51. Comment #37794 by Bob Russell on May 5, 2007 at 6:01 pm

This reminds me of the old Ma and Pa Kettle Math video thats on you tube......only difference is Pa and Ma actually seem to be believable....

We need the banjo picker again here I think....

Other Comments by Bob Russell

52. Comment #37797 by Ohnhai on May 5, 2007 at 6:31 pm

anyone spot the real message there?



"hey Ive got a book coming out!"

Other Comments by Ohnhai

53. Comment #37804 by maton100 on May 5, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Cialis for his "omega erection." I hope Tipler enjoys heaven with his female undergrads lined up to serve him sexually. Go Tulane! I suppose the hurricane in NOLA equals God too?

Students should be worried, they may have another Heaven's Gate loon to contend with...and this guy has credentials and lots of chalk.

Other Comments by maton100

54. Comment #37805 by Zaphod on May 5, 2007 at 7:07 pm

No one in the physics community respects this guy really. He is known to be out there.

Other Comments by Zaphod

55. Comment #37806 by maton100 on May 5, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Tipler is gone and done it by golly!

Other Comments by maton100

56. Comment #37810 by MelM on May 5, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Today, KCTV. Tomorrow, Time Magazine.

Other Comments by MelM

57. Comment #37811 by Cyboman on May 5, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Did anyone else see the banana in the equation. Clearly a link.

Other Comments by Cyboman

58. Comment #37815 by eric2007 on May 5, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Did you notice the way the "Professor" wrote his "s"? He writes backwards, starting at the bottom towards the top. This can be an indication of schizophrenia (he hears voices?)

Other Comments by eric2007

59. Comment #37816 by Veronique on May 5, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Methinks that Tipler may tipple a little too much at times.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to say anything at all to this 'news-story'. It's all twaddle.

I have never taught children to write but a primary school teacher I know says that children who start lettering from the bottom up are often dyslexic. Not always, mind you, maybe it can also indicate a facility to compartmentalise very successfully.

Thank you Beth for the Stenger link.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

60. Comment #37819 by Spinoza on May 5, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Tipler is an idiot.

His "proof" doesn't prove any particular religion's God exists... it proves that SOMETHING exists... the same way Spinoza's proofs in The Ethics do... but that thing, Spinoza said, was Deus sive Natura... and every Christian who read Spinoza cried "ATHEIST! NIHILIST! FATALIST!"

And wanted nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Tipler is trying to take something like Spinoza's "God" and apply Christian rhetoric over top of it and pretend that the proof applies to the latter.

How fucking dumb is that?!

Other Comments by Spinoza

61. Comment #37823 by nonsequitar on May 5, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Umm, he has a book just out! 'Nuff said.

Other Comments by nonsequitar

62. Comment #37832 by Big T on May 5, 2007 at 11:56 pm

KCTV5, my favorite local station in my hometown. Where they have that gorgeous weather forecaster, Katie Horner (married, but not, alas, to me). Who cares if God exists, as long as Katie Horner does!

Other Comments by Big T

63. Comment #37839 by Veronique on May 6, 2007 at 12:55 am

40. Comment #37744 by Michael P

Interestingly, you can't access the discussion page on the good professor's tulane biog. page. Probably a good move after putting forward this tosh.

Anyone got an idea how to contact him with a bit of vituperative bile? Or other equally engaging comments?

This sort of stuff really riles me. To all you people who live in the same place as the TV station, bombard it with your comments. It won't do much good, but it will help to reduce the angst.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

64. Comment #37847 by MrEmpirical on May 6, 2007 at 2:05 am

LOL at the water crystal guy, Dr. Emoto's his name. His 'photoessay' cited a paper that appeared in Nature and which was debunked in Nature a few years later, BEFORE Emoto wrote his essay.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

65. Comment #37867 by Pi Guy on May 6, 2007 at 4:08 am

Worst of all, Tipler has name recognition as his General Physics text book has just about replaced the previous, classic GP text by Halliday and Resnick, the standard in undergrad science and engineering courses. The perfect platform for spreading the word.

[obvious logical fallacy] Argument from authority - even with all his cool science buzzwords thrown in - does not a true premise make. [/obvious logical fallacy]

If his "proof" is so convincing, then why aren't all the other science guys, for whom all the math/fizix is not beyond, endorsing it? I think that I know why. It's been said that the most common application of logic is to justify what one already believes. I believe that Dr. Tipler has just provided support for that assertion.

