The LHC and God

[fLow]

I'll explain in more detail when I'm able to think straight

[Sativa Indica]

cool, i just woke up and i need to shower shit shave and.....munch some food.

its saturday night and im debating whether to go out clubbin or stay at home and watch X files



man i wish i had some weed

[awatkins]

I forgot about this, but let us continue:

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.

False. When an alternative theory is not present, this does not imply that the only current theory is true. Take, for example, biodiversity. Before Darwin, the theory was a divine entity that created life in all its present form, also known as creationism. No one else knew how to explain it, besides creationists. Darwin then later came along with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and currently that is, beyond a reasonable doubt, what accounted for biodiversity. Now, before Darwin, one could have easily made a similar statement to what you just said above - "and unless you have an explanation as to how humans and all other complex life forms could come to be without God, that explanation is God." The prior statement is false, and so is yours.

Also, concerning your above quote, one can show that God is not even an explanation for that occurrence for which you request an explanation. In particle physics, this "superposition" you speak of need not be ended by a conscious entity actually observing it. Even you yourself admit this:
your post:

see many here think that to observe it needs an eye or something, NOT TRUE. a particle can observe another particle which causes the observed particle to then become REAL and of VALUE, for it to then observe another itself.

wikipedia:

For us to be able to detect an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.

The term "observer" here seems rather misleading, as it is commonly understood that observer means a conscious entity. It is not, however, a conscious entity that is needed to end a "superposition," merely another physically existing particle. So, we now understand that whatever is to fill in this gap in knowledge of how the singularity became of value, could be merely a physically existing particle, not necessarily a conscious entity that we would call "creator" or "God."

We also know that the big bang singularity was the earliest known stage of our universe, and that it was essentially the same thing as our universe today, just in a different form.
wikipedia:

The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

Notice the part in bold. All forms of matter/energy were thus a part of the big bang singularity. So, we now understand that the universe encompasses all physically existing particles. Now, back to the big bang singularity. This singularity must have contained all physically existing particles, as it was itself, the universe, only in a different form. Now, we have already established that it is physically existing particles that end the "superposition" you speak of. Thus, whatever accounted for the singularity to end its superposition and become of value, must have been a part of the singularity itself. No transcendent explanation, because what causes superpositions to end (particles), are all contained in the universe. Thus, God, unless you define "God" as "the singularity," can not account for the singularity becoming of value. One might object that even though we define the universe to be encompassing all physically existing particles, there could possibly be particles beyond the borders of our universe that expanded from the singularity, comprising the creator, or God, and thus, God is an explanation for the singularity becoming of value. However, if we can accept physically existing particles beyond those borders that can influence the singularity in such a way that would end the "superposition," they need not comprise a conscious entity to accomplish the task of making the singularity real and of value.

God DID make it work that way. Please explain how evolution is not the story of creation? Let alone how evolution disproves God.

Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain biodiversity through processes which involve life forms only, it says nothing about a creator. I never stated that evolution disproves God, I said it disproves creationism.

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

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity

= contradicted by evolution

How else can you explain the charge of an electron being exactly 1.6x10-12 coloumb in planck time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#The_.22God-of-the-gaps_argument.22_in_modern_usage

The term God-of-the-gaps argument usually refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, and is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Commonly such an argument can be reduced to the following form:

        * There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
        * The gap is filled by acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).

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

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.

[Sativa Indica]

OK first thing, please DROP any pr-requisite you think i have regarding the creator, i have often said for all we know, our universe is but a forgotten spunk left to grow.

WE CAN NOT COMPREHEND WHAT GOD IS.

no then

False. When an alternative theory is not present, this does not imply that the only current theory is true. Take, for example, biodiversity. Before Darwin, the theory was a divine entity that created life in all its present form, also known as creationism. No one else knew how to explain it, besides creationists. Darwin then later came along with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and currently that is, beyond a reasonable doubt, what accounted for biodiversity. Now, before Darwin, one could have easily made a similar statement to what you just said above - "and unless you have an explanation as to how humans and all other complex life forms could come to be without God, that explanation is God." The prior statement is false, and so is yours.

are you suggesting that observer effect is a theory that is WRONG. unless you can proove that the observer effect is wrong, that a singularity, ie a single point existence, can observe itself, then there MUST have been an observer to cause the big bang. Its funny that you seem to deny a principle of quantumn mechanics, yet make such claims as there is an alternative.

