The Physics of Christianity

I really have to wonder how many believers would even take this work seriously, and I don't think Tipler would find much support from his fellow physicists. Dr. Tipler has no doubt that he can prove Christianity with his vast knowledge of math and physics. He must be appealing to a very small audience, because it would probably require a Ph. D. related to math and physics to be able to refute this man's explanations. As a layman, all I can do is to follow his ideas and take his word for all his formulas and scientific jargon. He claims Immanuel Kant had it wrong in his thoughts about our knowledge limitations. Tipler claims faith is not needed, and he delights me with the confidence he demonstrates in proving immortality, the resurrection of Christ, the second coming, etc. all based on his scientific proofs. Frankly, I have strong doubts about Tipler's claims , but I found the book to be a fascinating read, even though his concepts and scientific proofs are way above my head. As I was reading his Physics of Immortality, I began wonder if Tipler hadn't been the one to plant the thoughts into the creators of the Terminator series and/ or Space Odyssey 2001. Tipler is employed by Tulane University and I have no doubts many students would probably chose to be in his classes. Tipler is obviously widely read in philosophy, literature, all branches of the sciences. I am not questioning his credentials, because he shows brilliance and creativity in many of his thoughts, and the way he defends his concepts makes this work unique. In my humble opinion, Tipler could be another H.G. Wells if he was so inclined. At least, those were my thoughts while reading this book.

Far too many of us who have claimed to be scientifically literate and scientifically honest have brought biased philosophical presumptions to our examinations of human life and thinking. Bending the results of experimentation around one or more philosophical biases is not unscientific so long as we maintain awareness we are doing so. We humans are constrained to live and think within the bounds of the drastically limited range of our senses -- even though we extend them somewhat through technological aids. And our brains, for most of us at least, are robust in preferences for adapting to what our senses tell us. Tipler takes us to the very frontiers of our ontological limits, by way of examining not the average, mundane mind, but the very essence of the keenest of physicists, and the farthest limits to which experimentation has taken them; and, at the ontological and epistemic edge of that he invites us to ponder what lies beyond. Quite obviously, the finest minds of man a century ago, two centuries ago, three... did not have benefit of experimental results which would come later. And if the historical momentum of that is any indication, the finest minds of man today, in their own finest hours, may be expected to fall short of knowing what experimental results will further inform science in years to come. How easily one already arrived at an insupportable atheistic stance, and fallaciously assuming he/she is supported in that stance by empirical materialism, presents himself/herself as being a skeptic. Yet the taking of any stance -- including one of atheism -- which is unsupportable by any empirical result yet known -- manifests blatant violation of the very core of scientific objectivity. As Tipler demonstrates, in a way that even a non-scientist of moderate entry-level familiarity with science can grasp, the brightest geniuses in physics have found that experimental results lead to unavoidable conclusions -- such as the mathematical necessity of an other-worlds phenomenon -- which runs counter to the normal and usual human adaptation to the ontological and epistemic cage in which human life plays out. Tipler explains exactly how physics can account for every so-called 'miracle' proffered by the historical accounts of Judeo-Christian records. If those historical records be somewhat hard to confirm precisely, then they do not, by virtue of that, differ from any other historical account. History, after all, does not change what has occurred; it only attempts imperfectly to trace it back. Scientists who are honest with themselves and others cannot, and therefore do not, hold that any experimental result obviates the necessity of something beyond a singularity. And physicists run into singularities all the time. Yes, in this book, Tipler takes the non-scientist to the brink of human understanding of materiality, and to the utmost limits of genius of man's brightest and most scientifically honest and shows us that all these things point -- microscopically, macroscopically, and beyond our furthermost understanding of these to what not only is the possibility but, also, the necessity of God. I do not do him justice in this humble attempt to say it. The reader who is a true skeptic -- rather than one wrapping denial in a cloak of scientific evidence -- will find this book embracing not fantasy nor magic or raw imagination but, on the contrary, the directions toward which all the empirical evidence, and all the greatest genius of mankind, are pointing.

The book sets forth scientific explanations for the miracles of Jesus. The virgin birth is perfectly explained along with proof experiments that the scientific community should perform. News articles in December 2013 declared that scientists now believe that 1 in 200 births might be virgin births. Most people will understand the book's detailed explanations; if it gets too complicated, you can always skip to the conclusions. It's refreshing to read a book from a genius physics professor who's not afraid of backlash from the atheist God-haters in the scientific community. For example Prof. Lawrence Krauss and others have viciously attacked Tipler and yet this Arizona State University professor has publicly stated that incest is not a bad idea. If you're interested in the science behind Jesus and his miracles; then this is a great start (in addition to Tipler's masterpiece "The Physics of Immortality").

