodness... "" Hi, Gotlucky. To answer your question, not long. If that is too long for you, then I'd hate to see what your attitude is toward books.
-
"" The Big Bang Never Happened. Ergo, "God exists" is still a non-sequitir. QED Clayton - "" The Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical theorem per General Relativity, which was demonstrated with the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems that are discussed in Sec. 5: "The Big Bang" of my following article
-
"" The Big Bang Never Happened. Ergo, "God exists" is still a non-sequitir. QED Clayton - "" The Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical theorem per General Relativity, which was demonstrated with the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems that are discussed in Sec. 5: "The Big Bang" of my following article
-
"" I don't know what "Quantum Gravity / Theory of Everything" you are referring to, but a Google search of "Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg" turns up only hits related to your religiously-themed paper or Frank Tipler (I note that none of it is availble on arxiv.org). This along with your mildly snarky attitude leads me to believe
-
"" That article just shows that man can make anything seem plausible and official. Just as long as it sounds remotely comprehensible and has sufficient levels of jargon. There is no direct evidence for a big bang or singularity. In fact looking at the observable universe one can see what is often described as an organic process. It would seem
-
"" Defining "God" simply as "first cause" means that "God" cannot be defined as anything else. So it does not follow from the proof that the Big Bang is/was jealous of all other Big Bangs, or that the Big Bang parted the Red Sea to let the Hebrews escape from Pharaoh, or that the Big Bang gave up Its only son
-
"" This appears to be an argument from ignorance. The absence of any refutation of a hypothesis or theory does not constitute evidence, let alone proof, that the hypothesis or theory is irrefutable. "" The mathematics itself isn't refutable, otherwise it wouldn't be a mathematical theorem. But if it were shown that the Second