This is a not a case of simple labeling it what i want.That would require YOU to show how this theory is FALSE. anything else is just rhetorical crap on your end.

NOW, can you tell me how a singularity became both real and of value without an observer present.

Notice the part in bold. All forms of matter/energy were thus a part of the big bang singularity.

oh deary, deary me, you bring wikipedia into this...hahahaha

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/planck.html#c2

please tell me then, what matter existed in the singularity? your quote is but a laymens explanation, that everything is squeezed into a point, for those who fail to comprehend the origins of the universe.

Now, we have already established that it is physically existing particles that end the "superposition" you speak of

RE-He-He-EALLY?

i ask again what particles are these, and how might they exist in a singularity

i think you need a dictionary mate, here let me help

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/single

honestly if you can provide ANYTHING that suggest even TWO particles in a singularity please do.

Thus, whatever accounted for the singularity to end its superposition and become of value, must have been a part of the singularity itself. No transcendent explanation,

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha, mate you should REALLY learn waht a singularity is, and essentialy the meaning of SINGLE.

Thus, God, unless you define "God" as "the singularity," can not account for the singularity becoming of value.

unless you can proove that a singualirty can contain atleast TWO, i repeat, atleast TWO particles, then sir, it is YOU who can not account for the singularity becoming both real and of value.

However, if we can accept physically existing particles beyond those borders that can influence the singularity in such a way that would end the "superposition," they need not comprise a conscious entity to accomplish the task of making the singularity real and of value.

indeed, i do NOT hold any pre-conditions for what god is, if god created our universe, then is must be that God exists outside our universe, as such we simple CAN NOT comprehend what God IS. we can use our understanding of the universe to suggest a creator, however much like beyond the point horizon, we can not comprehend nor proove ANYTHING.

Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain biodiversity through processes which involve life forms only, it says nothing about a creator. I never stated that evolution disproves God, I said it disproves creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Quote
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity
= contradicted by evolution

http://www.yourdictionary.com/semantics

the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning

words are just that words. i have been through this many a time regarding 'racism', in which using an academic defintion i could easily show that a black can NOT be racist in the UK or is the US. that ONLY white people can be racist.

If you wish to go down this pathetic path of word definition then we shall continue. instead i would prefer if we stick to my arguments of observer effect, universal constants and the miracle that is how we as homo sapiens have even made it this far.

The term God-of-the-gaps argument usually refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, and is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Commonly such an argument can be reduced to the following form:

        * There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
        * The gap is filled by acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).

where is the 'gap'that you speak of?

unless you can show that a singualirty can hold TWO or more particles, or that the observer effect is FALSE, then WHERE IS THIS GAP?

i do not use a gap,  i take principles of science and apply them to the origins of existence to theorize that an observer was present in order to launch the big bang.

WHERE IS THE GAP?

[awatkins]

OK first thing, please DROP any pr-requisite you think i have regarding the creator, i have often said for all we know, our universe is but a forgotten spunk left to grow.

WE CAN NOT COMPREHEND WHAT GOD IS.

Perhaps this should have been done earlier, but we should define the word "God." The only prerequisites I have for the word God are as follows:
1. A conscious entity.
2. Involved in the origin of/currently oversees our universe.

Since all of the prior content in your post fails to address my argument, I will start here.

indeed, i do NOT hold any pre-conditions for what god is, if god created our universe, then is must be that God exists outside our universe, as such we simple CAN NOT comprehend what God IS. we can use our understanding of the universe to suggest a creator, however much like beyond the point horizon, we can not comprehend nor proove ANYTHING.