Book arrived quickly and in good condition. Hard for me to understand physics explaination-- My Pastor was a physics major (read book after me) and said that author jumps to conclusions without carefully working through the premises.. So I do not think conclusions correct. . Was an interesting read for me-- explaining the immaculate conception as spontaneous egg fertilization-- like to certain animals-- which my Pastor said is not a logical conclusion....other explainations of resurrection of Christ-- (similiar to Star Wars moving of a man by molecule redistribution)-- End of world explaination related to computers sort of taking over our human responsiblities interesting. Still an interesting look at science- and I do believe God does work within HIS physical as well as spiritual laws-- but not sure we have enought information from science yet to understand in detail...

Book in great condition. Very satisfied

Although I am a theist, I cannot make myself mark this book for more than three stars, because of its incredible acrobatics in order to arrive at its desired conclusions. The author's thinking already became suspect to me when on the dedication page he quoted Genesis 12:3 as: "I will bless those who bless you, and he[!] who curses you, I will curse;..." By substituting "he" for "him" the author seems to carry "political correctness" to even grammar, as appears to happen more widely in such as pronouncing "noon" as "nyoon". The politically correct seem to think to know better than others even in grammar, including the bible, though in fact lacking understanding of subtle distinctions. The fallacious thinking in the more critical areas can be seen with regard to the author's basic attempt to prove the existence of God. The attempt is grounded on a definition of God which the author accepts, but can hardly be accepted as the common understanding moving mankind. The author's definition is adopted from what he observes (p.84) as one of St. Thomas Aquinas and Rabbi Moses Maimonides, namely from what is known as the cosmological argument. By it God is defined as the First Cause, which "was itself uncaused and the source of all causes in the universe." Later (p.92) he correspondingly states, "Since all causal chains begin at the Initial Singularity...the Initial Singularity is the First Cause. The Initial Singularity is God." What is the Initial Singularity? On the same page he says, "In the Initial Singularity, we have defined an entity that exists but is wholly other than space and time." And, "The word [']singularity['] in fact means 'where physical quantities become infinite'." Clear? Regarding the question of whether there must be a First Cause, whether the universe could not be infinitely old, he writes (p.84 again), "I shall show that even in the case of an unlimited number of causes going indefinitely far into the infinite past of an eternal universe, there still must be a First Cause." He adds, "The proof will use a trick developed by mathematicians to bring infinity into a finite distance." Indeed it looks like a trick, the present paragraph appearing to contradict itself twice. What is the "trick"? The author uses what is known as an asymptote, a straight line approached but never met by a curve. The straight line represents a "limit", a number that a certain series of numbers approaches but never reaches. What happens is that these approaching numbers represent infinitesimals. As in the series 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, the numbers get ever smaller but never end, by the mathematical convention of allowing a number, like a denominator, to grow indefinitely. But the infinitesimal is not the infinite! No wonder there appeared contradictions. The infinite, which has no limit, cannot be made into the infinitesimal, which has a limit. But regardless of these what can be seen as acrobatics, let us grant that the universe does not go back in time indefinitely, that it has a First Cause. Why should that First Cause be identified with God? Such identification does not comport at all with the object of universal yearning associated with the concept of God. Humanity envisions God--under attributes like those implied by reference to the Almighty--as a being of powers with ultimate intentions for his creatures, not barely an initial cause that brings other causes into action without any evident aim.

The Physics of Christianity is a challenging book that brings to light the age-old enigma "how can the human mind understand the miracles, mysteries and other transcendental features of the Christian religion through reliance on our most advanced developments in physics. This concept may arouse underlying concerns that "The Physics of Christianity" is based on the rejection of the reality of Christian belief. I think that a very careful reading of this book can demonstrate that it is not an attack on Christianity--it appears to be attempting to demonstrate what is presently still a challenge for the human mind to explain by present physical laws. Perhaps the concept that "change is always on the horizon" will enable one to see that wider scope of the book. Miracles arise daily but we learn about them later.

Setting aside the far-reaching implications and speculations about Christianity, this book is worth 5 stars just for the physics. Tipler shows how Newton, Einstein, Standard Theory, and Quantum Theory actually fit together into a simple, elegant theory of everything. If you feel yourself cringing at the audacity of attempting a theory of everything, read it. You may be surprised to discover that Tipler doesn't invent a theory of everything, he rather makes a clear and compelling case that the history of physics shows that a theory of everything has already been discovered and rejected on philosophical grounds, not on scientific grounds.