A Physicist Claims to Have Physically Found God

And it wasn't some bearded white man sitting in the clouds.
And it wasn't by revelation either.
He found it, By Mathematical computation and cosmic modelling.

Let me tell what I got from him, the way I got it.

Frank J. Tipler was your everyday smart ass scientist. He studied physics, did his PhD in Cosmic Relativity (a la Steve Hawkins) and having observed the universe, quickly dumped his beliefs in God. He was an atheist for the better part of thirty years.

Well, as he advanced in his study of the cosmos, he applied Einstein's proof that as far as physics was concerned, there was no fundamental difference between the past, future or present (check Einstein's relativist theories). Being that most cosmologists have successfully used these theories to understand the earliest beginnings of our universe and how it has evolved over time, Tipler decided to use the same theories to model the evolution of our universe's future.

In doing so, he did something few scientists have ever done, that is, develop a complete picture of the universe both as it has been, as it is, and as it is going to be. He unified all of it into one complete model. And according to him, his own conclusions startled him because they align with a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs that he had denounced as rubbish.

His first discovery is that there has to be into the future of the universe, what he called an Omega point. Its a point where, based on the known laws of physics, all that is, will be, and has been remains totally in existence. That is where the present, past and future will merge into a constant and remain so.  Where everything that has ever existed in the universe will exist again, or should I say, already exists again. Thus, the physical universe is progressing to a particular point where everything and everyone who has ever lived, will be alive again, permanently. (the bible calls it resurrection and eternity).

His second conclusion was that theology got it all wrong: God is not a being, God is being itself evolving into manifestation. However, given that cosmically, the Present, past and future are a constant, God already exists now as part and parcel of all things, and at the Omega point, and can reach across time and existence. It is we humans who have to progress through time to when we can know Him fully. (He who Was, and Is , and Is to Come). Funny enough to me, I found that historians have said that when God spoke to Moses, he introduced himself, not as I am what I am, like KJV said, but as I AM what I WILL BE.

His third conclusion is that based on his model, the 'all Being' who becomes personified as God in the Omega point cannot  possibly be a triune God (someone remember my post about how Trinity makes no sense.) Accoring to him, mathematically, the entire energy of the universe merges into a Singularity. A ONE. (take that, polytheists).

He comes to a bunch of other conclusions based on his modelling of cosmic evolution, but I don't want to recreate his book. Its called "The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology,God and the Resurrection of the Dead." Check some of it out here
The most amazing thing is that he used mathematics to come to all these conclusions. According to him, math, by allowing us to measure reality to the point of infinity, allows us not just to model the universe, but to see God.

And of course he is no longer an atheist. (He does say however, that unifying Christianity with his Omega point theory while possible, is not easy and does not arise clearly from the model because his model can only mathematically prove the existence of God, resurrection, and immortality. there is no clear modelling of the figure and phenomenon embodied in the Bible as Christ. In other words, Judaism & Islam fits his theory more easily.
Now, as defender of rationality,  I decided to find the other side of the story. Critics have mostly agreed with his mathematical calculations that predict the existence of an Omega point, with all of its characteristics like melding past, present and future, embodying all alternate expressions of the universe etc. However, they disagree with Tipler's conclusion that the singularity of the Omega point is God.  Tipler insists that this singularity has all the qualities which religions attribute to God, including intelligence.

Now, Im neither refuting nor confirming his arguments, the math too tough for me. Im only showing you something I have been saying many times in this blog: A basic understanding of science, especially space-time theories, almost always confirm if not the existence of God, at least a rational need for it.)

And this may be the longest, most scientifcally dizzying post I ever made. Im going to retire for a year. Peace.

GOD DOES NOT DO LOGIC

My God so I searched for the third picture for an hour, I lowkey felt like God didn't want me to find it because that was what this whole blog post is based upon. So I came across the third picture on facebook the other day and I got to asking on twitter "Why did God not create Jesus the same way he did Adam and Eve".

Some people replied with answers like this "Well God wanted we humans to believe that Jesus was real because we could identify more with Jesus if Jesus was human and born just like everybody else" 

So let us think about this for a second, so this was God's thought process "Them humans down yonder would never believe that Jesus was the Son of God if I created him like I did Adam and Eve but surely they will believe that a Virgin suddenly became pregnant and her fiance (joseph) was not the father." 

I guess God was right, 2 billion people have believe this story and it's pretty amazing. But this is where I don' buy the whole "God was trying to make Jesus more logical/reasonable to Humans by making him be born through a woman".  Today, a high percentage of people believe that the world was created by God and that he created Adam from dust and woman from Adam's rib. Now why would the same people who believe in a story like that, now be so doubtful when it comes to "Jesus being created from dust as well"? If they were "gullible" enough to believe that Adam was created from dust, what would stop them from being gullible enough to believe that Jesus was created from dust as well? If God's reason for using Mary to carry Jesus was because he wanted to appeal to our human logic and the way human beings think nature is supposed to work then he should not have bothered with going the extra mile.  We humans had already believed he 

created:

 man from dust,

 woman from man,

 serpents that could talk, 

donkeys that could talk, 

tower that almost reached heaven (tower of babel)

seas that could part into two, (Moses)

Burning Bush 

Man who could walk on water

Walls that collapsed because people walked around it (Jericho)

 flood that had swallowed up the whole earth, 

woman who had turned to pillar of salt, (Lots wife)

Whales that swallowed men and spit them out (Jonah)

Men who could stop the sun from going down (Moses)

Yall get my point, we had already believed so many "bizarre/out of this world" stories that another story like "God creating Jesus" would not even shake our so called Faith.. Infact, the more ridiculous the story the more we guarantee God that we will believe it.  

Personally I don't believe Jesus is the literal Son of God, I don't believe Mary took birth because of God, she either did what some so called virgins do these days and mistakenly get knocked up or the whole story is hog wash. Now Jesus was a great man and that is all he was, another man like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mother Theresa people like that. If there is truly a God and I believe there is, the bible is not his word of God and that book is a blasphemy unto his name. I've never understood why people label people like me "blasphemers" when they themselves are the ones blaspheming against God by professing a book that has so many fairy tale stories and contradictions is inspired by God.