Evidence for God from Science

http://news.yahoo.com/god-particle-found-225338442.html

what does this do to God's existence?

Nothing really...The Higg's boson is just nicknamed the God Particle because if it's existence can be confirmed it would be a massive contribution to science, especially physics. I don't understand the hardcore details of it all, but it would likely be a once-in-a-lifetime discovery if more tests confirm it.

To God's existence nothing, but to His love in symmetries.
As Brian Greene said in his book The fabric of the cosmos (chap.9):
"If the Higgs ocean is not found, it will require major rethinking of a theoretical framework that has been in place for more than thirty years. But if it is found, the event will be a triumph for theoretical physics: it will confirm the power of symmetry to correctly shape our mathematical reasoning as we venture forth into the unknown."

I'll be interested to hear more about this after tomorrow. Perhaps I could use this topic to gather some feedback from all of my friends here, since I find it to be related to the potential of a God particle or simply the topic "something from nothing" etc.

I recently presented the following statement for questioning: "Theists believe that there was always God (God is something rather than nothing. If there was ever an absolute nothing, God wouldn't exist), and Atheists tend to believe that there was either always a universe and it's continuously expanded and contracted or that the multiverse precedes the universe and always existed. Would you, then, agree that no matter what worldview you hold, there never was (or could've been) absolutely nothing?".

I received the following response:

" we can't know and you've made a few radical assumptions there, since there are other options besides the few you mentioned. But at a basic level, yes I do not believe there has ever been "nothing." Stating "God is something" is so backwards to me since he actually isn't "something" in the material world.
Also, clearly "nothing" existed before the God apparently created it, but that means, for all intents and purposes, nothing in the physical realm of reality existed at some point according to Christianity. Also, stating that God always existed just adds another layer to "x always existed" (in some form). It's totally unnecessary and doesn't add any knowledge, it simply begs the question: where did God come from? And just saying he always existed and nothing created him doesn't give any credibility at all to your claims. Many theists will, in one breath, laugh at atheists being they think atheists believe something came from nothing (which they don't), while simultaneously ignorant to the fact that their belief system states everything came from nothing...truly ironic. Regardless, talking about what predated or existed at the moment of the big bang is entering territory that is being studied by people much smarter than either of us, so all I can give is my personal best guess based on what insignificant knowledge I have on the subject".

Didn't realize until now how quite loquacious they could be First off, "many theists" may do that, but since they wouldn't know if I'm one of them, that comment is irrelevant between us, just like any statement I would say "many atheists do X" when you don't would be equally irrelevant. More comments to distract from the main point IMO. And is it just me, or is the last line a cop-out way of saying "and I don't want to talk about this any more because I'm afraid I could be wrong" ? It's interesting because all I've heard is how ignorant I am on the subject, and any contention I've presented has been immediately rebuked because I'm just an ignorant Christian.

Thoughts?!

I've never heard of a Christian who thinks God is "nothing". Atheists are the ones whose worldview demands that only "the material" exists, and yet its pretty well-established scientifically that the universe is not eternal... meaning that "something" wasn't around forever. So atheists with very few exceptions MUST believe that something, ultimately, came out of nothing. Why else Stephen Hawking's infamous statement in his book?

But hey I'm no expert either, someone else can put it much better (William Lane Craig for example). People here could put it much better. But the common sense approach would suggest that this atheist (like all of 'em) is mistaken.

More on topic, many catchphrases used by scientists (or more often science populizers) to simplify things or make them sound exciting are a little misleading. I imagine that the "God particle" will catch the eyes of many when it doesn't imply anything theologically.

narnia4 wrote: Atheists are the ones whose worldview demands that only "the material" exists, and yet its pretty well-established scientifically that the universe is not eternal... meaning that "something" wasn't around forever. So atheists with very few exceptions MUST believe that something, ultimately, came out of nothing.

To the scientific establishement that the universe is not eternal:
I am not so sure that it is established.

Here is an interesting interview with Neil Turok from 2007: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/turok07 ... index.html
(He is a coauthor of the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang.)

"That's where the cyclic model came in. The cyclic model emerged from the idea that each Bang was followed by another, and that this could go on for eternity. The whole universe might have existed forever, and there would have been a series of these Bangs, stretching back into the infinite past, and into the infinite future."

"The idea behind the cyclic universe is that the world we experience, the three dimensions of space, are actually an extended object, which you can picture as a membrane as long as you remember that it is three-dimensional, and we just draw it as two-dimensional because that is easier to visualize. According to this picture, we live on one of these membranes, and this membrane is not alone, there's another partner membrane, separated from it by a very tiny gap."

"the two branes start to move towards each other, and then they collide, and that's the Bang."

