Evidence for God from Science

Can anyone tell me a bit more about this "particle colider" machine. Or perhaps reference me to any other threads or websites about it, cause I can't find anything much better than this about it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140133.htm

Did you have a specific question in mind? If there's more than one just post one at a time here and we can go through them systematically.

Yes Bgood, I have finally figured out the question I wanted to ask you . The particle colider is the largest and most expensive machine on the planet.
It does nothing but smash particles together at light speed, right?

My question is, what is this particle collider supposed to "really" proove after years of testing and accumulating data. Is this particle collider supposed to prove how the universe was created, what happened at the instant before the big bang, if God really created the universe or how the universe got here. The articles dont explain much in those regards. Its should be more in depth in my opinion, since it is the biggest machine every created, its deserve much more explanation.

" known as the God particle because of its postulated commanding role in explaining how subatomic particles interact with each other.

LHC is nearing completion in the 27-kilometer (17 miles) circumference tunnel originally created for CERN's Large Electron Positron collider. When completed in 2007, LHC will be the largest such device on Earth. It will slam protons (one type of hadron particle) together with an energy "seven times that of the largest such collider running now, the [the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory] Tevatron, outside Chicago," says Tigner.

He also hopes the LHC will help scientists answer such questions as: Where does mass come from? What is the dark matter that permeates most of the universe? How many dimensions do we need to describe the physical world?
"
The partcile collider will attempt to answer 4 questions, looks like. What could they prove if answered?

godslanguage wrote:The partcile collider will attempt to answer 4 questions, looks like. What could they prove if answered?

You could look at this Wikipedia article for an overview of high energy physics (HEP).

A more basic answer is curiosity. Most scientists conducting basic research are curious about how the world works. Although future benefit to mankind may be used to justify funding (and there usually are such benefits, often totally unexpected and non-predictable), the real driving force for most scientists is curiosity. They want to know how things work.

My question is, what is this particle collider supposed to "really" proove after
years of testing and accumulating data. Is this particle collider supposed to
prove how the universe was created, what happened at the instant before the
big bang, if God really created the universe or how the universe got here.
The articles dont explain much in those regards. Its should be more in depth
in my opinion, since it is the biggest machine every created, its deserve much
more explanation.

The current standard model of particle physics (which summarizes all our knowledge
about the smallest known particles and fundamental forces) assumed at least a new
elementary particle (the Higgs boson) which has never been directly observed.
To the current understanding this particles has been predicted to provide coherence
between the standard model and the observations but it has never been directly observed.

In the standard model the Highs boson is "responsible" of the masses of the other
particles; in other words the other particles masses are what they are due to the properties
of the Higgs boson which should be directly measured as soon as it will be observed.

There are good reasons to assume that Higgs boson has a mass just higher than the
particles already observed and lower than the energies that will be explored by LHC.
So if the particle is already there, LHC should be able to see it directly.

In the past the last generation colliders (LEP, Fermilab, ...) has already confirmed
standard model in its smallest details. A number of different particles (eg top quark)
which were predicted by the standard model have been finally directly observed.
The standard model is the most precise physical theory ever conceived by humans;
actually there is no observed deviation between the theory and the experiments as
far as the experiments can go. LHC will boldly go where no other experiment
has ever gone before, so that it will provide new confirmation (or show mistakes)
in the standard model.

A second hope of LHC (though with much less certainty than Higgs boson) is to be
able to spot superpartners (eg photin). These particles are predicted by an extension
of standard model called supersymmetric standard model. Supersymmetric standard
model is also a consequence of superstring theory.
Neither supersymmetric standard model nor superstring theory has ever been confirmed
experimentally. If superpartners will be found it will be the first indirect empirical
confirmation of supersymmetric theories in general and string theory in particular.
BTW there is no real reason why superpartners should be in the energy range of LHC.
As far as we understand they may be too big to be seen by LHC of any next generation collider.
But we might be lucky...


Moreover, LHC might be able to see particles which has not been predicted.
The standard model is quite strict and rigid. Any new particle that might be discovered
would change the known scenarios and quantitative computations the physicists rely on
in investigating early universe behavior.

