In response to:

The "God-Particle" and God

Michael1872 Wrote: Jul 10, 2012 10:53 AM
You are confusing "moral" with "meaningful". Does being "moral", as defined by the codes of your religion, provide your life with meaning? You may be right that morality cannot be objectively defined (I can't do it, so I'll give you that point) - but that does not mean that it requires a religion or a deity to define it subjectively. Anyone could just as easily define morality as, for example, "murder is wrong on Thursdays" or "murder is wrong unless you are murdering an infidel / rapist / Yankees' fan / whatever". That morality could be based on anything; no religion / deity required. Similarly, perhaps some people believe life would be meaningless without God. I disagree - my life is plenty meaningful to me.
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