The LHC and God

[Sativa Indica]

Some of you may be aware that over the coming weeks the LHC in Cern will be fully turned on and in full swing. If you have no idea what the LHC is or what it means to the scientific community then please Google it, as I am here to discuss the religious ramifications of their findings.

Any of the people who I discuss creationism with will know that I do not take the traditional stance, and infact will only use science to point to the existence of a creator. The preciseness of this ultimate system know as the universe, from the charge of an electron to Newton’s gravitational constant are all so precise that even a minor change in its value would have meant that the universe would not have even entered Planck time, which brings me onto the LHC.
What we know Vs what we don’t
The reason that the LHC is such big news is because, relatively speaking, we know NOTHING. Indeed in class you will learn a lot about waves, particles, gravity, strong force, however in relation to what we DON’T know, this is nothing to what we need to know to have full COMPREHENSION of how our universe and all that’s in it works.
The main discovery  that we hope to find at Cern is the existence of the Higgs particle/field, which essentially explains why some particles have mass and others do not. Id just like to point out that the particle is named after a Scottish scientist named Peter Higgs, indeed we do make the best physicist and thus engineers . Now the interesting thing about the Higgs is that this is something that has been theorized since the early days of Newtonian physics, and are only now able to prove. You see we were able to suggest its existence as essential to our understanding of the universe, hint hint, but now and only now (maybe even not) are we actually able to provide empirical evidence that it actually does exist.
Speculation vs existence
Im not going to go back into my theories regarding god as the observer , universal constants, Big Bang, evolution of space, time and life. However what I would like to address is that the constant rebuttal is that I have no empirical evidence to back up such theories. And THIS is the point I am making now. I have always maintained that common perception of god is wrong, and that we simply cannot comprehend what god is. Much like the singularity, much like dark matter and much like the existence of difference in masses, much like super symmetry, we can only suggest/speculate UNTILL the time comes when we actually CAN understand and therefore, when we can actually understand we will SHOW/PROVE that what we think is right, is actually right.
The Higgs, if is true, is but another step closer to full comprehension of the universe, and thus another step towards proving a creator does exist. This is a journey into comprehension that started long ago with such discoveries as the planetary alignment, the atom, radiation and so on. But like I said in the very beginning, none of this, NONE, actually works to disprove the existence of a creator. Only further PROVE ONE.
With the discovery of every new law, new theory and new particle we only show just how complex the universe/system and show that the system with its boundaries and its rules/laws MUST have had a creator to actually form these rules. Many have argued that this is but a god of gaps, hardly, as even when a gap is closed, it actually only provides more evidence to the contrary. Not to mention using the same analogy, it would infact be a god of craters/canyons/black holes, since there are more ‘gaps’ than there is land.
Science Vs religion
The atheist is often too quick to ‘claim’ that science disproves a god, which in itself is the BIGGEST contradiction on the planet. Consider that an atheist belief is that a god does not exist, that same atheist, more often than not but not always, will then claim that science proves this…aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahha. If no empirical evidence exists, then how might one provide for the contrary?
Science and creationism is but one and the same. The belief in a god is to show understanding, albeit in most a rather laymen’s understanding, in how the universe works. But none the less the one thing that we all agree on we all share an opinion on how the universe was born, or works. Science is but a more complex method of showing how the universe works. The story of evolution from big bang to present IS the miracle. We could easily, EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASILY, taken the wrong turn and not have even come into existence. And this didn’t just happen once, we’re talking thousands of events that were essential for us being here and is a miracle that it happened.
And this is not a case of throw a dice constantly for 100000000 years and you will get six 6’s in a row eventually. This is throwing a dice ONCE and getting a 6, when there was not even a 6 on the dice before you rolled.
I cant wait for the LHC, gives me more to read about and will bring us one step closer to FULL comprehension of the universe and life as it is, and thus, brings us one step closer to proving god
PEACE

[fLow]

How on Earth does the finding of a particle that gives other particles mass, become one step closer to proving 'God'? How is that inferred from the result? I'll read this through properly tomorow, there is already a large thread about this at Rev HH though

[Sativa Indica]

whats Rev HH?

read it through and you will see. The discover of the Higgs will only cement my views regarding speculation untill empirical evidence can be provided.

