Large Hadron Collider
 

news post:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...?startindex=80

read through the comments afterwards also, quite a few of them are hilarious, and some are just faiiiil

I seriously doubt that it is going to destroy the entire universe and am generally for it
could the $10 billion be spent for something better? probably. Still if the experiment is successful who knows what technological advances we will then have.

I love the fact that one of the physicists used the word "twat" to describe naysayers. I imagine he's totally fed up with all of the doomsdayers saying it'll be the end of the world. I wonder if he's going to be any sort of reprimand for saying that to a member of the press.

I thought the big bang was a theory. The article makes it sound like the big bang is a fact.

And what happens if it is fail. Does it then disprove the big bang theory?

That's because the article was written for European audiences that aren't trying to shoehorn ancient superstitions into modern education. Observational evidence points to what is colliqually called the "Big Bang" as being the best model avaliable. Trust me, if you wish to create a different model of the beginning of time/space, by all means do so...but you'd better be packin' evidence.

there is no evidence for the big bang.

It takes more faith with no evidence to believe the big bang theory than to believe in God and the creation theory.

There is no real evidence for the big bang theory... thus why they call it a theory and not fact.

The last time I saw a building explode it didn't create a city.

Do you really want to go down this road?

The statements you've made simply aren't valid. No evidence? I could bury you with links, if you'd like, or you could go down to a library and read up for yourself. Hell, even Wiki is good enough in this instance as a good introductory lesson and that's far from any of the academic papers published on the matter. Could something possibly throw the idea on its head? Of course its possible, that's the beauty of science. It corrects its flaws over time. It would take a MOUNTAIN of evidence, however, none of which you've provided. That's what it takes to get rational people to go along with an idea...proof. Observation, tests, results.

You should also acquaint yourself with how the term "theory" is used in a layman's sense and in an academic/scientific sense. By your assertation, if I drop a pencil, it just MIGHT fly up into the air of its own volition, since gravity is only a theory.

actually last time i heard gravity could be observed and tested therfor proven. The big bang is a theory that can not be proven. There is no concrete evidence to the fact that the big bang actually happened.

I can easily go down this road and show just as much scientific proof that can show that the big bang theory and the billions of year old earth is not possible.

take for instance the fact that nothing can be created from nothing. But that is exactly what the big bang theory wants you to believe. A large ball of mass condensed upon itself exploded into billions of stars and planets.

But it doesn't take a mountain of evidence to believe in the big bang theory cause there is no evidence.
But where did the big ball of mass come from. Who has proven that you are able to create something from nothing? Show me the scientist that has proven this.

For instance scientists (the same sort of people that believe in the big bang) have discovered that the sun is shrinking five feet an hour. If the sun was around 20 billion years ago it would be so lare that it would be touching the earth. Thus pulling the earth into the sun and poof no more earth.

I'd like you to show me the claims that the "Big Bang" says that something came from nothing. Since there were no observations done at the instant time/space started, the possibilities of what the condition of our universe was before that crucial moment will probably remain in the realm of theory and philosophy. The Big Bang is what happened to the universe AFTER things were set in motion. For all intents and purposes, however, the topic about what happened "before" time started is moot, as before is a term relative to time, which hadn't yet existed. The fact that you think this means "nothing comes from nothing" shows you're obviously not familiar with what it actually means, but knowing your particular persuasion, that's not entirely uncommon. I'm sure you've been fed a steady diet of anti-science rhetoric from your local pulpit. These concepts aren't exactly the easiest to understand and can be a bit counter-intuitive.

There are some mysteries left to the universe, of which the earliest moments are included. It is tests like the LHC that help us understand how it could have happened. Its entirely possible we won't get the results that are expected. Many turning points in scientific thought have come from these "Eureka!" moments.

For a primer on the "Big Bang", I'll suggest this to start out:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Its a good primer for those not versed in the sciences.

As for your "shrinking sun" claim, all I can Google off hand are creationist sites touting it...in what journal was it published? Or do you happen to have a link to a site that cites sources?