"This picture of cyclic brane collisions actually resolves one of the longest-standing puzzles in cyclic models. The idea of a cyclic model isn't new: Friedmann and others pictured a cyclic model back in the 1930's. They envisaged a finite universe which collapsed and bounced over and over again. But Richard Tolman soon pointed out that, actually, it wouldn't remove the problem of having to have a beginning. The reason those cyclic models didn't work is that every bounce makes more radiation and that means the universe has more stuff in it. According to Einstein's equations, this makes the universe bigger after each bounce, so that every cycle lasts longer than the one before it. But, tracing back to the past, the duration of each bounce gets shorter and shorter and the duration of the cycles shrinks to zero, meaning that the universe still had to begin a finite time ago. An eternal cyclic model was impossible, in the old framework. What is new about our model is that by employing dark energy and by having an infinite universe, which dilutes away the radiation and matter after every bang, you actually can have an eternal cyclic universe, which could last forever.
"

1over137 wrote:

narnia4 wrote: Atheists are the ones whose worldview demands that only "the material" exists, and yet its pretty well-established scientifically that the universe is not eternal... meaning that "something" wasn't around forever. So atheists with very few exceptions MUST believe that something, ultimately, came out of nothing.

To the scientific establishement that the universe is not eternal:
I am not so sure that it is established.

Here is an interesting interview with Neil Turok from 2007: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/turok07 ... index.html
(He is a coauthor of the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang.)

"That's where the cyclic model came in. The cyclic model emerged from the idea that each Bang was followed by another, and that this could go on for eternity. The whole universe might have existed forever, and there would have been a series of these Bangs, stretching back into the infinite past, and into the infinite future."

"The idea behind the cyclic universe is that the world we experience, the three dimensions of space, are actually an extended object, which you can picture as a membrane as long as you remember that it is three-dimensional, and we just draw it as two-dimensional because that is easier to visualize. According to this picture, we live on one of these membranes, and this membrane is not alone, there's another partner membrane, separated from it by a very tiny gap."

"the two branes start to move towards each other, and then they collide, and that's the Bang."

"This picture of cyclic brane collisions actually resolves one of the longest-standing puzzles in cyclic models. The idea of a cyclic model isn't new: Friedmann and others pictured a cyclic model back in the 1930's. They envisaged a finite universe which collapsed and bounced over and over again. But Richard Tolman soon pointed out that, actually, it wouldn't remove the problem of having to have a beginning. The reason those cyclic models didn't work is that every bounce makes more radiation and that means the universe has more stuff in it. According to Einstein's equations, this makes the universe bigger after each bounce, so that every cycle lasts longer than the one before it. But, tracing back to the past, the duration of each bounce gets shorter and shorter and the duration of the cycles shrinks to zero, meaning that the universe still had to begin a finite time ago. An eternal cyclic model was impossible, in the old framework. What is new about our model is that by employing dark energy and by having an infinite universe, which dilutes away the radiation and matter after every bang, you actually can have an eternal cyclic universe, which could last forever.
"

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

Well yes, there are certainly different views on the matter, but from everything I've heard most scientists don't ascribe to the cyclical model. Maybe consensus is stating it a bit too strongly, but I don't think I would be wrong in stating that the cyclic model is controversial. It also presents a host of philosophical issues that aren't addressed in those quotes, from a philosophical and common sense position its simply insane and it would take a lot of effort to prove otherwise. And by a lot do I mean a LOT, at this point I would say that its impossible and if someone wants to present evidence that it isn't they better get to it.

I also always love how they talk about the "problem" of a beginning. Is that following where the evidence leads? Hardly, its trying as hard as you can to find any model that takes away the possibility of God. Of course it wouldn't make any difference for many theists, the idea that the (or A, whatever) universe has been existence forever and that there's no purpose to it seems just as foolish to many of us as the idea of God being involved does to some atheists.

Yes, truly, the Cyclical model of the universe / multi-verse, etc. is simply a kicking of the cosmic can farther backwards up the road. But at some point, the cycles had to have a BEGINNING. But what caused THAT beginning? And the order, the indescribable scale of precision, the necessary and unfathomable components and tremendously complicated, exponentially improbable processes that made the universe and life itself possible - where did these come from? Chance? A phenomenal string of "lucky" accidents?

You see, I don't care whether you are an atheist or agnostic, you must admit, that by all practical definitions, the universe and our very lives are parts of an unbelievable and perfect sequencing and positioning of extraordinary processes and components that are simply best described as miraculous. And don't be mistaken, agnostic and atheist scientists ALREADY believe in the miraculous - and what THEY believe in is even more miraculous because they think it all happened by DUMB, BLIND CHANCE - processes so mind-boggling complex JUST HAPPENED - all BY THEMSELVES??? Wow! Now, my friends, to believe THAT, you must have much greater faith than I have - FAR greater! But, nonetheless, it is a faith in something. And yet, it is a faith that also allows its followers to remain their own, personal little gods - which is the REAL desperation behind unbelief in an un-caused universe.