The Higgs will further show that we, as human beings, know NOTHING, relatively speaking of how the universe works. i have always maintained that science IS synonomous with God, in that all we do is make it possible for us to understand and comprehend Gods work.

one step closer to FULL COMPREHENSION of everthing in our universe and thus life as WE know it, is but one step closer to the ultimate comperension of what God truely is.

If someone can presume that this discovery is the ultimate answer to theism, and as such us a rather satiracal name such as the 'god'particle, then this post is simply to show how if you loose the traditional pereception of a bearded man in the sky, apply evolution TO creationism, then in fact, this actually work FOR theism.

Also, the most important discoveries are NOT going to be expected.

Higgs,, x, Y bosons, supersymetry and dark matter are theories that we use to make sense of what we know. without them the numbes do not add up, the theories do break down, and they are speculated at simply due to them being essential to allow human comprehension.

The same applies to how the singularity became the big bang with out and observer, how universal constants were so precise in their value to allow life( something that happend INSTANTLY and not over 1000000000 years) and how we as humans where able to evolve into what we are today, despite almost almost ebing wiped out, despite the potential for us TO BE wiped out, despite having low fitness levels in comparison to ther species such as sharks and crocs.

Evolution of time, space and life IS the miracle of creation. science is there to show us just how amazing the whole story actually is.

[Sativa Indica]

no one game then?

[JC]

I think no one is game because you have so perfectly concluded this debate in your own head and you refuse to consider alternatives to your own beliefs. It seems so very obvious that there is no 100% definitive way to prove anything that is outside our own experiences. And even when we can experience we cant necessarily trust our own senses to conclude we are experiencing what our senses are interpreting.

[Sativa Indica]

what a heap of utter shite, JC, if that were true why would we even HAVE debate? why would others from Bob and flow to Gos and alloy have posted in the past. why woudl we discuss racism, socio economic theories etc, when we each have our own opinions of which we post. we do so becuase, indeed, we feel that we are correct, so much so that we offer others a chance to counter our opinions....

just cuz you can not offer any counter claim, do not attempt to demean mine.


whats HILARIOUS, is i can offer more facts and theories on science and evolution of time, space and life than you probably even know, so tell me what alternatives do you speak?

How is it that the singularity was able to to become both real and of value, woth out an obersver present?

[kittenslayer]

Plz don't fight guyz

[JC]

what a heap of utter shite, JC, if that were true why would we even HAVE debate? why would others from Bob and flow to Gos and alloy have posted in the past. why woudl we discuss racism, socio economic theories etc, when we each have our own opinions of which we post. we do so becuase, indeed, we feel that we are correct, so much so that we offer others a chance to counter our opinions....

just cuz you can not offer any counter claim, do not attempt to demean mine.


whats HILARIOUS, is i can offer more facts and theories on science and evolution of time, space and life than you probably even know, so tell me what alternatives do you speak?

How is it that the singularity was able to to become both real and of value, woth out an obersver present?

You have far more information than I do on this topic, I will not and can not deny that. My point was not to say you are right or wrong but that you have yourself convinced you are right when you cant know for sure.

Plz don't fight guyz

I am not fighting with anyone and dont appreciate the assertion. I am discussing this with someone whom I like and respect and who I am happy to see. I apologize if my post came off as totally pompous but I am sometimes and my posts are too.

[Sativa Indica]

Man do you think that i believe i could have made Bob change his faith and become a theist.

I LOVE being condescending, pompous and arrogant in my post just as much as you. however i do not debate someone simply cuz i hope to change their views, i mean YES that would be briliant if i converted everyone to theism, however my point is to challenge by means of discussion and debate.

