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: 1488

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The name of the particle has absolutely nothing to do with god, in the way you are thinking.

Basically it is called the "god particle" because it is believed to be the particle that gives everything mass.

It is the granddaddy of all particles. It has nothing to do with an all powerful entity.

......and Catholics are rejoicing with the discovery as they heard it can give Mass........ouch..

A Higgs Boson walks into a church, the priest says, "We don't allow Higgs Bosons in here."
The Higgs Boson says, "But without me, how can you have mass?"

Why make statements on the properties of nothing?  Have you ever actually observed nothing?  Think about how problematic that really is.  Quantum physicists have come the closest to the best of my knowledge, and their results run contrary to your position.  

That Laurence Krauss vid on 'A Universe From Nothing' must have been linked somewhere in this conversation already.  Somewhere around the 18:30 mark he gets into it.  I am neither a quantum physicist nor a cosmologist, so I entertain the overall talk as a possible explanation, not the gospel truth.  That said, the position Krauss takes in the video is not merely an 'idea'; it is an idea with evidentiary support.  

Sure, you don't have to accept the things said in that video, and if it really doesn't make sense to you then it doesn't make sense to you -- that's fine.  All the same, it cannot be treated as a matter of mere supposition or opinion.

I thought you were suggesting that the idea that something cannot come from nothing contributes to your position that 'the infinite' is likely to exist.  My apologies if I misunderstood.


When I suggest infinitely regressing causes, I'm doing the exact opposite of suggesting that something came from nothing - I'm suggesting that what little we see came from an infinite history of cause/effect.  When I suggest that at some point cause and effect could have been decoupled, I am again not suggesting something from nothing - simply a decoupling of cause and effect, which seems consistent with what we are learning about quantum mechanics.

You stated that the 'laws of science' say that everything has a beginning - I've asked you to specify which laws those are.  You have yet to state those laws.

Saying that something might not have a beginning is not the same as saying 'something came from nothing'.  It could as easily mean that something might not have a beginning - as it it always existed.  It could also mean that something arose out of a state where time, space, and matter did not intersect - decoupled cause/effect.

Your continued assertion that everything must have a beginning, and refusal to acknowledge either an infinite history of cause/effect or a state of decouple cause/effect, precludes the existence of the god that you suggest answers these questions.

I'm also waiting on the laws of science that you claim preclude abiogenesis, or information from non-information.

The god hypothesis has no predictive utility, creates more questions than it answers, and inserts paradoxes where there were none.  Please don't suggest your arrival at a god hypothesis was scientific.  Are you going to seriously tell me that you were raised in an Atheist setting and just stumbled upon Christianity in college?  What consideration did you give to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism?  Or did you just fall into the religion of your family and community because it was the most convenient one in terms of finding a temple to perform your religious rites of worship?

brindle, brindle, brindle, you discount scientific theories (and BTW, Gravity is still considered a theory too, but I wouldn't recommend leaping from any tall buildings to test it), and yet you replace those, the products of much research from learned minds, with your opinion, "the infinite created the finite"?

Tell me the truth - are you 12? 13?

I find a lot of religious people don't understand that the word "theory" has two primary meanings: one is as a conjecture aimed at explaining something ("I have a theory that I left my glasses at the checkout lane in the grocery store"). The other meaning is as a set of accepted premisses that tend to organize and explain a subject matter and suggest testable predictions.


I like to ask them if they think that 'Music Theory' means we still question whether or not music has occurred.

Kris, I believe science is finding that there really is no such thing as empty space, if that is the sort of "nothing" being referred to. Space, it turns out, has become a substance again. We gave up the idea of "ether" filling so-called empty space and accepted that empty space was, well, just empty. Now physicists see so-called empty space as granular or foamy deep deep down on the sub-subatomic level. It has to be a substance, else how can it be stretched and/or compressed by the gravity of massive objects?

Veeeeery interesting - all of Brindle's comments have been deleted --

I don't know what brindle expected here, but it would seem that the site did not meet their needs.


Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 6 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service