I am getting SO SICK of hearing of this thing. People on 4chan fueled the internet rumor of it destroying the universe. I have a lot of /b/tard friends who keep posting articles on it on myspace, and in their blogs, and IMing me about it.

I mean seriously... if there was that high of a risk that the world world would be destroyed just for research (from what I hear its to help find the nucleus or something in an atom?), I'd just think "Screw it...". These are professionals who know what they are doing. They know the risks.

I didn't say the Big Bang came from nothing ... or at least that isn't what I meant to imply. I thought I stated that the matter came from nothing. I state this because the big bang assumes the matter was already there.

In fact even the article you gave says that Albert Einstein had to make assumptions to how the matter in the universe was distributed. Assumptions do not sound very scientific to me.

Your article also states that matter in the univers is homogenous and isotropic when averaged over the large scale. It appears roughly the same and evenly distributed as if laid out. To assume just like Albert did for a moment, almost as if it was placed there or laid out by hand.

Hrae you know me. And you know that I respect you and your views, but what I find funny is that when a creationist says they believe in the creation theory they are touted by big bang theorists as being simpletons who can't think for themselves and are just plain stupid. You yourself have inferred in this thread that I need to go to library and actually study up on this subject. While on the other had Big Bang Theorists are intelligent and far superior to creationists because they put their faith in the assumptions of others considered smart.

What you have shown me I already know. I in fact could have earned a minor in physics if I took one more course in college (yeah 11 year college plan). Einsteins assumptions do not disprove the creation theory.

The big bang theory doesn't even disprove the creation theory. I can respect someone elses views and beliefs, but I don't seem to be able to get the same respect from others.

Yes I put my faith in God and in the Bible, and because of this I am considered to be a sheep following others and not being able to think for myself. It's funny how people state that men and women of faith are narrow-minded and unable to accept the views of others, but those same people that state that don't seem to be able to simply state that the creation theory is a possiblity.

So tell me then who is truly closed-minded the person who lives on faith and allows the views and beliefs of others even if they don't agree or the person who states that your views have no basis because I say so?

I never meant to imply you were a simpleton or were in any other way intellectually inferior. It seemed you were ignorant of the subject by how you were phrasing things.

Assumptions are a part of any human endeavour. We have an idea, we have assumptions of how that idea will pan out, then we test it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

In flowchart form:
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3...lowcharbs4.jpg

I've said several times before that if you wish people to believe in your particular cosmology, provide evidence. I've never said "THERE IS NO GOD AND HE DIDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE." I've merely said present your evidence. Trust me, if you're sitting on enough credible evidence to support that theory you'll win a Nobel prize. If one makes extraordinary claims, one must have extraordinary evidence.

For all I know, our Big Bang started when another universe turned on their LHC. The fact of the matter is, anything that happenen(d)(s) (this word isn't really applicable, since it doesn't affect our plane of existence, thus doesn't happen as far as our own causality...but I can't think of a better one) outside our own space/time is currently outside of what we can test since it doesn't affect us in any way we can measure at this time. Perhaps its your God. Perhaps its Odin. Perhaps its turtles all the way down. This is a matter for philosophers currently, not scientists.

Creationists and big bang theorists all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we interpret the facts. We interpret facts differently because we each start from different places with different presuppositions. These are the things we assume to be true without the ability to prove them. These assumptions become the basis for our conclusions.

You want me to give you evidence I give you the same evidence that you already have. I choose to interpret that evidence as proof that there is a God and that he created the universe.

Since theories are based on assumptions and interpretations of data we use our own beliefs to form the data to fit our presuppositions.

I can't disprove the big bang theory... and in turn you can not disprove creation.

The data you use to support the big bang theory is actually the same data I use to support creation.

That is where you are wrong. I don't start off with a presupposition. I start off with a blank slate, view the avaliable evidence, and then draw conclusions based off of that evidence. That is one of the fundamental flaws of having conclusions made before you seek evidence. I see the universe and am awed and amazed by it. I want to learn about it. I don't write off the currently unexplained by saying "Oh, I don't know, so God did it." That's just intellectually lazy.

If big metal machines could destroy the world... it would've been long dead.