Other Comments by Pi Guy

66. Comment #37868 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2007 at 4:14 am

Not long ago another physicist went off the deep end - Steven E. Jones at BYU. Wrote a conspiracy theory book about 9/11. He was offered early retirement.

Tulane's a far better school than BYU. The collective cringe energy among Tippler's peers must translate into some kind of action. I see a sweet retirement deal in his future.

Perhaps Tipler is angling for the Templeton prize, and he's getting some signals that he's in the running. If he were to bring in a million to use for research at Tulane... well, standards of scholarship can be bent without being broken, can't they?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

67. Comment #37896 by Chemist on May 6, 2007 at 7:15 am

Those of you who want equations should go to Tipler's website which contains links to various of his writings, one of which he says is the basis of his book. Full of equations, none of which state that the result is either equal to or even equivalent to "God". He must be using the biblically sanctioned value of pi = 3 to make to work out to that conclusion.

Other Comments by Chemist

68. Comment #37900 by Bayle on May 6, 2007 at 7:28 am

This is almost as bad as that guy that opened up a jar of peanut butter and laughed saying "Hey, evolution didn't happen inside my jar, how could life have sprung from unlife?"

Michael Shermer debunks Tipler in his 1997 book "Why people believe weird things," by the way. I'm glad whatever news agency it was that gave him airtime did their research first.

Other Comments by Bayle

69. Comment #37911 by polishrequiem on May 6, 2007 at 8:11 am

What a bunch of nonsense.

Other Comments by polishrequiem

70. Comment #37914 by wagnerpe on May 6, 2007 at 8:36 am

Poseidon exists.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

71. Comment #37918 by mark1958 on May 6, 2007 at 8:59 am

As an academic Professor, Frank Tipler is a disgrace to our profession...

Probably trying to get a Templeton Award

Other Comments by mark1958

72. Comment #37921 by Canuck#1 on May 6, 2007 at 9:37 am

I think we should all write a letter ot thanks to the "good" professor.....he has saved us the job of making him look foolish. It sounds like a fantasy novel (a bad one) written by a high school student. If I were still a christian I would be ashamed to to be associated with it....christianity is all about faith, but of course, as seen by several comments they love it. STRANGE IS IT NOT??????????

Other Comments by Canuck#1

73. Comment #37924 by Mikado on May 6, 2007 at 9:49 am

The tummy was the giveaway. If god had existed the professor would have had a perfect physique.

Next question please.

Other Comments by Mikado

74. Comment #37930 by Frostbit on May 6, 2007 at 10:21 am

The thing about it is, with that obfuscated crack pot formula, he has succeeded in convincing all those that can not think for themselves that there is actually proof now for the existence of God; End of story no need for corroborated empirical evidence.

Other Comments by Frostbit

75. Comment #37932 by padster1976 on May 6, 2007 at 10:28 am

Right. So there's 'evidence'.

Here we have a chance to have a scientific debate. I'm not a scientist, quite the layman so what he was writing on the board could have been greek. What we need is some other scientists to look at his data and respond.

If its in a book ,then I doubt that his paper has been peer reviewed. Somewhat missing a useful aspect of the scietific method.

Please please please someone clever enough look at what he is saying and give a response.

It could be that what he wrote is nonsense. But we would be doing a disservice to debate if simply shrugging it off. I'm no-way qualified to do so - quite what qualifications that diocese chap has that allows him to say it was 'interesting' remains to be seen.

Be skeptical, but remain open.

Quite how the mathematical language can give an answer to any formula in english is a little suspect.

Whats the response?

Other Comments by padster1976

76. Comment #37939 by Firefly on May 6, 2007 at 10:53 am

I actually took a course with Tipler at Tulane. It was an intensive writing course with his Omega Point Theory as the subject, so I might be able to shed some light on his views for everyone. Please don't base your judgments of him on that news report as it lacked any kind of details about what his theory actually is.

Tipler believes that the singularity at the end of the universe is God. He bases his theory on two main assumptions:

1. We live in a closed universe.

2. Intelligent life will continue to live and evolve throughout the future of the universe(not necessarily human or Earth life)

It's hard to summarize his theory in a short space such as this, and I'll probably butcher it, but basically in his Omega Point Theory, intelligent life evolves to be more and more complex, spreading throughout the entire universe. Eventually, this intelligent life (again, maybe, but not necessarily the descendants of humans) inhabits enough of the universe to actually control it on a large scale. This culminates with intelligent life reaching "perfection" through evolution at the singularity at the end of the universe. This "God" would understand quantum mechanics of the universe so well, that it would be able to trace back the history of every particle in the universe from the Omega Point back to the Big Bang; hence, it would be able to recreate (or resurrect) everyone who ever lived. I was never really clear on why such a being would necessarily choose to do so.