This seems to suggest that the "God" you are trying to prove with this argument is not necessarily a conscious entity. With this we can just agree that while I hold "God" to necessarily mean a conscious entity, you do not, and we therefor do not need to address this point any further.

where is the 'gap'that you speak of?

unless you can show that a singualirty can hold TWO or more particles, or that the observer effect is FALSE, then WHERE IS THIS GAP?

i do not use a gap,  i take principles of science and apply them to the origins of existence to theorize that an observer was present in order to launch the big bang.

WHERE IS THE GAP?

You did not even read what I quoted from you. Your quote had nothing to do with the hypothesis that there was an observer present at the big bang. I will quote you again:

How else can you explain the charge of an electron being exactly 1.6x10-12 coloumb in planck time.

Clearly a God of the Gaps. It is not scientifically known how exactly the charge of electron became 1.6x10-12  coulombs in planck time, and god is supposed to fill that role.

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.

String Theory:

String theory is not just a theory of quantum gravity in the strict sense, because its objective is wider: the theory aims at giving a unified description of the physical world, where all physical entities are understood as manifestations of the motion of a single object: a string. Gravity emerges in the theory as one of the aspects of the dynamics of the string.

God:

God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity.[1]
God is most often conceived of as the creator and overseer of the universe.

The difference here is that God can literally be suggested as an explanation for almost any phenomenon, while string theory actually attempts to explain how specific things work. There is a clear distinction. However, like God, String Theory has no predictions, and is thus not scientific. Only when they can be proven to exist are they value as a scientific explanation. Essentially string theory is a "string of the gaps" as well, and I do not believe that it exists either. Accusing other things as being something 'of the gaps' does not in any way justify you using a god of the gaps argument.

[Added Later]: I do believe this quote may be relevant:

wikipedia:

A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system. A significant minority still find the equations point to an observer; Wheeler, who probably worked more deeply on this subject than any physicist thus far, devised a graphic in which the universe was represented by a "U" with an eye on one end, turned around and viewing itself, to describe his understanding.

[Sativa Indica]

Perhaps this should have been done earlier, but we should define the word "God." The only prerequisites I have for the word God are as follows:
1. A conscious entity.
2. Involved in the origin of/currently oversees our universe.

How amusing, you do not believe in Gods existence yet you attempt to give a pre-requisite for god....ding ding ding IRONY.

God is the creator, what created this universe is our creator and thus our god.

Answer me this then, how is it we can comprehend what god is? i mean seriously, if god created this universe then god MUST exist out with our Time-space, and therefore we simply CAN NOT know anything about God. its immposible, incomprehendible and quite frankly, beyond stupidity to make such a claim as to a prerequisite for something outside of our time-space.

Since all of the prior content in your post fails to address my argument, I will start here.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA, how pathetic.

I forgot about this, but let us continue:
False. When an alternative theory is not present, this does not imply that the only current theory is true.

to which i answered

are you suggesting that observer effect is a theory that is WRONG. unless you can proove that the observer effect is wrong, that a singularity, ie a single point existence, can observe itself, then there MUST have been an observer to cause the big bang. Its funny that you seem to deny a principle of quantumn mechanics, yet make such claims as there is an alternative.

This is a not a case of simple labeling it what i want.That would require YOU to show how this theory is FALSE. anything else is just rhetorical crap on your end.

NOW, can you tell me how a singularity became both real and of value without an observer present.

to which you IGNORED and said

Since all of the prior content in your post fails to address my argument, I will start here

next

I forgot about this, but let us continue:
Notice the part in bold. All forms of matter/energy were thus a part of the big bang singularity.

i.e that the SINGLularity observed itself

to which i said

please tell me then, what matter existed in the singularity?

to which you IGNORED and said

Since all of the prior content in your post fails to address my argument, I will start here

and

you said

Now, we have already established that it is physically existing particles that end the "superposition" you speak of

to which i said

RE-He-He-EALLY?

i ask again what particles are these, and how might they exist in a singularity

ending with

unless you can proove that a singualirty can contain atleast TWO, i repeat, atleast TWO particles, then sir, it is YOU who can not account for the singularity becoming both real and of value.