I didn't read your discussion but I do agree with Hrae where I find the Big Bang much more probable than the big guy creating the universe story.

Before I make my post:

- http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

I disagree that people who came up with the belief that God "created" the world are "intellectually lazy". I am not religious myself, but I do imagine how some people may find that offensive.

I am more of a neutral when it comes to Big Bang theory/God's existence. At the moment, I side with the Big Bang theory, but if one day we realise that God may perhaps exist (perhaps science may tell us?) then I am more than happy to accept it.

As for now, I don't believe in God's existence, but I can see what Manzcar is getting to. In the maths I do for science, many of the problems we were required complete were to have started with "Assume etcetc" and we work out the problem like that.

Sometimes I wonder myself what happens if our assumptions were wrong. If our assumptions are wrong, that means our solution is wrong altogether.

In the article you posted, assumptions were made (as Manzcar said) for the theory to be proposed. Yes, "this assumption is being tested continuously as we actually observe the distribution of galaxies on ever larger scales", but if it's still an assumption then it means there are not enough concrete evidence for it to become a fact.

Also from the same site:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo.html


-----------------



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I can quote things from there but there are way too many quotes so I'll let people read it themselves.

Point of that article: it clearly explains the theory and all the strong evidence, but it does make an emphasis on the fact that assumptions were made. They even have a bit at the bottom about whether God exists. It links to the first site at the beginning of my post as well.

To me, if you want to think from a "science" perspective, believing in one and only one possibly theory for the beginning of the universe is rather pointless. I believe it's kind of silly to only put our faith into one theory, which hasn't even been proven yet. It's often nice to think outside the box. I'm not saying we should believe in all theories, but it's always good to have a small part of ourselves to have a bit of faith in the other theories out there.

Of course, I respect if anyone only wants to believe in the Big Bang theory, or only believe the idea of God creating the universe. Their beliefs, their faith, their life. If it makes them happy believing what they wanna, then so be it, just as long as they don't look down on me for my views as I wouldn't look down on them for theirs.

If you really do start off with a blank slate how did you come up with the Big Bang Theory. If you truly believe that presuppositions should not be used then you must first throw out the possibility of the Big Bang Theory all together because it started out with assumptions and presuppositions and then the evidence is used to support the theory. But if I then start off with the presupposition and assumption that God created everything and then the use the same evidence to support my presupposition, I am told not to start off with presuppositions. Which is it?

I in no way wrote off science or the evidence that you state shows that the Big Bang Theory as correct. I simply state that if you start with the presupposition that God created everything that the evidence supports it. If you don’t agree with me than show me the evidence that disproves that God created everything.

I am not simply saying I don’t know. I am using the current known evidence and than using your diagram above to formulate my beliefs. I did this long ago. I moved from Big Bang / Evolution to God creation. All evidence that I have seen can support Creation as well as Big Bang. Even the articles that Blaaaaaaahs linked show that scientists don’t know.

This is taken from the article and I am unsure how to quote it properly

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

So hey we don’t know guess it was the Big Bang. Huh

And once again you do show the intolerance that I spoke of before. Because I believe in God and creation I am as you put it intellectually lazy. Wow name calling seems like a good response.

I think Blaaaaaaaah put it correctly My belief, My faith, My life, but the only problem is that I am looked down at because of My belief, My faith, My life and then called intellectually lazy, even though no evidence is out there that can disprove that God created everything. Even scientists say that many models exist and none can be proven, but we can’t have one of those being God or creation can we. That would just be intellectually lazy and stupid.

same here.
but more of I see that big bang and the existence of God can go hand in hand.
Who is to say that it was not God's method to create the universe by causing the big bang?

I also hate it when people say evolution doesn't exit. Evolution is change over time.
PEOPLE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM PRIMATES, THAT WAS SAID BY THE CHURCH TO DISCREDIT DARWIN.

I transformed from an atheist to an agnostic. The reason was, believe it or not, physics. The more I learnt, the more it struck me that there are something / many things out there that we don't quite know or, perhaps, ever will: the dark matter that surrounds astro-bodies, the black hole which supposedly occupies the centre of our galaxy... Dark matter is "dark" because it does not interact with "our" matter - it's undetectable directly by our devices. We found and now knew it was there because the physics and maths did not add up if we assumed it weren't. This alone changed my belief in "No God" completely.

