In response to:

The "God-Particle" and God

David3655 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 1:37 PM
I do not understand why so many think there has to be a creator OR evolution? Personally, I believe in both. Quite honestly, to say there is no God is like saying there is no starting point. If the Universe is constantly expanding and creatures evolving, then those two things alone prove there must be a starting point: aka - God.
Tacitus X Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 1:54 PM
The starting point for the known universe is the Big Bang, which is when time began. Prior to the Big Bang there was no "time" since time is a measure of relative motion between entities, e.g., the Earth around the Sun, the Earth on its axis, etc. Positing a god doesn't solve the First Cause problem because then who created God? You get an infinite regress. Physicist Stephen Hawking (not noted for being particularly stupid) has proposed a "No Boundaries Universe" where time has no starting point, it simply IS.
togubin Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 2:25 PM
You seem to be arguing both sides.

Big Bang implies a starting point. Stephen Hawking says "no starting point".

I don't see how both can be correct.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 2:28 PM

A God who needed some other to create Him, wouldn't be God. There is no regress.

The Big Bang is quite believably what took place in the beginning. God said, "Let there be light," and like photons on command, Light was the Bang.

This is virtually how it's revealed by God's prophet.

Milt37 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 2:28 PM
Tacitus X,

Very good points.

Of course, I have an engineering degree, and studied science most of life, so I'm more fascinated by how the Big Bang created the Universe as we know it today. Your point about "who created" God was the same question that got me moving away from religion when I about 10 yrs. old.

I don't mean any offense to the religious people at TH, but the Big Bang-evolution theories are more amazing to me, than some magicain God pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 2:43 PM
He says this because asking what was before the Big Bang is akin to asking what's north of the north pole. The question doesn't make sense and has no logical answer.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 2:55 PM

It's not about YOU, Milt; unfortunately. Many men wiser than you have quit the faith. Dante wrote about it. Over the gateway to the Inferno is a great carving that says:

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

Tacitus X Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 6:40 PM
The problem is that if you say God had no prior cause, you've left yourself no grounds for objecting to someone saying the universe itself is eternal had no prior cause. The crux of the "First Cause" argument is the assumption that everything requires a prior cause.
Tacitus X Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 6:45 PM
There's one big difference: we have evidence that our universe exists. We have no evidence of a supernatural being beyond its limits. Hawking's theories are (while speculative) mathematically based. Not so with beliefs about gods.
Dave M Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 7:49 PM
Physics at this level is just this way. SInce the discovery of relativity and uncertainty principles we know that
1. Physics is totally counter-intuitive.
2. Although we may have trouble wrapping our arms around the principle - it is certainly possible that there was no time. It is also possible that there was no time before the big bang-time space-time was created by the big bang. Like I said counter-intuitive.
3. The God v no-God argument is one that I don't generally bother with. It is un-falsifiable and thus doesn't lend itself to scientific inquiry.
4. The big bang leads to testable-verifiable results. To date those results within our capability to test all support the big-bang theory
Dave M Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 7:50 PM
In number 2 the term in the first sentence should have the word "Start" time at the end as in "No start time"
They found the "God-Particle."

That was the headline in many of America's news media. It turns out that the name actually derives from substituting "God-particle" for "goddamn particle," the original name some scientists had given the elusive particle. But the media adopted the former nomenclature.


Because otherwise, the bulk of humanity would not pay attention. Physicists went nuts. And no one can blame them. For decades, they have searched for the particle that may explain why there is any mass in the universe. And ten billion dollars were spent on the machine that probably proved its existence.

It is therefore not meant in...

Related Tags: Science God physicians