For this reason the new findings by LHC would have an impact on our understanding of
cosmology and high energy physics. Including the scenarios we use to describe the beginning
of our universe, provided that our universe had a beginning (which is not firmly established by Physics yet).

I hope it will help somehow...
Cheers

Angel,

Thanks for that excellent description. I'd been wondering where we were with this type of experimentation and study.

It really does seem that the key to the infinite in this regard goes through the smallest components of the universe first.

Bart

yes it seems so, though of course we are talking about scientific knowledge, not faith.
What is your attitude towards the relationship between science and faith?

I mean what if science would prove something totally different and incompatible with usual faith?
What would be your reaction?

I'm not asking if you believe it will happen. I'm just playing at the "what if" game...

Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." St. Augustine

"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine
man in the bonds of Hell." -- St. Augustine (354-430)



i mean which Augustine do you prefer?

angel wrote:yes it seems so, though of course we are talking about scientific knowledge, not faith.
What is your attitude towards the relationship between science and faith?

I mean what if science would prove something totally different and incompatible with usual faith?
What would be your reaction?

I'm not asking if you believe it will happen. I'm just playing at the "what if" game...

Angel,

That's fair. That is what the name of this board is after all.

First, I'm getting sharper on science than I was previously as I work on a Master of Science Degree in Organizational Leadership. Granted, it is a soft science in the realm of psychology, but it is helping me to focus and sharpen some in this area.

Frankly, I see faith (and by that I'm assuming you are using it in the context of religion and philosophy) as a high level search for truth by which we construct a framework or world view by which we interpret our world and universe and find meaning. For me, obviously, I've accepted that God exists, the God created this universe, and that God has chosen to reveal himslef to us by means of the universe and direct revelation in the person of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Science is concerned with that which is observable through the 5 senses and by means of the scientific method seeks to construct theories that hold true consistently. Hence, the purpose of the scientific method in this context, ironically is to find instances where the theory does not hold, or is found false (hence the term falsifiable) at which time the old theory is dispensed with and a new theory which incorporates the new information applied and the whole process starts over.

Of, course that is hard science. These theories are themselves often formed into their own philosophy which ironically enough is sometimes refered to as "science" even though what is stated itself is not falsifiable.

That's where I see evolution in the higher sense, where that which is observable and known in this field which is highly convincing to me, is extended beyond into an overarching theory that claims to be a basis for the rejection of God. That in fact is a very small group. But I do see that.

So, in general, science is more open to change based upon evidence than is religion. I think that is obvious. But as to me personally, I do not think there is anything major in terms of my faith that could be contradicted by science. Not in the major compenents. In terms of the age of the earth, sure. I'm Old Earth first because I believe the scripture teaches it and allows for it. I believe science is consistently demonstrating it.

I am not anti-evolution. I believe there is a lot yet to know in the field. If faced with more evidence which was credible and definite, I could incorporate that into my world view and not back away from my belief in God and accept that as a change in my understanding of God's methodology independent of cause. I'd probably have some difficulty in determining how my interpretation of scripture allowed for that, but I've modified and advanced in this area as I've learned more and needed to do so, and I will continue to do that as needed in the future.

Does that answer your question? If not, you'll need to give me something more specific to go on.

And, as is only fair, what would your response be to your own question?

Regards,

Bart

angel wrote:

Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." St. Augustine

"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine
man in the bonds of Hell." -- St. Augustine (354-430)



i mean which Augustine do you prefer?

Well, of course "Science" in the days of Augustine would better equate with "Knowledge" in todays terms. I don't know the exact context of the quote you are using but it was not unusual for the term "mathematicians" to be the equivilent of "astrologers" and speak of the use of their "art" in the context of reading the future. Pure mathematics in those times were not in the same context we see it today.

Augustine is an interesting Character and certainly not without a checkered past and some all too human flaws. I guess you have to take the whole package however.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well, of course "Science" in the days of Augustine would better equate with "Knowledge" in todays terms. I don't know the exact context of the quote you are using but it was not unusual for the term "mathematicians" to be the equivilent of "astrologers" and speak of the use of their "art" in the context of reading the future. Pure mathematics in those times were not in the same context we see it today.