I was actually surprised to see this news report with Tipler still espousing his theory. I took the course with him back in 1999, before the evidence became clear that we do not live in a closed universe, i.e. the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing as time goes by. I'm curious as to what his response to this newer evidence is.

Other Comments by Firefly

77. Comment #37942 by MorituriMax on May 6, 2007 at 11:11 am

The statement "..you are forced to conclude that God exists." pretty much sums up how Religion wants things. Note that scientists never say, "You are forced to believe in my version of Quantum Mechanics."

Other Comments by MorituriMax

78. Comment #37944 by AtheistAttorney on May 6, 2007 at 11:21 am

Uhuh. So maths and physics reduced to an equation which was not actually shown or explained can prove beyond doubt, not only that god exists but the virgin birth and resurrection!! Wow, must be that all the Nobel Prize winners and 95% of the scientific community haven't seen this brilliance otherwise they would also be praising...wait a minute which god does it prove - can he also mathematically prove xtianity is true. Allow me suggest an equation:

(Blind Faith + Geographically Isolated Religiosity) / (Irrationality * Stupidity) = xtianity

The man may be a brilliant physicist but he remains a moron in my eyes.

Other Comments by AtheistAttorney

79. Comment #37952 by maton100 on May 6, 2007 at 12:02 pm

The following is a response letter to Professor Tipler:

In direct opposition to the Big Bang theory of particle inflation, a hypothesis initiated by pupils of the cosmologist Fred Hoyle (around 1975) proposed a Solid State theory based on circumstantial evidence of a celestial guitar amplifier being responsible for simultaneously initiating and sustaining dark energy in the cosmos (not to be confused with Steady State theories of the 60's). At first this seemed a preposterous and erroneous error of "wishful thinking." Nonetheless, upon further analysis, a plausibility factor of irreducible complexity may be defended more readily by the Roland Corporation than Fender. For instance, we know that magnetic forces and the weaker gravitational cohesion concerning balance between electrons and the atomic nucleus virtually annihilates any plausibility inherent with such mind-shrinking falsehoods as astrology. After all, the electrical force is greater between a can of diet soda and your brother-in-law than the gravitational effect of a distant red dwarf and one's family tax-accountant. So how could the cosmological constant (at least in our pocket of the universe) be a solid-state amplifier? This is not so much a mystery for theoretical physicists as Richard Feynman or Andrei Linde as it is a challenge in understanding the mechanisms inherent in an amplifier itself that could orchestrate physical laws immune from the meanderings of human striving. At best we can say that the amplifier produces pleasurable results. At worst we can say that the amplifier (depending on the guitarist) produces arduously painful audiological results. However, it appears more likely to say that the amplifier itself is impersonal and indifferent most of the time. It is the principle of indifference that suggests Darwinian mechanisms involved in forming an amplifier capable of thrusting elemental particles into other areas of the universal horizon. And keep in mind, it was not "Tube" theory that was proposed. Transistor modeling evolved to prefer the natural selection of more reliable electronic configurations immune from the turbulent and catastrophic nature of vacuum-tube technology. Hey, I like the sound of tubes too but we have satisfactorily demonstrated the ability to adapt tube fundamentals into a more favorable mutation of our antiquated paradigm.

Okay, I know what you're going to say. Amplifiers are made of parts and those very parts are reducible components denying the constructed entity "power" of that very speaker-pusher. Sure. But one single amplifier may have gotten stuck between the black hole horizon and our own universe and, subsequently, contributes to infinite or "eternal" inflation by constant vibrations privy toward the replication of Bob Seger's Beautiful Loser. A fundamental sonoluminescence articulated through the sphere of time and space led by Mr. Seger or a divine imposter who really likes mid-range boost. What then my friend? A Rube Goldberg machine may be the amplifier between the black hole horizon and our universe that is affecting our galaxy with blind properties of elemental physics partial to the work of Bob Seger. However, humans must have built the amplifier and it could not pre-date Homo sapiens. Or could it? Could a solid state amplifier be 13.5 billion years old and have the omniscience and benevolence to create a multi-verse or string vibrations? Well, maybe not. Surely an amplifier of alpha benevolence and omniscience would have offered something more agreeable than the entire box-set of Mr. Seger? C'mon! Particle matter and star materials such as helium, hydrogen and carbon would have formed more readily if Jacqueline du Pre was swerving through the magnetic speaker system. This seems the more probable explanation for why there is something rather than nothing in the cosmos—even if the amplifier is pre-programmed and, as we mentioned earlier, indifferent. But who (humans love personifying elements) or what pre-programmed it? A particle partial to Bob Seger? Particle partiality? Anthropic Segeresque material? These are remaining questions for guys like Alexander Vilenkin or the biochemist at Walgreens and have no place with theology, diesel engine repair or creation-myth propaganda.

