Evidence for God from Science

I'm sure everyone knows this..So does this hurt the case for god? Support it? Or absolutely nothing?

Some will say it supports the idea of a universe that doesn't require God to begin...Believers will say it does nothing...It's discovery itself won't convert too many people between those two sides. Future research could bring forth an incredible amount of new information about the universe, but for now, the God debate isn't going to budge in either direction.

Swimmy wrote:I'm sure everyone knows this..So does this hurt the case for god? Support it? Or absolutely nothing?

It adds nothing to the case for/against god. Whatever conclusions anyone has reached about god based on science should not in any way be altered by this discovery. See http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity ... -particle/ for some more information.

Depends on what it can be PROVEN to be.
IF it can be shown ( and I have no idea how that can be) to be eternal and self- replicating and able to "create", then it would mean that it didn't need God to create it or sustain it, which means that neither does the universe.
Very Big IF of course.

Here is what RTB's view of it is, I think it's somewhat a positive view. This is from Jeff Zweerink.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs01 ... 12467.html

One thing to keep in mind is that they have been looking for this thing for a while. From what I've heard from a physicist on a forum, it isn't exactly what they were predicting it would be but it does feel like progress. But related to God it doesn't change the picture as far as I'm aware, at least not in anyway that wasn't already being debated since they were aware of the possible existence of the particle anyway.

One non-scientific indicator I have is just what the usually hyperbolic headlines are saying. For example, when those few lines from Hawking's book came out there was a really big deal made out of it, practically shouts of triumph from secularists and Christians reacted quickly, and in the end it turned out to be "not much". This hasn't gotten the same reaction, at least not from where I've been looking... there hasn't been any emergency blog posts from Christian scientists trying to calm down the more reactionary. So to me that's an initial indicator that this discovery doesn't effect the debate one way or the other or drastically change any cosmological models.

Case in point, the earlier RTB article. The only relation it gave to the debate on God is that it could eventually reveal fine tuning for a livable universe. Were it to effect the different cosmological arguments, I would think they would have mentioned it right off. Initial rumors a few months ago didn't amount to anything either.

Science observes nature, that is all it does ( and should do).
If this particle does anything, that is what it does and all science can truly do is show how it does ( not why) it and that's it.
The problem will come from those that like to INTERPRET science in their own way for their own agenda and as we know, people like that would take the second coming of Christ as proof that Christ never existed !
On a serious note, like that article said, this may be just another example of a universe that is "fine tuned" .

It provides the missing evidence for the standard model which supports the big bang which in turn lends itself to theism.

HIGGS BOSON WAS NOT FOUND YET. Particle Consistent With Long-Sought Higgs Boson was found:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112237.htm:

"The next step will be to determine the precise nature of the particle and its significance for our understanding of the universe. Are its properties as expected for the long-sought Higgs boson, the final missing ingredient in the Standard Model of particle physics? Or is it something more exotic?"

PaulSacramento wrote:Depends on what it can be PROVEN to be.
IF it can be shown ( and I have no idea how that can be) to be eternal and self- replicating and able to "create", then it would mean that it didn't need God to create it or sustain it, which means that neither does the universe.
Very Big IF of course.

Self-replicating and able to "create". Hmmmmmm .....

narnia4 wrote:From what I've heard from a physicist on a forum, it isn't exactly what they were predicting it would be but it does feel like progress.

Yes, the new particle does not behave exactly as the Standard Model Higgs boson, based on the preliminary data we have so far. There is a slight excess in the channel with two photons:
http://blog.vixra.org/

"The only fly in the ointment is its decay rate to two photons. This is nearly twice as large as expected. The significance of the discrepancy with the standard model is about 2.5 sigma. It could be a fluke."

1over137 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Depends on what it can be PROVEN to be.
IF it can be shown ( and I have no idea how that can be) to be eternal and self- replicating and able to "create", then it would mean that it didn't need God to create it or sustain it, which means that neither does the universe.
Very Big IF of course.

Self-replicating and able to "create". Hmmmmmm .....

Very big if's ( understatement).
And don't forget "eternal" ie: always existed.

At least according to what I've read, the LHC will likely never be powerful enough to actually simulate the very first moments after the big bang. So I suppose if it fits into your worldview someone could try to run with that.

narnia4 wrote:At least according to what I've read, the LHC will likely never be powerful enough to actually simulate the very first moments after the big bang. So I suppose if it fits into your worldview someone could try to run with that.

Narnia, according to Calvinism, is the Higgs boson particle predestined to be discovered?

Let's just say that if God didn't want to allow the particle to be found, it wouldn't have been found.