As for Creationism, I still maintain that it is not a scientific theory. Its latest reincarnation (Intelligent Design) was no good, either. It failed many criteria which constitute a scientific theory. The most obviously violated criterion is Occam's Razor which states that the invocation of a supernatural being in forming the basis of the claim must not be employed. I'm not saying that believing in a Creator is intellectually lazy but science must be separated from religion because if we stop asking questions, we will not advance. Creationism and its cousins, in effect, attribute everything we see, think, know, etc. to the doings of an almighty being. Recall that Galileo was forced to deny his newly found and correct heliocentrism because of the enormous influence of the church which taught that our universe was geocentric. This, among various other examples, was precisely why a religiously motivated teaching would hinder progress.

That said, there is a higher being, I'm sure, but perhaps He didn't do everything. Like an inventor, you make a product, which continues producing other things. You yourself haven't made the products that your creation produces. Given this series of arguments, we can reasonably say that God, perhaps, created something (perhaps certain laws of nature) that governed the flow of life which was and is and will be responsible for everything around us. Now that's a new fork of Creationism I just spontaneously devised.

About the Big Bang, we now know and can explain EVERYTHING that happened about 10^(- 49) seconds after its conception (if it did happen). The mystery lies in that 10^-49s interval, which is now thought to be exisitng in a totally different environment in which our current knowledge of maths and physics did not apply (in short, things behaved in an odd manner at that time, which ceased soon afterwards). You, too, might want to ask if 1 plus 1 was actually 2 during that mysterious period.

And finally, the LHC. Great news!

Let me assure you that it may malfunction (uh oh...) but rigorous assessments indicated that even if a problem arises (let's hope it won't), the duration will be so short that a black hole won't have time to form. This is the word from the CERN scientists, so take it or leave it.

have a nice day. ^^

EDIT: No, koager, we did not evolve from monkeys. We came from apes. lol... they aren't the same so if you say monkeys, they will have reasons to argue back.

Come down off your cross, somebody needs the wood. I have a differing opinion and you play the martyr card, how very typical. I grow tired of your backwards assumption that I, making no claims about God whatsoever, somehow must disprove the existence of such a being. You expect me to prove a negative? This is very telling in how you approach rational thought and proof. I've said one must present evidence for a claim and you say you've seen the same evidence I have and draw different conclusions. This is akin to saying I dopped a pencil and instead of gravity acting upon it, it was lifted by a legion of angels. I know you aren't a fool, but that statement is foolish.

I do assert that it is intellectually lazy to ascribe the unkown to a deity. Its merely a cop-out. There would be no point in trying to accomplish ANY sort of scientific progress if there is some sort of supernatural force behind the scenes mucking about. I'd be absolutely terrified of getting on an airplane because some cosmic trickster decided to change the laws of physics on a whim. Why bother to learn about rain, or space, or the natural world? Its much easier to say "God did it!" than apply critical thinking.

If overwhelming evidence would be produced that shows evidence of a deity, I would be swayed. I am always open to the evidence. The same with elves, unicorns, fairies, and Russell's teapot.

As for other cosmological models, yes, they exist, and yes, some of them do have some merit for further study. As for now, the "Big Bang" is the best one that fits the observations. I've never claimed it was the only one. Yes, "best" is a bit subjective, I admit. Again, that's the beauty of science. No one claims to be absolutely right on every matter. We leave that up to the religious demagogues.

Edit to lamz:
Finally, someone reasonable. I hate to burst your bubble about that particular hands-off creator model, though. Its called deism and was very influential in the thinkers behind the American Revolution. I thought about bringing Occam's Razor into this, but figured I'd sound even more pretentious than I'm sure I already am.

Edit to koager: You are correct. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We share a very, very distant ancestor as with other primates. We're actually apes, as lamz said.

and people like to say that christians are closed minded. huh

ohhh well it is obvious that you believe only your truth is possible while anyone with a different opionion is wrong.

you use science to back up your attacks on people of faith that don't have the same opinion than you do.

