God Particle? Any ideas?

[August]

The only thing random about evolution is the mutations that start the process, but those mutations are rewarded or destroyed due to environmental circumstance. It's not "random" because there is no desired end point for evolution and that's probably what they meant by that.

That is question-begging. In any case, how do you know that "mutations are rewarded or destroyed due to environmental circumstances" instead of it being just random gene drift?

[narnia4]

So all praise the holy mathematical equation that has given us life? As John Lennox mentioned in response to the Hawking controversy last year, you have to account for laws too. Where did the laws of the universe come from? Why does math work, why does science work? The very idea that they should happen to exist or that the world may have been designed (isn't it intriguing how even skeptics often can't escape using that word?) in such a way that life MUST exist, and yet its all coincidence and us theists are the crackpots... its just too much. Trying to write off the improbability of it all with wild, speculative, wild-eyed and unproven (and let's face it, on occasion downright UNscientific) theories. It looks to me like some people are definitely running from something, trying as hard as they can to avoid a rather obvious inference.

But I think of the irony often. Scientists in all fields, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, scholars of any kind- they all work to show that there are NO accidents and to eliminate the "unknown", to explain the reasons for things. You'll see many professionals, like a psychiatrist or psychologist, tell a patient that there is NO such thing as an accident. And yet some of them are atheists, and under their worldview EVERYTHING is an accident. Everything. Even worse than an accident, an ironic joke on the entire universe that nobody understands because consciousness can't actually exist. Reasonable assumption on their part? I'm afraid I don't think so. If they actually followed these ideas to their logical conclusion it would mean the death of science and reason.

[Philip]

And notice how atheists and agnostics, of all of the world's faiths they could choose to attempt to debunk, do they most often focus on, say, the Pantheistic faiths? Muslims? Hindus? Etc? NO, the focus is almost always Christianity they try to shoot down. Ever notice when unbelievers talk derisively about Christianity and the Bible, and most particularly when they speak of the Christian God, they talk with apparent anger, sarcasm, haughtiness, and barely concealed hate. In fact, especially when showing their anger, you can frequently get the impression atheists are talking about God AS IF He is a real, living Being. Wonder why that might be? Hmmm? Otherwise, why the anger? Does Zeus tick them off that bad? Name another god that does. No, typically, atheist and agnostic anger is specifically reserved for our Christian God.

[DannyM]

So all praise the holy mathematical equation that has given us life? As John Lennox mentioned in response to the Hawking controversy last year, you have to account for laws too

Hawking:

Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

The Grand Design cited by Lennox in his Whose Design Is It Anyway, p29

This is what anti-theism does to clever men. They become utterly incoherent and full of wonderful contradictions. There is so much wrong with the above statement that one has to blink to make sure he has read the statement correctly.

[Stu]

So all praise the holy mathematical equation that has given us life? As John Lennox mentioned in response to the Hawking controversy last year, you have to account for laws too

Hawking:

Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

The Grand Design cited by Lennox in his Whose Design Is It Anyway, p29

This is what anti-theism does to clever men. They become utterly incoherent and full of wonderful contradictions. There is so much wrong with the above statement that one has to blink to make sure he has read the statement correctly.

This is so true. Unfortunately I think the general public has become numb to it.
When "men of science" speak the public almost switch off their minds, don't think for themselves, and just lap up every word they say as if it is an absolute truth. The "gods" of science have spoken; now listen, accept and repeat without question. Sad really.

[Reactionary]

Or the host of vestigial organs in our body (or anything else's body)?

I thought these were disproven some ten years ago...

[1over137]

Unfortunately this is unsupported on many scientific levels, the law of entropy, space-time geometry, and the anthropic principle to name a few.

Why a theory should be supported by anthropic principle?
Here are two quotes by Turok from the same link about the anthropic principle:

"The anthropic principle says, the universe is the way it is because if it was any different, we wouldn't be here. The idea is that there's this big landscape with lots of universes in it, but the only one which can allow us to exist is the one with exactly the laws of physics that we see. It sounds like a flaky argument&mdashand it is. It's a very flaky argument. Because it doesn't predict anything. It's a classic example of postdiction: its just saying, oh well, it has to be this way, because otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it. There are many other logical flaws in the argument which I could point to, but the basic point is that this argument doesn't really get you anywhere. Its not predictive and it isn't testable. The anthropic principle, as it's currently being used, isn't really leading to any progress in the subject. Even worse than that, it is discouraging people from tackling the important questions, like the fact that string theory, as it is currently understood, is incomplete and needs to be extended to deal with the Big Bang. That's just such an obvious point, but at the moment surprisingly few people seem to appreciate it."
...
"For example, just to give a trivial example: if you ask, why is the gas in this room smoothly distributed, we need a physical theory to explain it. It wouldn't be helpful to say, well if it wasn't that way, there would be a big vacuum in part of the room and if I walked into it, I would die. If the distribution of gas wasn't completely uniform, we wouldn't last very long. That's the anthropic principle. But it's not the scientific explanation. The explanation is that molecules jangle around the room and when you understand their dynamics you understand that it's vastly more probable for them to settle down in a configuration where they're distributed nearly uniformly. It's nothing to do with the existence of people."

