The Historian Tippler quotes is most definitely giving a crap representation of why Galileo’s views where rejected, which is primarily to do with politics, and the frame of Galileo’s arguments in a Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, that’s covered rather nicely on wikipedia…

Stillman Drake is also doing things a trained historian should know better not to do, namely anachronisms and lying by omission. Since at that time, Natural Philosophy was very much embedded within the larger Theological endeavours of the times. And was seen as revealing God’s laws, iirc my history and philosophy of science courses right, a view that was quite common up till the 19th century.

I’m not arguing with you. I’m calling you a loon, and telling you one way that would help alleviate why most people also believe you are a loon. If that means I’m “effectively admitting I know nothing about it”, fine–but we have very different ways of interpreting things.

> yet that hasn’t stopped you from wasting my time

Those compulsions must be terrible–originally I was (mostly) kidding when I said you couldn’t help yourself. Apparently you actually can’t. I find that funny, in a sad sort of way.

> I love you as a child of God, but you’re one of His slower children (and that by your choice).

Wow.

You’re not even truthful with your own self. How much less can you be truthful with anyone else. Needless to say, you’re in no position to start commenting on things which you yourself effectively admit you know nothing about. Not only are you an effective self-admitted ignoramous, but you also are out of the closet with your mental contradictions.

I in all sincereity recommend that you stop attempting to argue with me. I love a genuine intellectual discussion, but you’re just pathetic. I say that for your benefit–truly. I love you as a child of God, but you’re one of His slower children (and that by your choice).

And beyond that, I’ll here elaborate on the whole absurdity of these responses. Indeed, I don’t even get the point of them. Are they motivated by the whole culture of “We’s goin’ to mess you up” because someone heard something they are unfamiliar with or which they dislike? As far as everthing I have seen, that is the sum total of the motivating factor in the cases vis-à-vis the Omega Point Theory, since in all my years of research in attempting to find critiques of the Omega Point Theory, that is what all the responses come down to. They don’t even attempt to address factual matters. It’s just “Dat person said someding dat we don’t like, derefore he wrong–and he dupid for even dinking about such dings.” (And no, that jocular phrasing isn’t impinging upon any particular social group, as plenty of rednecks talk like that, too.)

Caligula, you’ve already admitted that you “don’t care” about this matter, and you’ve effectively admitted that you know nothing about it, yet that hasn’t stopped you from wasting my time. Have some decency. Stop being a gnat buzzing around someone’s brow just because you can. If you have some point of fact which you disagree with, then state it in a direct manner. Otherwise, stop being a troll.

It would be nice to hear from you an actual critique regarding factual matters, but apparently that requires from you a mental skill-level which you lack. And I doubt that you lack that due to some birth defect, but rather due to your psychological displeasure vis-à-vis a position which you hate, of which prevents you from thinking rationally on the matter.

So as I said, if your prior tergiversations weren’t rhetorical, then they were out of cowardice. At any rate, whatever your motivations are, you are still tergiversating, since the most direct response to another person whom one disagrees with is to state what is factually wrong with their position, which you have now repeatedly avoided doing.

The reason you have repeatedly avoided specifying what is actually in error with Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory is because there is nothing wrong with it, at least going by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics). And since the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date), and hence to reject empirical science, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect. Indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point Theory (as you have amply demonstrated).

Regarding the “Interpreter’s Bible” which you say you earned, that sounds swell. I’m glad to hear that, as that suggests that you may be ready to raise yourself to the next level. For the crown to your theological (and moral, and political) edification, see my following article:

James Redford, “Jesus Is an Anarchist,” revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (first published on December 19, 2001) http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Pertaining to your question of “Whahuh?” (which you state is “Also rhetorical”) in response to my statement that “Rationality is my only God,” I’ll go ahead and explain that to you because it’s obvious that you’re at least somewhat curious even given your disclaimer to rhetoricalness, since if you were completely incurious then there would have existed no motivation on your part to even respond with a question (however rhetorical).

God (i.e., the Omega Point, to use the physicists’ technical terminology) is the most rational state obtainable. It is the state of infinite informational content (i.e., an infinite number of bits of information). At the moment the Omega Point is reached, all fallacies which are logically possible to refute will have been refuted, and all veridical knowledge which is logically possible to be known will be accepted. The Omega Point is the most rational state logically conceivable.

As well, the Omega Point is the most pleasurable state logically conceivable, and infinitely so. The reason is because conscious actors unavoidably seek out what they anticipate will be a more pleasurable state for themselves. (This also applies to people who sacrifice themselves to save another, for in that case they prefer the outcome of saving another to maintaining their own lives. Of course, they may fail, due to their expectations not being in conformance with reality, but such failures don’t apply to a perfected consciousness, of which has rooted out all error which is possible to root out.)

Since love feels good, love will be a prominent feature of the Omega Point. Indeed, infinitely so.

Interestingly enough, since sex feels good (when it is conducted via rational means, i.e., love–rather than violence or shame), the Omega Point will also be the most highly sexualized state conceivable.

Judgement is something we do to ourselves. We are inherently a part of this stream of information-processing, and cannot be abstracted from it. Hence, we each contain within ourselves knowledge of what is inherently good, even though it has been debased to a great degree in many (largly due to government and its intellectual bodyguards, which includes the enforced miseducation system and the mainline churches). But however debased it is in our Earthly lives, upon death it presents itself in full force. This Truth is the light at the end of the tunnel. One can only approach said light if one is willing to accept truth. This includes the truth of all one has done in one’s life. So for a murderer, truth would literally hurt, since if he comes toward the light he must experience the reality his victims experienced from their own point of view, including all the pain with it.

Hence, many upon death flee from the light, as they regard it as evil due to it being a source of pain. But then, such is also the case with life, even quite apart from cases of murder, as that example was merely given to present it in stark terms.

So “hell” (even, or especially, on Earth) is simply the resultant product of refusing to accept truth (although “hell” is a pagan concept which isn’t found in the original languages of the Bible). In death, the farther one flees from the light the further one is steeped in error, and hence the harder it will be for one to realize what is necessary in order to save oneself (i.e., extricate oneself from the unpleasurable predicament). But then, so also is the case with life.

If one is interested in the biblical exposition of the above process, then see John 3:19-21. See also John 14:6, wherein Jesus defines himself as a synonym for truth, and points out that one cannot reach God except via truth. Of course, see also my “Jesus Is an Anarchist” article referenced above in this post, of which pertains to the political and social ethics of God.