I made this post because Flow commented on how dead this place was in the socialism Vs capitalism, to which i said if he wanted some debate, lets bring back a classic then.

[awatkins]

Okay, I will debate.

he preciseness of this ultimate system know as the universe, from the charge of an electron to Newton’s gravitational constant are all so precise that even a minor change in its value would have meant that the universe would not have even entered Planck time

Please cite. Also, this does not mean naturalistic explanations are out of the question. It falls into the "god of the gaps" category.

With the discovery of every new law, new theory and new particle we only show just how complex the universe/system and show that the system with its boundaries and its rules/laws MUST have had a creator to actually form these rules. Many have argued that this is but a god of gaps, hardly, as even when a gap is closed, it actually only provides more evidence to the contrary. Not to mention using the same analogy, it would infact be a god of craters/canyons/black holes, since there are more ‘gaps’ than there is land.

god of the gaps. you claim it isn't one, but fail to actually show that it is not a god of the gaps argument. saying "the laws of physics and rules that govern the universe must have had a creator" is an assertion that obviously is a god of the gaps. Science is continuously piling on the evidence that the universe and the things in it can be explained with entirely naturalistic explanations - a thesis opposite to that of creationism. What kind of universe would we expect if there was no creator? Chaos? Lawlessness? Entropy? Nothing at all? The thing is that we have no clue what to expect, we are merely a product of biological evolution, leaving our expectations meaningless when it comes to how the universe would or would not be without a creator.

Science and creationism is but one and the same. The belief in a god is to show understanding, albeit in most a rather laymen’s understanding, in how the universe works.

Science = Creationism? Why is it, then, that almost every credible biologist on the planet accepts evolution? Belief in God is not an "understanding of the universe," more of just a preconceived notion of why everything is the way it is - because God made it work that way.

We could easily, EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASILY, taken the wrong turn and not have even come into existence. And this didn’t just happen once, we’re talking thousands of events that were essential for us being here and is a miracle that it happened.
And this is not a case of throw a dice constantly for 100000000 years and you will get six 6’s in a row eventually. This is throwing a dice ONCE and getting a 6, when there was not even a 6 on the dice before you rolled.

Again, our metaphysical notions are meaningless until proven. There is no proof to suggest that there was an entirely wide range of possible states of affairs, in which we wouldn't exist, or that there are/have been no other universes unsuited for life, yet you assert it as if your expectation was meaningful. The main point I am trying to make here is that we don't know squat about these things, and we should make an extremely small amount of assumptions that can not be proven. And What "events" are you talking about? This is again just positing a creator to explain why things are the way things are and why we exist. And even if we didn't exist - so what? Then things would be different, and there would be no life - so? to think that you, residing on one solar system out of trillions of stars in the universe, were the sole purpose of the universe even coming into existence, is a little self-centered imo.

The same applies to how the singularity became the big bang with out and observer, how universal constants were so precise in their value to allow life( something that happend INSTANTLY and not over 1000000000 years) and how we as humans where able to evolve into what we are today, despite almost almost ebing wiped out, despite the potential for us TO BE wiped out, despite having low fitness levels in comparison to ther species such as sharks and crocs.

-_- see my post above. Also, on "fine tuning of the physical constants." Saying that this universe is fine tuned for life is like pouring water into a cup and saying "if that cup was any different, then that water would not fit into the cup - this must be fine tuning!" I think it is easy to see the flaw here. The water will always take the exact shape of the cup, thus giving the appearance of fine tuning. Similarly, any universe that contains life must be fine tuned for that life, because the life is a product of the universe, and can only be a certain way that the universe allows it to, this is similar to the water taking the exact shape of the cup. If you take a different size/shape cup, the water will then take a different shape when it exists in the cup. Similarly, if you have a universe with physical constants different than our own, then the life that that universe contains will be based on and function differently, according to whatever that universe allows, Thus making any claims of our particular physical constants being fine tuned invalid.