What do you mean by 'unsupported' by 'space-time geometry'?

Concerning the entropy:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf (p.4)

"Unlike cyclic model discussed in 1920s and 1930s, the entropy density does not build up from cycle to cycle. Here is an example of where we take full advantage of the idea of branes and extra dimensions: The entropy created in one cycle is expanded and diluted to near zero density after the dark energy dominated phase, but the entropy density does not increase again in the contraction phase. The simple reason is that the branes themselves do not contract. Only the extra dimensions contract. From a local observer's point of view, the entropy density undergoes precise cyclic behavior. Yet, the total entropy on the branes grows, in accord with the second law of theormodynamics. It is just that entropy is being exponentially diluted from one cycle to the next, so any given local observer cannot detect the entropy from previous cycles."

[1over137]

Hawking:

Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

For those who are interested here is the longer Hawking's quote from his book containing that sentence:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p100026

Well, sometimes Hawking contradicts himself. I would rather read Brian Greene's books.

So all praise the holy mathematical equation that has given us life? As John Lennox mentioned in response to the Hawking controversy last year, you have to account for laws too. Where did the laws of the universe come from?

A Lawgiver

If the cyclical model is to be believed (and its not the one I lean toward) ...

I am curious about which model you lean toward.

[neo-x]

This is what anti-theism does to clever men. They become utterly incoherent and full of wonderful contradictions.

It also makes them believe there is intelligent life out there waiting to come and destroy us...but it can not be God...green men with six legs, laser vision, ultra super-duper-pooper scientific advanced tech, guns and brain washing powers, however can exist.

[DannyM]

For those who are interested here is the longer Hawking's quote from his book containing that sentence:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p100026

Well, sometimes Hawking contradicts himself. I would rather read Brian Greene's books.

Indeed. But it is not good enough for us to say, ah well, Hawking sometimes contradicts himself. This is the main conclusion of his book, and it is a monumental self-contradiction. Lennox explains why Hawking's statement above is a triple self-contradiction:

It is seldom that one finds in a single statement two distinct levels of contradiction, but Hawking appears to have constructed such a statement. He says the universe comes from a nothing that turns out to be something (self-contradiction number one), and then he says the universe creates itself (self-contradiction number two). But that is not all. His notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature, by definition, surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe.

Whose Design is it anyway, p31

To assume the law of gravity is to assume gravity itself; there cannot be an abstract mathematical law if there is nothing for the law to describe.

And also, who or what created the blue touch paper in order for it to be lit?

I followed your link (thanks, Hana) to Hawking’s quotes, and again Lennox exposes Hawking in his misuse (some might call it abuse) of Conway’s World:

At this point Hawking diverts from the Game of Life, and leaves the reader uncertain as to exactly how he is applying it. Nevertheless, one can surely say that the impression has been communicated to the reader that, just as in Conway’s world a simple set of laws can produce lifelike complexity, in our world a simple set of laws could produce life itself.

However, the analogy shows nothing of the sort, but rather the exact opposite. First of all, in Conway’s world the laws do not produce the complex self-replicating objects. Laws, as we have constantly emphasized, create nothing in any world: they can only act on something that is already there. In Conway’s world the immensely complex objects that can self-replicate under the laws have to be initially configured in the system by highly intelligent mathematical minds. They are created neither from nothing nor by chance, but by intelligence. The same applies to the laws.

Secondly, Conway’s world has to be implemented, and this is done using sophisticated computer hardware with all its attendant software and high-speed algorithms. The alive and dead cells are represented by pixellated squares on a screen, and the laws governing their behaviour are programmed into the system. It should go without saying - but it clearly needs to be said - that all of this involves massive intellectual activity and input of information.

In this way, even though he is allergic to the notion of intelligent design, Hawking has just given an excellent argument in its support. Ironically, he actually admits this by saying that, in Conway’s world, we are the creators.

Whose Design Is It Anyway, p71-72

It is not that philosophy is dead, but rather it is Hawking who is so obviously and painfully philosophically inept. These are the absurd levels to which the naturalist must sink in order to avoid what is staring us all in the face. They are either prepared to put their intellectual reputation on the line by spewing this contradictory nonsense, or they are blissfully unaware that they are talking such nonsense. Take your pick.