As this forum illustrates, there are still people who use "science" to include "all knowledge" as well as "mathematics".

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo wrote:De Genesi ad Litteram

* Quapropter bono christiano, sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio daemoniorum animam deceptam, pacto quodam societatis irretiant. II, xvii, 37
o Translation published in Mathematics in Western Culture (1953) The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.
o Modern translation by J.H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers (1982) Hence, a devout Christian must avoid astrologers and all impious soothsayers, especially when they tell the truth, for fear of leading his soul into error by consorting with demons and entangling himself with the bonds of such association.
o Note: The well known, but incorrect English translation was published on page 3 of Morris Kline's classic work Mathematics in Western Culture (1953). This book is a favorite with math students and is still in print.
o Note: The Latin word mathematici derives from the Greek meaning of "something learned" and refers mainly to astrologers. This was the chief branch of mathematics at the time but has been replaced in modern times by statistics. According to the Shorter OED on Historical Principles 3rd edition the word Mathemetician still meant astrologer as late as 1710.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well, of course "Science" in the days of Augustine would better equate with "Knowledge" in todays terms. I don't know the exact context of the quote you are using but it was not unusual for the term "mathematicians" to be the equivilent of "astrologers" and speak of the use of their "art" in the context of reading the future. Pure mathematics in those times were not in the same context we see it today.

As this forum illustrates, there are still people who use "science" to include "all knowledge" as well as "mathematics".

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo wrote:De Genesi ad Litteram

* Quapropter bono christiano, sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, maxime dicentes vera, cavendi sunt, ne consortio daemoniorum animam deceptam, pacto quodam societatis irretiant. II, xvii, 37
o Translation published in Mathematics in Western Culture (1953) The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.
o Modern translation by J.H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers (1982) Hence, a devout Christian must avoid astrologers and all impious soothsayers, especially when they tell the truth, for fear of leading his soul into error by consorting with demons and entangling himself with the bonds of such association.
o Note: The well known, but incorrect English translation was published on page 3 of Morris Kline's classic work Mathematics in Western Culture (1953). This book is a favorite with math students and is still in print.
o Note: The Latin word mathematici derives from the Greek meaning of "something learned" and refers mainly to astrologers. This was the chief branch of mathematics at the time but has been replaced in modern times by statistics. According to the Shorter OED on Historical Principles 3rd edition the word Mathemetician still meant astrologer as late as 1710.

Thanks Sandy. Whaddyknow? Sometimes I reach out and grab something out of the air and am not too far from the answer. I appreciate the source.

Canuckster1127
And, as is only fair, what would your response be to your own question?

I was asked many times similar questions and I like to answer:

I believe in God, just I don't think it exists.


I mean with it that in my view faith and science are orthogonal. There is nothing in religion talking about the physical world and nothing in science talking about the spirit.
I use "exist" as "exist physically", of something which can be detected physically (electrons, quarks, dreams, etc.). In this sense religion exists only as a human activity.
Spirit and god, joda and the force "exist" in a different way, something you can believe in, not see or prove.

I talk with God few times a day and sometimes it is so kind to answer me.
Once I took the chance to ask it whether it exists and it answered me: "no".
Who am I to doubt of God's word?

I also believe my view is supported in the first xtian communities were faith was far distant from reason. You certainly know that the marriage between xtianity and Greek philosophy (expecially Plato and Aristoteles) is quite late in xstian history.

According my view there is absolutely nothing science could prove which I don't already know about God, and nothing I could learn from science which could shake by beliefs. For me it would be as asking if science can shake your habit about what you wear!

Canuckster1127
But as to me personally, I do not think there is anything major in terms of my faith that could be contradicted by science. Not in the major compenents.

Let say I find the body of Christ in a tomb.

Or I met an extraterrestrial life form who proves me that they created life on Earth for creating a funfair for their children.

Or that they created it five years ago.

Did you read Contact the book?
Imagine you find a message from God in the expansion of pi telling you that the real God is the pastafarians one, or the Flying Serpent of Atzech.

Or we receive a message modulated in pulses of the cosmic background
(something which cannot be created by a civilization which was not here before the end of the inflationary era) saying in modern English that the bible was written by Satan or by humans and with no divine inspiration.