to which you IGNORED and said

Since all of the prior content in your post fails to address my argument, I will start here

of course accompanied with an educational source on the Big bang, mocking of your wikipedia source and its LAYMENS explanation of a singularity and the meaning of the word SINGLE.

but na your right, i didnt even address your post did I? *rolls eyes*

This seems to suggest that the "God" you are trying to prove with this argument is not necessarily a conscious entity. With this we can just agree that while I hold "God" to necessarily mean a conscious entity, you do not, and we therefor do not need to address this point any further

correct me if im wrong, but am i not showing how the universe was created by said creator, and thus show that evolution is synonomous with creationism.

again if you want to go down the pathetic path of sematics, then that is your choice.

You did not even read what I quoted from you. Your quote had nothing to do with the hypothesis that there was an observer present at the big bang. I will quote you again:

HAAAACTUALLY, the part about observer and singularity is my 'evidence' of a creator. this is evidence of a desginer, and thus would SUGGEST the concious entity or overseer if you were. however this is but my attempt to try and comprehend what god is, which i already admit that we as humans CAN NOT.

This is evidence of a design, thus of a designer present to equate a value so perfect that any slight diversion would mean that this universe woudlo cease to exist.

shit, you talk about me not reading your quote, how about YOU not reading your OWN quote, of me

unless you can show that a singualirty can hold TWO or more particles, or that the observer effect is FALSE, then WHERE IS THIS GAP?

However, like God, String Theory has no predictions, and is thus not scientific

wow. i mean just wow. so string theory does not predict other spacial dimensions? nor the existence of partices not currently known to us? seriously string theory has its own website, i suggest you read it.

God is the creator. God created this universe. before God our universe was a singularity, after God, our universe became both real and of value.

finally, son LEAVE WIKIPEDIE AT HOME.

But hey your right, there is no observer effect...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

you were saying?

[awatkins]

I'm done with this. Debate more with fLow if you want. You can think this means I'm giving up if you want, but quite frankly, your just annoying to debate with.

*waits for accusation of being scared of losing the debate*

[Sativa Indica]

The fuck yo?

1st you accuse me of not addressing your arguement, that the singularity observed itself, which i not only actually DID address, but had to REPOST my rebuttal.

Also, you quote wiki in an attempt to show that 'observer effect does not exist', which i then show DOES exist by means of an experiment carried out under controlled situations...

and you leave claiming that i am 'annoying' you.

Since all of the prior content in your post fails to address my argument

That comment alone shows, not fear, but the attitude of a sloth. i DID address your comments in their entirety, and asked you to prove your comment, of HOW did the singulairty observe itself, is there more than ONE in a singularity, and you respond this way.

Fear has nothing to do with it, simply ability and knowledge. if your gonna cope out, then do it like a man instead of like a punk.

[awatkins]

God is the creator, what created this universe is our creator and thus our god.

This is a textbook example of a converse error.
Take the following statement:
Andrew is a zionist.

Consider that whoever support a Jewish state of Israel is a zionist.

It would of course be fallacious to claim that because of the two prior statements, whoever is a zionist is Andrew.
It can be restated similar to your above sentence:
Andrew is a zionist, whoever supports a Jewish state of Israel is a zionist and thus is Andrew.

It is easy to see the fallacy here.

Answer me this then, how is it we can comprehend what god is? i mean seriously, if god created this universe then god MUST exist out with our Time-space, and therefore we simply CAN NOT know anything about God. its immposible, incomprehendible and quite frankly, beyond stupidity to make such a claim as to a prerequisite for something outside of our time-space.

It is not hard to make the distinction between conscious and not conscious, even if it is outside the observable universe.

[Godfather of Soul]

pantheism is a cop out and saying "this will prove god, but we cannot comprehend god" creates an unresolvable paradox.  Everything you say after that is moot because you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You have yet to prove the existence of anything beyond spacetime, nothing, therefore we are arguing about invisible teapots and unfalsifiable propositions.  Infinite regress makes your god impossible unless you let it exist outside of spacetime, which you cannot, since it exists outside of your ability to comprehend it, which in and of itself is a paradox.

You have zero empirical evidence, none. 