[DannyM]

This is what anti-theism does to clever men. They become utterly incoherent and full of wonderful contradictions.

It also makes them believe there is intelligent life out there waiting to come and destroy us...but it can not be God...green men with six legs, laser vision, ultra super-duper-pooper scientific advanced tech, guns and brain washing powers, however can exist.

Oh sure, extraterrestrial life is permitted… in fact I reckon the discovery of extraterrestrial life would be a Godsend for many naturalists

[Callisto]

And notice how atheists and agnostics, of all of the world's faiths they could choose to attempt to debunk, do they most often focus on, say, the Pantheistic faiths? Muslims? Hindus? Etc? NO, the focus is almost always Christianity they try to shoot down. Ever notice when unbelievers talk derisively about Christianity and the Bible, and most particularly when they speak of the Christian God, they talk with apparent anger, sarcasm, haughtiness, and barely concealed hate. In fact, especially when showing their anger, you can frequently get the impression atheists are talking about God AS IF He is a real, living Being. Wonder why that might be? Hmmm? Otherwise, why the anger? Does Zeus tick them off that bad? Name another god that does. No, typically, atheist and agnostic anger is specifically reserved for our Christian God.

It's probably because a lot of the most aggressive atheists in the past (and present) have been from the West, though certainly they are in the East (communist regimes, etc.) But yes, they do reserve a special hatred for Christians and the Christian God Yahweh. We must make too much sense. The way Christopher Hitchens rails against God makes you think he really does believe in a God, because no person would direct that much hatred and vitriol at something that doesn't exist.

[Philip]

The way Christopher Hitchens rails against God makes you think he really does believe in a God, because no person would direct that much hatred and vitriol at something that doesn't exist.

Romans 1 explains what we often do not see about unbelievers and atheists: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by THEIR unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, 7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

And what atheists are REALLY mad about is that, as they have a long suppressed but yet still faint inkling that God really DOES exist, they are ticked because He will not let them have their own way - at least not without grave eternal consequences. To acknowledge God exists while also simultaneously and blatantly refusing to repent, while knowing full well the horrific eternal consequences of that, would drive them to madness. And so they have developed a psychological coping system: telling themselves so many lies that they have virtually convinced themselves. But I'd say their behavioral evidence shows that they haven't been successful at TOTALLY convincing themselves, hence the anger and venom.

[Callisto]

The way Christopher Hitchens rails against God makes you think he really does believe in a God, because no person would direct that much hatred and vitriol at something that doesn't exist.

Romans 1 explains what we often do not see about unbelievers and atheists: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by THEIR unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, 7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

And what atheists are REALLY mad about is that, as they have a long suppressed but yet still faint inkling that God really DOES exist, they are ticked because He will not let them have their own way - at least not without grave eternal consequences. To acknowledge God exists while also simultaneously and blatantly refusing to repent, while knowing full well the horrific eternal consequences of that, would drive them to madness. And so they have developed a psychological coping system: telling themselves so many lies that they have virtually convinced themselves. But I'd say their behavioral evidence shows that they haven't been successful at TOTALLY convincing themselves, hence the anger and venom.

You're right - that's the conclusion I've reached too, with most of the aggressive, angry atheists - it's an unwillingness to admit that there is a God or there certainly could be, and that THEY are wrong. People will try to rationalize the most ridiculous and evil things, from murdering 6 million Jews to denying God's existence. How many times have we seen Dawkins dig himself in a logical or philosophic hole and simply dig further, even when people like William Lane Craig are holding a rope down for him to grasp onto? Hitchens will never change because he won't change his own heart, and he hardened it even further when Francis Collins offered to pray for him. Just drove him nuts, I'm sure.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

And notice how atheists and agnostics, of all of the world's faiths they could choose to attempt to debunk, do they most often focus on, say, the Pantheistic faiths? Muslims? Hindus? Etc? NO, the focus is almost always Christianity they try to shoot down. Ever notice when unbelievers talk derisively about Christianity and the Bible, and most particularly when they speak of the Christian God, they talk with apparent anger, sarcasm, haughtiness, and barely concealed hate. In fact, especially when showing their anger, you can frequently get the impression atheists are talking about God AS IF He is a real, living Being. Wonder why that might be? Hmmm? Otherwise, why the anger? Does Zeus tick them off that bad? Name another god that does. No, typically, atheist and agnostic anger is specifically reserved for our Christian God.

They would probably argue it's because Christianity is the biggest religion on the planet, and has the "same God" as Islam, so they kill two birds with one stone. OR maybe they were indoctrinated to hate Christians as children?

And as for Hitchens, well, he's dead now. So, he knows.