I am sorry that what I wanted here was an open dialog that could discuss different opinions but what you want is someone to attack.

I am not trying to be a martyr but I see you can only call names and make attempts to belittle me.

no, Manz, no. I don't think JT has been rejecting your arguments blindly.

It's just that the fundamental tenet of science is that everything has to be observable and detectable AND, most importantly, no assumption of a deity (Occam's Razor). The last criterion has been passionately disputed by many religious advocates who believe that the assumption of a deity is also a good enough start for a theory. Going back to what JT and I said earlier, the reason why Occam's Razor exists is to ensure a a continuous, constantly renewed idea which is used to assess and explain a given phenomenon. We have progressed this far because of that.

Have you ever wondered why within a decade of our time, we are almost close to creating a quantum computer (super fast computer) and space travelling is now a reality and excitingly, the prospect of the "then sci-fi only" teletransportation, whereas during the millennium of religious ruling in Europe, they only managed to come up with beautiful architecture and scattered scientific discoveries? True advancements were realised when all those states became secular and Science Academies turned up like never before.

Christianity, like other religions, is a system of beliefs. There's nothing wrong with forming a personal belief and view on the world around us. Science, however, is the source of human intellectual strength and its survival relies on our repeated attempts to ask and find answers and then ask again when something unexpected shows up. Darwin's theory of evolution has been modified since his time (Darwin got the idea but we needed to refine it). With the advent of molecular biology, evolutionary theory is now defined as follows:

I had to find the quote to prove that I'm not making it up.

All in all, Manz, you are not "closed minded". No one here is. I don't think so. It's just that religion and science have been irreconcilable because of their conflicting interests. Religion nourishes faith whereas science promotes informed scepticism (note the presence of the word "informed", meaning you have to assess everything carefully, not just sitting idle and saying "nah" to someone's proposal). In your view, God seems to be the reasonable explanation and yes, it is, in a religious context. Intelligent Design, for example, was not rejected on the spot. The science community did examine it thoroughly and found that its major flaw is the one unknown being at its core doing magic. Thus, we can't possibly ask any more questions because we simply don't need to. It would be the end of science and, hence, our advancement.

EDIT: I kept making typos. Kt, it's your fault! LOL

Again, thank you lamz, you understand. Hopefully you can phrase it in ways that I'm not. I do tend to come on a bit strong, but that's probably because I've grown up in the Southern US where people with these irrational beliefs are actively trying to make them public policy. I also grew up under the tuetelage of a very uncompromising Baptist pastor (which happened to be my grandfather.) I have the same fire and brimstone style of invective, except my passion is for reason and science.

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean that it should be held in equal in value to my own or others. This leads to what is commonly referred to as moral relativism, a position I'm sure neither one of us will agree is right.

I have rigoursly come to my conclusions based on the evidence at hand; should I not defend them? I've said several times in this discussion that if there is evidence for a diety, I'd like to examine it. I am closed off to no position supported by evidence, at least until I've reviewed said evidence.

I am not trying to belittle you as a person, but I do use mockery to show the flaws in your statements and tactics (the martyr card, overplayed by apologists for centuries). As Edmund Burke said, "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

You have a fan Hraesvelg. I personally do not believe in God, not primarily because of the lack of evidence, though that is one of the reasons, but because belief in God refutes everything I have ever believed about humans: rational thought. I really could not believe my ears when my parents tried to make me believe in a guy with a thousand heads who could flick his fingers and make rain appear. Once I read Greek mythology, my unbelief was confirmed. If gods were going to be so fickle, then I'll have no quarrel with them. I don't see piles of evidence supporting the big bang either but its definitely a tad (more than a tad) more than that supporting a guy who flicks his fingers, makes the universe, and disappears to some retreat, never to be seen or heard of again.

man, i wish i hadn't seen this thread so late.

anyways, back to the topic at hand, quantum cosmology is just a facinating subject is it not? stuff like this really gets the nerd in me excited.

