Possibly a deist god?

Please note, I am not saying that this does prove a god, I am simply asking a question. I am concerned about this particle being referred to as "The God Particle". 

Why is it called The God Particle? Is this an attempt to be very misleading or is there some other reason it was called this?

Tags: atheism, deism, existence, god, of

Views: 1463

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've heard of anal retentive. Are you a urethral retentive?

Apparently not.

@Brindle,

I'm an atheist because I have no faith in a deity, I'm not an atheist because science has proven that there is no god, nor am I awaiting the scientific evidence that a deity does not exist. 

You as a theist should await such evidence as you do not hold the "null hypothesis" on this issue, you are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists which of course is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that (your) god(s) does not exist, my position as an atheist is simply a lack of belief in god(s). So, what double standard are we really talking about, spell it out for me if you want. Let's be clear about things before we start to criticize each other on our assumptions of the other's position.

@Brindle

None of us are threatened by the question.  Some of us ARE disgusted by the lack of intellectual integrity with which the likes of you approach the answer.

Ok, here's constructive - if you won't offer any evidence for the existence of your god, and suggest it is up to me to prove that your delusion doesn't exist before I regard it without merit, then why don't YOU tell me why you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns?

Although they weren't invisible, there actually WERE two pink unicorns aboard the ark - unfortunately for their lineage, their names were Adam and Steve --

The laws of science tell us that everything has a beginning.  Information cannot come from non-information or life from non-life.

Ehh... that's questionable.  Just to be sure we are aon the same page, the laws of science describe; they do not dictate.  Thus far, science describes either what we can observe or what we can infer from observation.  It's well known when it comes to the origins of our universe that there are observational limitations, so making extreme statements about where things can or cannot come from isn't all that meaningful.  Even saying that the universe cannot come from God is not all that meaningful.  I think most would say there is simply no evidence that the universe comes from God, which is different.  In terms of where the universe did originate from, there are still competing scientific hypotheses on that one, none of which seem to require a deity at this point.

Science does not dictate that life cannot arise from non-life; there is a branch of science dedicated specifically to that issue.  Abiogenesis may not be fully understood, but it would would be patently false to claim that science rules it out.

As for information coming from non-information, this is an argument that will quickly become a matter of semantics, but is almost certainly wrong.  Humans have derived massive amounts of information from non-information.  The properties of a rock, for instance, are not information in and of themselves, yet in observing those properties, we can generate information.  In terms of intelligence, evolutionary studies do give us some indication of how the trait arose though natural selection and the benefits it serves.  

In terms of DNA, calling DNA information can be misleading.  DNA is a component in a set of biochemical reactions that produce certain results.  Those results happen to be functional in propagating themselves, thus they propagate.  Because we, humans, are the end result of a certain set of DNA, we happen to place a great deal of significance on the specific patter of that DNA.  The fact that some of the instructions code to form the fingers I am using to type this message makes it seem like the DNA was specifically coded with information designed to generate fingers.  The more likely explanation is that fingers, as one possibility out of incalculable possibilities formed, and happened to be functional for the survival of the host organism, thus this process of genetic materials pattering the formation of fingers propagates.  There is no specific significance to fingers in themselves and no evidence that they were designed to fulfill a specific function.

Biomechanical machines is a redundant, and largely useless term without context (and it's also redundant).  You can understand the functions or 'mechanics' of biological structures.  You could create machines out of biological components.  You could create machines that augment biological components.  That said, naturally occurring organic structures should not be termed 'machines' outside of analogy.  That belies what the word 'machine' actually means, and without any strong evidence of design, it's an assumption or wishful thinking at best.

As for your ideas being disregarded, that's not really true.  Most of the ideas are simply regarded by your average TA member as not true or not substantiated.  It's not like we just waive them off without any consideration.

So, as I expected, no answer.  You maintain that your skyfairy is a logically valid hypothesis, even with a complete lack of evidence, yet won't even engage the invisible pink unicorn.

If you won't even engage the invisible pink unicorn - then why should any of us have you engage our lack of belief in your skyfairy?

The answer, of course, is your complete lack of intellectual integrity.

Question, brindle, from whence comes your impression (call it knowledge if you like) that there IS a god - the Bible?

Could you please name the particular laws of science that tell us that 'everything has a beginning'? That sounds to me more like a philosophical argument than a scientific law.

Secondly, could you explain why you have discounted the possibilities of infinitely regressing causes and/or the decoupling of cause/effect past the horizon at which we can be certain that time coincides with space?

What law of science says that abiogenesis is impossible?  What about information from non-information?

@brindle - First, I wouldn't have asked for your opinion if I didn't want it, and secondly, if you incur more wrath, while I can't speak for anyone else, it won't come from me.

I DO wish you had started a new paragraph, or whatever they're called, as we're out of reply buttons.

RE: "The laws of science tell us that everything has a beginning.  Information cannot come from non-information or life from non-life."

You began your premise with two incorrect statements - hardly a good start - first, there are scientific theories that the Universe has existed forever in one state or another, and even if that were ultimately proven not to be true, your statement itself implies that if everything has a beginning, then your creator/designer falls into that category - what has science to say about his/her/its beginning?

And secondly, all indications are that life did indeed arise from non-life - from a combination of amino acids. The features you attribute to a "designer" arose quite naturally through the process of evolution.

Your serve --

BTW, you're keeping me from mowing my lawn - how could I be wrathful at anyone who does me that kind of favor?

Oboy --

I gonna go mow the lawn now --

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service