Crackman, the biggest flaw here is that you assert that because you interpret something to lead to a certain conclusion, that means that the conclusion is proven, when in fact there are other logically sound interpretations, which you fail to recognize.

[Sativa Indica]

Wow, I must say that I am shocked, to say the very least, at your all of a sudden ability to debate and equally at your improvement of grammar. Me thinks you’ve been getting after school help…
Atleast, im gonna give you the reason of doubt that you are not commiting plagiarism here, anyways

Please cite. Also, this does not mean naturalistic explanations are out of the question.

1st when did i ever deny naturalistic explanations. I do not believe in the supernatural as some would phrase it. I use natural events, and natural laws of the universe to explain why a creator is essential.
You can find most of them here
http://www.immortal-technique.net/forum/index.php/topic,8623.new.html#new
and unless you can explain how a singularity became both real and of value with out an observer present, then that observer is our creator.

god of the gaps. you claim it isn't one, but fail to actually show that it is not a god of the gaps argument. saying "the laws of physics and rules that govern the universe must have had a creator" is an assertion that obviously is a god of the gaps. Science is continuously piling on the evidence that the universe and the things in it can be explained with entirely naturalistic explanations - a thesis opposite to that of creationism. What kind of universe would we expect if there was no creator? Chaos? Lawlessness? Entropy? Nothing at all? The thing is that we have no clue what to expect, we are merely a product of biological evolution, leaving our expectations meaningless when it comes to how the universe would or would not be without a creator.

Note that this was never intended to provide evidence for a creator, perhaps you need to read again, but to merely conclude what i have always maintained, see other posts.

I have never denied anything naturalistic and infact use more science in my explanation that you ever knew of, or atleast the ‘old’ awatkins failed to comprehend.

Science = Creationism? Why is it, then, that almost every credible biologist on the planet accepts evolution? Belief in God is not an "understanding of the universe," more of just a preconceived notion of why everything is the way it is - because God made it work that way.

God DID make it work that way. Please explain how evolution is not the story of creation? Let alone how evolution disproves God. Note that i said God, as in a creator. That does not mean disprove how some nutball thinks the world is 3000 years old, but that you disprove god.

How else can you explain the charge of an electron being exactly 1.6x10-12 coloumb in planck time. It did not develop that way, it was not fine tuned is was that way from the very start. The same applies to ALL universal constants which have existed since the dawn of time

Again, our metaphysical notions are meaningless until proven.

Honestly are you even reading what i have wrote? Do you even know about Z and X bosons? Do you know about the Higgs?

There is no proof to suggest that there was an entirely wide range of possible states of affairs, in which we wouldn't exist, or that there are/have been no other universes unsuited for life, yet you assert it as if your expectation was meaningful.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaahaha, the fuck yo? Please read my words again, and QUOTE where i have made such assertions. To my knowledge THIS universe, THIS time-space and THIS realm of being is the only one we know of. Now unless you can prove otherwise, or can quote me attempting to show otherwise, please try to comprehend my arguement and discuss it with me

The main point I am trying to make here is that we don't know squat about these things, and we should make an extremely small amount of assumptions that can not be proven.

Honestly, what are you reading? I merely used to post to PROOVE the belief that all theories are false without empirical evidence is WRONG. Newton theorized the Higgs as essential for his equations, as do I theorize that the big bang would never have proceeded unless the universal constants where designed to be that way, let alone the requirement of an observer to INTO Planck time. Was newtons wrong too?

And What "events" are you talking about?

The big Bang
The formation of atoms
The result of the 1st stars explosion that led to atoms heavier than Iron
The fact that the big bang itself is goes against the laws of entropy, if everything tends to entropy, how is it that a singularity even led to a big bang
The mutations that led to eyes BEFORE mutations for optical receptors
The existence of Homo sapiens, despite our weak fitness levels, to name a few.

to think that you, residing on one solar system out of trillions of stars in the universe, were the sole purpose of the universe even coming into existence, is a little self-centered imo.

