Large Hadron Collider

[Hraesvelg]

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

[lamchopz]

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.

[Hraesvelg]

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.

[Vasu]

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:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to
believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

[lamchopz]

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".

[Vasu]

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.

[Pedobear]

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.

Main Entry:
1faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

[Vasu]

Your point? I'm not trying to be rude. I just didn't understand why you posted that.

[lamchopz]

I take it that "the universe is endless" means our universe undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction, birth and rebirth (because the universe is still expanding according to our latest theory that has been supported by observations).

The common response you'll get for "Who created God?" will be something like "He's beyond our understanding, so we don't question where He came from because we will/can never know". It's faith as Pedobear cited.

I am an agnostic who believes there is a higher being but doesn't follow an established religion because of that ignorant and vague explanation of God's origin. You can say I'm sitting on the fence and that my approach will be "when you discuss science, don't bring up God". For me, science is about using what we know to explain phenomena, not invoking something/someone that we can only believe exists without further support apart from conjectures and speculations. I no longer have a strong belief against "God" but I don't cite "God" in explaining something.

In science, apart from mathematics-related areas, I was taught not to "prove" a hypothesis, but only to "support" or "refute" it. That the experimental designs give overwhelming support for something doesn't mean it can't be overturned later. That something as wonderful as quantum mechanics has in it many mysteries kind of amuses me when I study it. There are just things you should not ask, or bother to ask in quantum mechanics. It's sometimes nicked "shut up and calculate" physics (but don't take it literally).

You may be interested in The Flat Earth Society that advocates biblical descriptions of the world by turning the modern scientific tools onto themselves (Einstein will rise from his grave if he read what they did to his relativity). Marvellous minds in the wrong can of thoughts. Seemingly convincing but fallacious at its core. Read and don't fall into their trap. It looks real. You just have to know where it's wrong. Enjoy.

[Hraesvelg]

That's the wonder of quantum mechanics. We know all of the answers until we are asked the questions.


(Just a joke, of course, sort of a Schrödinger's exam...)