Would none of these shake your faith?

I'm not saying that any of these would happen or could happen.
I just would like to discuss if reason and faith can live together with a non-empty intersection without that problems could destroy one of them.
I think they can live together only if they don't touch eachother or if one has faith (but no thought is involved with it) that no contradiction will come.

In other words I think there is no way reason and faith can live together on the same plane unless one believe faith is higher than reason.

PS I have been reading your comments for a while and I always found them interesting. I usually don't like to enter these sort of arguments with people I don't know personally. If this discussion hurts you somehow, please tell me. I will quit immediately.

Canuckster1127
In terms of the age of the earth, sure. I'm Old Earth first because I believe the scripture teaches it and allows for it. I believe science is consistently demonstrating it.

How fruit trees survived a few long eras without insects impollinating them?
Or what is light before the sun?
in your view of course.

Canuckster1127
Well, of course "Science" in the days of Augustine would better equate with "Knowledge" in todays terms.

I agree. More or less as Einstein used "religion" in a way which is quite far from any possible xtians interpretation!

Well, even worse. Should I believe that "knowledge" will bring me to damnation?

Angel,

Thanks for your answer.

believe in God, just I don't think it exists.

I mean with it that in my view faith and science are orthogonal. There is nothing in religion talking about the physical world and nothing in science talking about the spirit.
I use "exist" as "exist physically", of something which can be detected physically (electrons, quarks, dreams, etc.). In this sense religion exists only as a human activity.
Spirit and god, joda and the force "exist" in a different way, something you can believe in, not see or prove.

I understand your answer. I do not agree with it entirely though. While I do understand the delineation between Faith and Science, I think there is some common ground between the two of them. At the very least, just as science can infer things (dark matter, to name a recent example) by its influence upon things observed, without direct observation, so too the possibility should exist that evidence can be observed that indicates things in the area of faith or the supernatural. I agree that it is corallary, and not primary, however.

According my view there is absolutely nothing science could prove which I don't already know about God, and nothing I could learn from science which could shake by beliefs. For me it would be as asking if science can shake your habit about what you wear!

Do you believe that only that which is scientifically provable is "real" or "true." Can you think of anything in your life which you accept and rely upon that is not scientifically oriented?

Let say I find the body of Christ in a tomb.

Yes. That would invalidate my faith, assuming it could be proven. The Scriptures recognize this too and states clearly, I Cor 15:14 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Let me reverse the question to you. What if the resurrection were to be demonstrated as provable or at least highly reasonable? What basis would you require to consider that in terms of your own life and beliefs?

Or I met an extraterrestrial life form who proves me that they created life on Earth for creating a funfair for their children.

Well, that'd have to be some pretty convincing proof. You know how them aliens lie .....

I haven't read Contact, the book. That is by Sagan, right?

My beliefs and understandings on the age of the earth are important but they are hardly the primary purpose of the Bible. More important to me, in that regard, is what impact any radical change in my understanding would have upon how the Bible is interpretted and relied upon. I believe that Genesis is inspired, infallible and inerrant. I believe you need to understand it in the context of the day it was written, and in the context of how the original audience, (the Israelites while on the Exodus) understood it. Further, I don't believe the intent of Genesis is or ever was, to present a scientific explanation for how God accomplished creation. Frankly, I don't believe the Israelites would have framed the question in that manner or were even very concerned about the mechanics, so much as they were clear that God in fact was the creator and that that creation tied into his overall purpose for them a specially called out, covenantal people.

I'm glad you find my comments interesting. I do my best to try to be consistent in my faith but also interact with things that challenge me. I don't always do a good job, but I do my best.

I don't feel threatened at all by your posting. I find your posts to be indicative of a thoughtful and intelligent person. If you're unsure of what is appropriate or not, please check the discussion guidelines or check with me or any of the other moderators on the board.

The most important knowledge that I believe will have an impact on anyone's future, is what they do with the knowledge that Jesus Christ claimed to be sent from God, suffered, died and was buried as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven.

Key to all of that, is of course, as you recognize above, the resurrection.

Have you looked closely at that yourself at any time in your life?

Bart