WHERE ARE YOU READING THESE THINGS?
I believe in the Big bang, evolution and the existence of sentient life on other planets, as much as i do a creator.
But yo let me try some of your tactics,

To say that you can fuck little 6 year old boys then proceed to suck a horse’s dick for mouthwash, is a bit fucked in the head IMO

Also, on "fine tuning of the physical constants." Saying that this universe is fine tuned for life is like pouring water into a cup and saying "if that cup was any different, then that water would not fit into the cup - this must be fine tuning!" I think it is easy to see the flaw here.

Oh indeed it is, lets see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations

and since you have troubles comprehending english
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjusted

1. Arranged or changed so as to match, conform, or function, especially in a specified way: an improperly adjusted scale.
2. Having achieved psychological balance, especially regarding others or the demands of everyday life: a poorly adjusted teenager.

Now unless you can prove that the charge of an electron, mew, and newtons gravitational constants where ’fine tuned’, then they where infact DESIGNED to their values.

Crackman, the biggest flaw here is that you assert that because you interpret something to lead to a certain conclusion, that means that the conclusion is proven, when in fact there are other logically sound interpretations, which you fail to recognize.

Hah........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Mate, your flaw is that you didn’t even READ what i wrote, let alone comprehend what i was saying. This whole post, the ENTIRE post, is simple to show that if you conclude that something is ESSENTIAL for all equations and theories in our universe to work, then indeed you must provide empirical evidence to show so. However, as with the bosons as with the higgs, unless we actually reach the ability to prove such a thing, that does NOT, i repeat that does NOT remove credit form an otherwise sound theory.

Shit, if you wanna discuss my evidence then its in the other thread. But if you even attempt to say its a god of gaps, then good sir, X and Z bosons, the Higgs particles, and string theory are particles/theories of gaps too. 150 years this particle has been theorized for, and now and only NOW are we able to prove its existnence. And why did it take so long, technology, science and the ability to comprehend. Until we have the ability to comprehend what god is, then we can never prove gods existence.

[fLow]

I'll give only reason why it is flawed to explain the 'creation' of the universe using principles we find within the universe:

Every principle in the universe, including the notions of SPACE and TIME, are PRODUCTS of the universe NOT external rules governing it.

To think that they exist outside the universe is to take huge speculative leaps into the unknown.


"We know nothing about the universe"

Our understanding of the universe is most certainly progressed. We are able to calculate speeds of galaxies using their red (or blueshifts) using spectrometers and Hubbles Constant. The principle behind redshifts is an understanding of elementary particles, photons, and how light behaves as particles and waves. Electromagnetism.

We are able to observe and calculate how energy is produced in stars like the Sun. The principle behind that is an understanding of matter and its relation to energy, E=mc².

Using the cosmic ray background as evidence, we can tell that the universe is cooling, again, using an understanding of wavelength and energy.

We apply understandings of elementary particles of the Universe at microscopic levels to produce working technologies that would have been thought of as impossible 200 years or so, ago.

Our understandings of the Universe, particularly at the quantum level have revolutionized the way we approach chemistry, biology, physics, geology etc.

The discovery of the Higgs will further our understanding of the Universe.

[fLow]

The mutations that led to eyes BEFORE mutations for optical receptors

Where did you learn this?

See this: Evolution of the eye

Please explain how evolution is not the story of creation?

Biological evolution is just change in species through time. It's still occurring now, and not a 'creator' in sight...

[fLow]

Newton theorized the Higgs as essential for his equations, as do I theorize that the big bang would never have proceeded unless the universal constants where designed to be that way, let alone the requirement of an observer to INTO Planck time.