Other Comments by maton100

80. Comment #37959 by ksskidude on May 6, 2007 at 1:13 pm

My op-ed to the Kansas City Star

This is in response to the story that was ran on KCTV 5 concerning the
question, "Does God Exist?" KCTV 5 should have its license revoked.
How
can a TV station in 2007, run a story with a physics professor claiming
God
can be proven using a mathematical equation. But then have no counter
opinion, no other credible sources to counter this wild notion of
proving
God through mathematics. It would be like airing a Muslim had proven
Allah
to be the one true God with his mathematical equation, and then have no
Christian or Jew, or Hindu, Atheist etc. to counter the opinion.
The fact of the matter is this, God can not be proven by math or by any
other formula. A belief in a God, is a belief in the supernatural, a
belief
in in something for which there is no proof, other than the weak
excuse, one
calls faith.
It's a faith that one holds on to for dear life, despite the mounds of
evidence against it. I for one find no reason, no evidence to believe
in
anything supernatural.


ksskidude

Other Comments by ksskidude

81. Comment #37967 by sane1 on May 6, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Holy Shit was that a half-assed story! Did my ears decieve me or at on epoint did he say "feces proves god exists."?

Other Comments by sane1

82. Comment #37969 by Biliondan on May 6, 2007 at 2:09 pm

If God is outside of "space, time and matter" and so the physical constraints of this universe, as so many people claim, then our physical laws do not apply to him. Therefore, quantum mechanics and relativity are irrelevent and we are forced to conclude that Tipler just doesn't have a clue.

Other Comments by Biliondan

83. Comment #37972 by mandrellian on May 6, 2007 at 2:22 pm

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e39/anonymgrl/farside.jpg

Spot on, Gary.

Other Comments by mandrellian

84. Comment #37983 by mjwemdee on May 6, 2007 at 2:58 pm

A propos Chemist's comment #37896, I had heard previously about the Bible giving the value of pi (π)as 3; can anyone give me chapter and verse?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

85. Comment #38003 by Alina on May 6, 2007 at 3:53 pm

I think we should point out that Tipler is a respectable physicist - not this Frank Tipler, but Paul Tipler who published Physics for Scientists and Engineers. It is a real shame how Frank can become more famous than Paul, who with his colleagues helps thousands of students every year to actually understand physics.

The only thing that really shocked ME about the story was the name Tipler - I'm rather used to news stories like these. Luckily a quick check on first names provided relief.

Other Comments by Alina

86. Comment #38053 by hopeful on May 6, 2007 at 9:26 pm

What I find enormously frustrating and disturbing is the catholic representative, portrayed as someone of wisdom and credibility, who announces, with absolute certainty, that "...faith and science are two ways of knowing...".

Other Comments by hopeful

87. Comment #38080 by Dax on May 6, 2007 at 11:27 pm

At first I thought Katrina might have messed his brain up (like it did with many Orleanians) but he already started writing this cr*p in the 90s. The Tulane website lists his most recent publication dating back to 1996! What, in Anansie's name, is my university doing? Any professor who publishes so little will be booted out... except for this nutcase? Was this the guy from Tulane who signed the dissent of Darwinism document?

Oh well, it doesn't surprise me. I know a certain Tulane researcher with an MD and PhD who was amazed that I "believed in evolution" because "how can we come from monkeys?"

Tulane needs to tighten their employment and tenure policy!

Other Comments by Dax

88. Comment #38196 by sheepscarer on May 7, 2007 at 7:51 am

Let's be honest here - we're wasting our time trying to reason with this kind of believer. The desire to believe transcends all reason. Just watch Derren Brown's trickery in the US where even after he informs the gullibles that he has perfomed a trick on them and is not psychic or a miracle worker they STILL refuse to believe. This is not just in the teeth of all the evidence but the whole digestive system twice around the block and across the road to the brain-donars convention.

