God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
4

Concerning the accelerating expansion of the universe: during life’s advancement throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life’s energy requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the process, the annihilation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse.

And we have had the Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics for some 40 years with the arrival of the Standard Model of particle physics, since the Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. The Standard Model is a quantum field theory, i.e., it involves Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics. And gravity is described by General Relativity. The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics consistent with each other, which is accomplished with the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity when the appropriate boundary conditions on the universe are used, which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities.

For much more on this, see my following articles:

It’s mathematically forced if the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are true statements of how the universe works. As said, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory of Everything (TOE) is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Regardless of what you or anyone else might mean by “metaphysic[s]”, the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems mathematically prove that the universe must have began at an initial singularity given the amount of matter that is actually observed in the universe. To quote Prof. Stephen Hawking on this (from p. 62 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].):

“”
The final result [of the Singularity Theorems] was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. …
“”

And the singularity case becomes unavoidable once one introduces Quantum Mechanics (i.e., no stipulation on the matter content need be made, nor any other stipulation).

The only “premise” here is Quantum Mechanics, which has been confirmed by every experiment to date.

Your knowledge of the history on this matter is quite lacking. That is what the leading physicists who developed said physics, such as Profs. Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc., stated was the reason for the rejection by the physics community of the Big Bang cosmology: they stated that it was rejected because it logically implies that God exists. For historical details on this rejection of physical law by physicists when conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: “The Big Bang”, pp. 28-33 of my “Physics of God” article cited above.

I see that you take the fideist position. Why bother even arguing on a forum? Since ignorance comforts you, take your comfort and be content. Also, given your above-stated position, why would it be so shocking to you that others also take some form of perverse comfort in ignorance?

Whereas I hold that the Truth–specifically, Knowledge of It–sets us free. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jesus Christ, as recorded in John 8:32).

The only thing that can save us is knowledge of the truth.