The universal constants we know didn't exist until a while after the Big Bang. Current explanations conclude the only reason the Universe is, as it is now, is because of a very tiny glitch in X bosons, favouring a decay into electrons rather than positrons in ratio of about 1 in 10 billion decays. These electrons which did not annihilate with positrons would later on balance the charges of left over protons and form matter. This imbalance is thought not to arise until AFTER inflation.

[Sativa Indica]

I do not attempt to explain creation, I suggest a creator by using our knowledge of OUR universe. Infact

Every principle in the universe, including the notions of SPACE and TIME, are PRODUCTS of the universe NOT external rules governing it.

Is EXACTLY the reason why we cannot comprehend what god is, and exactly the reason why the creator need not a creator as much as this universe does.
Indeed, like i said we know alot, and most of which has come about from the last 200 years or so, simple due to out ability to comprehend.
Only full comprehension of the universe will allow us to understand God.

Where did you learn this?

Hmm, yeah guess i went a bit wild with that one, not sure where it comes from, but if i am able to track back i will let you know

The universal constants we know didn't exist until a while after the Big Bang

RRRRRRREALY? So your saying there was no electromagnetic force in Planck Time?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/planck.html
BEFORE inflation

[fLow]

PRRRRRRREALY? So your saying there was no electromagnetic force in Planck Time?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/planck.html
BEFORE inflation

No, I know about the unification of forces at the start of the universe (albeit at much high energies than today), but if you look, that is not what I'm saying here. I am looking at the imbalances in X boson decay which may have not arisen until after inflation - this is the belief among cosmologists, anyway. These imbalances which were not pre-determined are responsible for why scientists are able to jerk off to the excitement of the Universe. Without the imbalance matter would not exist. Annihilation between electrons and positrons would be absolute. If you think about it, this is quite damaging to any scientific creation argument, because if the imbalances arose after the Universe got started, then this is proof that the Universe we see today is a result of pure chance and non-determination. It is proof that it could have happened any other way, but it didn't, it just happened this way and produced us.

On top of this, randomness that exists at the quantum level must make it very hard to even have an informed scientific view of determination. How do you accept that, and randomness? A creation based on probability? Then why would a force so omnipotent rely on probability?

[Pedant point]

I think your value for electron charge is wrong by the way, I think it's 1.602 x 10^-19 C. But you did say in plank time, so I'm not sure.

[/Pedant point]

[Sativa Indica]

Randomness is but a view on a small scale.

1.

you view this picture through a small section and it would appear random, just a continous string of images, however take a step back, view the WHOLE picture at once and voila, it no longer becomes 'random'. but infact systematic/

2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor

The Lorenz attractor, named for Edward N. Lorenz, is a 3-dimensional structure corresponding to the long-term behavior of a chaotic flow...

From a technical standpoint, the system is nonlinear, three-dimensional and deterministic.

if you concentrate on one section of each of these example, they may 'seem' random anbd chaotic. but ony once the story if finished, only when we can view the whole thing, can we truely see that it is deterministic


ooops, your right my value was quoted wrong, not bad tho considering its from memory, i had my indice wrong, but hey point still counts.

[fLow]

"but ony once the story if finished, only when we can view the whole thing, can we truely see that it is deterministic"

We will not be able to determine that.

Uncertainty principle:

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

It's actually when we see the system as a whole, that it appears random and chaotic. When we concentrate on a section it appears deterministic.

[JC]

See, this discussion went way over my head.

[Sativa Indica]

we would not be able to COMPREHEND that, i would say.

uncertainty prinuciple governs how accurate we MEASURE more than one variable of a particle. the more we concentrate on a particles mass, we so then become less accurate on its spin. i fail to see the connection here.

It's actually when we see the system as a whole, that it appears random and chaotic. When we concentrate on a section it appears deterministic.

are you now saying that the evoulition of space and time, genetic mutations where deteministic? then wouldnt that mean there was no probability?