Philip wrote: You see, I don't care whether you are an atheist or agnostic, you must admit, by all practical definitions, the universe and our very lives are part an unbelievable and perfect sequencing and positioning of extraordinary processes and components that are simply best described as miraculous. And don't be mistaken, Agnostic and atheist scientists ALREADY believe in the miraculous - and what THEY believe in is even more miraculous because they think it all happened by dumb, blind chance - processes so mind-boggling complex JUST HAPPENED? .

I completely agree with you, Phil. And yet, when I defined "evolution" as this exact thing, I was ridiculed for "not knowing what I'm talking about" because it's "not random at all. If you knew anything about the science behind it, you'd know it's not random".
My reaction .........................................

Even richard dawkins said it was not random

Even richard dawkins said it was not random

Well, Rich, old boy, if it is not random, then...? Oh, I see, he entertains thoughts of some alien designers, to solve the problem. But, once again, the cosmic can is merely kicked back further into time, solving nothing about the origins of the beginning of all that exists. Brilliantly stupid, that's what Dawkins has become. He is frothing at the mouth to disprove God exists, and yet, in his desperation, he becomes ever more irrational in his so-called "brilliance."

And yet, a poor, illiterate, unsophisticated man can instinctively grasp the truth of the Gospel - with the simple faith of a child. Hmmm?

I wish I could find the video of his saying it, It was funny watching him try to talk his way out of what he said.

Philip wrote:Yes, truly, the Cyclical model of the universe / multi-verse, etc. is simply a kicking of the cosmic can farther backwards up the road. But at some point, the cycles had to have a BEGINNING. But what caused THAT beginning? And the order, the indescribable scale of precision, the necessary and unfathomable components and tremendously complicated, exponentially improbable processes that made the universe and life itself possible - where did these come from? Chance? A phenomenal string of "lucky" accidents?

You see, I don't care whether you are an atheist or agnostic, you must admit, that by all practical definitions, the universe and our very lives are parts of an unbelievable and perfect sequencing and positioning of extraordinary processes and components that are simply best described as miraculous. And don't be mistaken, agnostic and atheist scientists ALREADY believe in the miraculous - and what THEY believe in is even more miraculous because they think it all happened by DUMB, BLIND CHANCE - processes so mind-boggling complex JUST HAPPENED - all BY THEMSELVES??? Wow! Now, my friends, to believe THAT, you must have much greater faith than I have - FAR greater! But, nonetheless, it is a faith in something. And yet, it is a faith that also allows its followers to remain their own, personal little gods - which is the REAL desperation behind unbelief in an un-caused universe.

Why did the cycles have to have a beginning? Do you have some knowledge of top level theoretical physics that no one else does? Its assumptions like this that make debate or inquirery impossible, assuming you know more about the nature of this universe and any other universe seems disingenuous for a debate.

The thing about this is, the "dumb, blind chance" isn't all that random or unbelievably impractical. The idea is that the mathematical equation that has created our universe continues to create universe after universe. If the cyclical model is to be believed (and its not the one I lean toward) then there is still the chance that there are many, many other eternal universes out there completely inhospitable to life. It may seem miraculous to some, but to me it seems like a mathematical inevitability, and we can only have this discussion because we had no choice but to live in this one. You at least have to recognize the possibility (even if you don't find it likely, like I do) that these explanations may be correct and you are without sufficient knowledge to answer the question undoubtedly. Without the perfect sequencing and positioning of extraordinary processes and components, as you describe them, we simply wouldn't exist and since we can only exist in such an acutely defined universe, this is the one we reside in. There simply hasn't been any indication, in my opinion, that something out there cared about the by product of this equation.

I completely agree with you, Phil. And yet, when I defined "evolution" as this exact thing, I was ridiculed for "not knowing what I'm talking about" because it's "not random at all. If you knew anything about the science behind it, you'd know it's not random".

Hmm, well, it's doesn't need to be divinely inspired and its only random if you think that our current form is perfect. What's divinely inspired about the laryngeal nerve being 10 times the length it needs to be? Or the fusion of Chromosome 2? Or the host of vestigial organs in our body (or anything else's body)? Or our short life spans that seems to only to serve having kids and raising them then leaving us to die? When I look at the human body I see tons of inadequacies that look anything but divinely inspired. It looks like an organism that is just good enough to beat the rest.

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.

Hmm, well, it's doesn't need to be divinely inspired and its only random if you think that our current form is perfect.

Well, the perceived imperfections are merely God's design for His plan's for humans in this time and place. NONE of what we see now was designed or meant to have anything but a limited earthly shelf life - but all things created by God DO have a purpose. As is so typical of atheists, they focus on the "whys" and supposed design flaws in THIS life. But things are designed exactly as God desired them to be, as to where things will be winding down, difficulties and challenges will exist, extinctions are inevitable. But here's the deal, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THIS LIFE, which is finite. God's plan is to bring as many people into eternal fellowship with Him, perfection and bliss, AFTER THIS life is over. Nothing here was ever designed to last or be perfect. This is not our home!