Lol, I love how a lot of threads I've read that start out talking about the LHC end up in some philosophical war...

I know that I'm not as learned as either of you, but can't you go about your life without stomping on somebody else's beliefs? Christianity and other religions give comfort (to some people), so you coming in and trashing it is like me taking away your house. Samething goes for science, some people take comfort in figuring things outs cuz we fear the unknown, usually...

Anyways, the world isn't gonna end, scientists've been accelerating particles for awhile, just not at the speed of light... So if the world was gonna end, it would've already been destroyed by a black hole.

BTW personally, I think the two protons are just gonna bounce off each other and everybody's gonna be disappointed that they wasted $10 billion :laugh:

Actually, from what I understand, scientists are exceptionally pleased with results.

Except the LHC is now damaged and out of commission for a while about a week in.... :sigh:

Out of commission for about 2 months.

Why is it damaged? o_o

i heard its not so much its damaged outright. its more of an issue of machining tolerances being off.

Yeah, one of their super-conducting electromagnets got damaged. The reason it's taking so long to repair is because they have to heat that magnet steadily from near-absolute zero, repair it and then slowly cool it back steadily.

You guys do realise they havnt actually collided anything yet right ?

The Wednesday were everyone thought it was colliding they were just sending the particles around both ways as a test. They wont start colliding then till the end of the year.
But now that it's damaged it will be January~May before they collide them.

Did you know that what scientists are trying to detect with the hadron collider is 1/1000000000 the size of an atom....Let me just remind you that atoms are etremely small in and of themselves



---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...-destroy-earth

this should prove for some interesting reading if you wanted to know more

Edit Button....

And yeah Atoms are pretty small. i heard they were trying to find the Higgs Bosun ? The God particle ?
If they do it will Prove that God didnt create us.

That's not entirely true, because a theist can always claim that a diety created that particle.

We may disagree on anything but one thing for certain: we share the same view on science.

"How did life begin?"
"God particles created us"
"Then who created the God particles?"

I'd say we shouldn't try to prove that God didn't exist because by religious logic, He always has existed, is exisitng and will be there, for eternity and beyond time that encases our understanding.

Some people get mixed up. It's not a scientist's job to prove there isn't a god. It's a scientist's/theist's job to prove there IS a god. If one makes a claim, one must support that claim.

You know it's strange...who created God particles? God did. Then who created god? He has always existed. Then why can't we just say that the universe has always existed? Why can't we say it's an endless cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches? Why do we have to envision a superhuman entity to create the universe? Because the universe has no explanation? What then, is the explanation for the superhuman entity? Allow me to quote Douglas Adams here:

The problem is, as my religious friends love to bring up, everything that has an end has a beginning. We're limited to our understanding of space and time.

Religous people have no problems with accepting there is a God whose power works beyond space and time. This sprang from my four years of being in contact with friends from Islam and Christianity, and that I have slowly accepted and adopted the fact that that is what they believe and there's nothing wrong with forming that belief.

In science, except in mathematics-related areas, I was taught not to "prove" a hypothesis but provide comprehensive analysis to either "support" or "refute" it. That the experimental designs may give overwhelming support for something now doesn't mean it can't be overturned later.

God is neither mathematical nor biological because we don't know what/who God is. That merely putting a God there, outside our equations of currently accepted knowledge and abstaining from discussing "God" (or in my language, just a higher being), is, to me, satisfactory. I no longer have a strong belief against "God" but I don't cite "God" in explaining something. There is just so much that I don't know, we don't know that we should just be happy experimenters who like to research until we see something that "miraculously" (a true miracle, in fact, because I have no idea what sort of evidence this might be) points to the existence/nonexistence of "God".

If they have no problems with accepting a being outside space, time and our comprehension, then why can't they accept that the universe is endless? (Mind you this is not a theory that I'm advocating, I'm just showing that it has as much evidence as a theory about god). I find it hard to believe that so many people across the world are willing to subvert their intelligence to a being that supposedly, "we cannot comprehend". If your friends like to bring up that everything has a beginning and an end, ask them how god "began" and when he will "end". God began in our minds, and I can only hope he will end soon.