[Sativa Indica]

sorry yo been a bit busy playing Civ IV...

converse error?

i dont think 1=2 and i dont think 2=1, thats impossible.

however, darkness is the lack of light, and the lack of light is darkness.

water is H2O and H2O is water

therefore, God is the creator, and the creator is God.

no amount of shady ass wordplay is gonna disproove that.

It is not hard to make the distinction between conscious and not conscious, even if it is outside the observable universe.

REALLY, so tell me ONE thing you can say about beyond our known Time-space?

[Sativa Indica]

pantheism is a cop out and saying "this will prove god, but we cannot comprehend god" creates an unresolvable paradox.  Everything you say after that is moot because you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

1st, thsi aint Pantheism, i do not see the universe itself as God.

This is Tanism

actually what i said is that this is one step CLOSER to proving God. Only when we FULLY comprehend the UNIVERSE, which is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way away, will this ever be possible.

Proof and comprehension are two different topics

You have yet to prove the existence of anything beyond spacetime, nothing, therefore we are arguing about invisible teapots and unfalsifiable propositions.  Infinite regress makes your god impossible unless you let it exist outside of spacetime, which you cannot, since it exists outside of your ability to comprehend it, which in and of itself is a paradox.

You have zero empirical evidence, none. 

i think y 1st post covers this, to the point.

could Newton prove the Higgs?
was Newton able to provide empirical evidence for the 'H' in his equation?
Is Newtons Equation, therefore by your standards, wrong?

finally, there if no infinite regress. as i have said countless times before the requirement for the creator to have a creator is not as big as the requirement forthe universe to have a creator. we can only use our understanding of THIS, the only known, universe to point to the requirement of a creator. what exists outside our universe we can not draw ANY conclusions to, let alone that of its requirements for a creator

[awatkins]

REALLY, so tell me ONE thing you can say about beyond our known Time-space?

Alright, I can play this game too. How can you make the distinction between creator and not creator, if "God" is beyond our space/time? This gets us nowhere.

[Godfather of Soul]

Proof and comprehension are inextricably linked.  Show me proof that is beyond comprehension...Please, I would love to see this physical feat. 

[Sativa Indica]

Alright, I can play this game too. How can you make the distinction between creator and not creator, if "God" is beyond our space/time? This gets us nowhere.

give me one example of a system that was NOT created by something that pre-existed that system.

to have created this system god MUST have existed both before and outside this system.

we can go back to quantumn mechanics if you prefer, i dont like wordplay.

[Sativa Indica]

Proof and comprehension are inextricably linked.  Show me proof that is beyond comprehension...Please, I would love to see this physical feat. 

EAAAAAAAAAAAAAASY,

lets ask every one on the boards to proove gravity/magnetism, easy.

let see how many of them fully comprehend the hows and whys these exist.

can you proove that your refridgerator/car engine is working?
in the same sense, do you comprehend heat engines such as the carnot/refridgeration cycle?

finally, the reverse, DID NEWTON PROOVE THE 'H' VARIABLE IN HIS EQUATION?

Can we proove the existence of X and Y bosons?

[Godfather of Soul]

They comprehend gravity, even on a basic level.  If you can prove something, even slightly, then you have comprehension.  If god is beyond comprehension, then it is beyond proof.  You are talking in absolutes here, and that is problematic.  You are not saying "we partially understand god" you are saying "god is beyond comprehension".  That is not proof.  I can partially comprehend something, but even then that is more than what you are saying we can do with god. 

You are saying that there are levels of comprehension.  I have no argument with that.  But I can comprehend how it works because there is proof that it is working and that I can possibly understand it through interaction with it.  Your rhetoric has closed this option for god because it exists outside of spacetime and therefore is nothing other than any other chemically-driven idea that lacks evidence.  It is a concept.  Concepts do not exist in space or time but that does not mean that they have any bearing on our material reality. 

As much as I would like string theory to be a reality, it is not.  It is a concept that has no bearing on material reality because, as we currently understand it, it is beyond testing. 

For someone who doesn't like wordplay you certainly engage in it a great deal.