Other Comments by sheepscarer

89. Comment #38233 by Bandon B. Decker on May 7, 2007 at 9:32 am

Re: 81. Comment #37959 by ksskidude on May 6, 2007 at 1:13 pm

I read the Star almost every morning, I'll make sure to keep an eye out for that.

Other Comments by Bandon B. Decker

90. Comment #38240 by Mikado on May 7, 2007 at 9:47 am

85. Comment #37983 by mjwemdee

1 Kings 7:
7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Pi=3 by implication.

Other Comments by Mikado

91. Comment #38268 by Firefly on May 7, 2007 at 11:12 am

Many of you are still jumping to conclusions about Tipler. He is not a creationist or a believer in intelligent design.

Tipler is a theoretical physicist who thinks that general relativity and quantum mechanics make a god-like being possible and probable at the end of the universe (evolved by natural selection from intelligent life in the universe). As misguided as he may be, he is not a fundie. He is not now, nor has he ever, advocated against evolutionary theory or established scientific explanations of the origin and evolution(up to the present time) of the universe.

The part where he goes off on his own deals only with the future evolution of the universe, a field of physics which is still in its infancy. Although he may take his assumptions too far and is probably wrong about many of his conclusions, he still has some interesting theoretical ideas on the future evolution of the universe and is still worth reading.

Other Comments by Firefly

92. Comment #38275 by Firefly on May 7, 2007 at 11:26 am

sheepscarer:

"Let's be honest here - we're wasting our time trying to reason with this kind of believer. The desire to believe transcends all reason. Just watch Derren Brown's trickery in the US where even after he informs the gullibles that he has perfomed a trick on them and is not psychic or a miracle worker they STILL refuse to believe. This is not just in the teeth of all the evidence but the whole digestive system twice around the block and across the road to the brain-donars convention."

This is a complete mis-characterization of Frank Tipler. He is a reputable theoretical physicist who specializes in the future evolution of the universe. As I mentioned earlier, I took one of his courses at Tulane. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I found him to be very open-minded and open to debate and criticism.

I'm sure fundamentalists across the spectrum will use his work for their own purposes and put their own flavor of spin on it, but that's not Tipler's fault.

Other Comments by Firefly

93. Comment #38383 by Shuggy on May 8, 2007 at 12:06 am

The video is no longer available at the links given. Is it still up somewhere else?

Other Comments by Shuggy

94. Comment #38538 by mjwemdee on May 8, 2007 at 2:14 pm

91. Comment #38240 by Mikado

Thanks for the help. Much obliged.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

95. Comment #38879 by chadcross on May 9, 2007 at 11:28 am

So sad, the video is gone. I was looking forward to a good laugh.

Other Comments by chadcross

96. Comment #39481 by Leendert on May 10, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Another CBS video report (or the same, I have not seen the original) with Frank Tipler and his proof of God is available here:
http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=18130@ktvt.dayport.com&cid=7

Other Comments by Leendert

97. Comment #40048 by Firefly on May 12, 2007 at 8:18 pm

I'd also like to point out that Tipler (along with John D. Barrow) is the one mentioned in The God Delusion as expanding on the anthropic principle in their 1988 book on the subject.

Unfortunately, I've discovered that Tipler has become involved with the ID folks since I was last acquainted with him.

Other Comments by Firefly

98. Comment #42528 by William Brookfield on May 18, 2007 at 10:39 am

Hello Everyone,

Some more information regarding this video can be found at my blog.

http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by William Brookfield

99. Comment #44212 by ChrisMcL on May 23, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I did some checking into the Frank Tipler story that was shown on CBS stations across the USA. I found that an Atlanta CBS affiliate, WGCL, originated the story. Here is the link to the original story in video:

http://www.cbs46.com/Global/story.asp?s=6434444

I read some debate below about various reasons why professor Tippler is wrong. The answers ranged from another equation to other theological questions that Tippler's theory may not answer. I'm hoping that eveyone sees the very simple reason why Tippler is wrong in his "proof" (and not worthy to teach science). He ASSUMES that the Cosmological Singularity is God. A leap of logic.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

100. Comment #47329 by CJ22 on June 4, 2007 at 5:22 am

Oh my! Why isn't this on the news everywhere?? They PROVED God?? This is...momentous, it's staggering - they should be debating it in congress and parliament and the UN and the Vatican? And they claimed science and religion were seperate magisteria! But to think I was alive on the Earth on the day that the existence of God was finally proven! We'll always remember where we were on that glorious day! I'm going straight home to watch the coverage on the BBC.

Oh, wait, it's bullshit...

Other Comments by CJ22