Comments on: I’m with Dennis Prager on this one: the “God particle” does not negate the possibility that there is a God

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:32:04 +0000

It’s actually pretty funny that the left thinks of itself as smart and using facts and logic, when they are the most ignorant, stupid people you’ll ever meet.

If the left holds position A, you can almost automatically assume that position B is the more common sense, reasonable and logical one. Works like a charm!

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:26:27 +0000

For the record: evolution exists of course. But who drives evolution? That is the interesting question.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:25:15 +0000

If you examine the ‘natural selection’ theory that supposedly drives evolution with facts and logic, it’s the most hilarious thing you’ve ever heard. Rolling over the floor laughing hilarious. Kind of makes you embarrased about the human race, that so many educated people actuallie believe in it.

One example. Life supposedly starts ad random in pools filled with ooze, right? And then cells multiply, and turn into dinosaurs, and into birds etc. But: all those lifeforms are based on DNA. And what is DNA? It’s just an information carrier, just like a floppy disk, or a USB drive, or a CD, or a DVD, or a BlueRay etc. Now, if life starts at random, why is all life based on DNA? Why isn’t some life based on ENA, or FNA, or GNA? DNA is just the information carrier, there is no reason why all life would be based on it. But it is. Which leads to the logical conclusion, that there was someone who decided to use DNA. And this decider guy (or girl) we call him God.

Just facts and logic, nothing more, nothing less

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:13:13 +0000

Hi Bookworm,

It’s not a matter of ‘believing’ in God, it’s a matter of ‘knowing’. You can know that God exists, just as you can know that a company called Apple exists. How? Well, by using facts and logic.
- An iPhone has a maker. It’s this company called Apple.
- We/the world have a maker too. It’s this entity called God (this is the old ‘watchmaker argument’ by the way)

You cannot ‘prove’ that Apple exists by scientifically examining an iPhone.
And you cannot ‘prove’ that God exists by scientifically examining the World. Still, they both exist.

It just facts and logic, nothing more, nothing less. And we know who hates facts and logic – those crazy people on the left

By: Simplemind

Simplemind — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:15:17 +0000

“None of this required a belief in a made up entity.” No. 6

Of course not. That’s not the assertion.

I believe evolution supports the argument that this universe is designed rather than random.

My assertion is — does an absurdly random series of events that results in this physical universe, also just happen to result in a type of universe that is ultimately a decision engine where the subjects are not only free to choose but required to choose in order to survive/evolve?

One says evolution is the answer to why things are the way they are. But I find it not at all difficult to imagine a universe where we don’t have to fend for survival utilizing limited resources, and in such a universe evolution per se isn’t necessary.

For example if you drew your food an water from the air and light. (Imagine the physics so there is a greater density of water in the atmosphere, or perhaps you are a fish for example. And your shelter you carried around with you like a turtle. ) Really no motive to steal or rob is there? (Asexual reproduction and no need for lust.) As such those choices are denied to you by the design of “nature” if you will. Read some good science fiction. These types of universes are imaginable.

Why is this universe the way it is? It just coincidentally happens to be a great decision laboratory for humans, who by design, are forced to act in order to survive.

So I agree that evolution plays a role in the way society and beliefs develop. I simply say, evolution didn’t have to be a factor at all if this universe were designed differently. Evolution occurs because the environment forces it – scarcity, competition, etc.

Would you feel tempted to steal if you had no need of material possessions, or no shortage?

When was the last time you were tempted to steal someone’s oxygen? That is a resource that is freely available and abundant to all, even the poorest.

Can you imagine a universe in which you had to work for your oxygen in order to breath it.

The point is not that evolution doesn’t exist, it does. Evolution exists because this system forces you to choose, and in choosing we change according to our choices. Evolutionists of a certain stripe believe that the change evolution brings is largely physcially, and somewhat social. I am arguing that it is also ethical/spiritual, and that this is not a mere coincidence. Its simply asking too much to say that it is. At least for me, I accept that your mileage my vary. I believe some people think evolution and creation are not compatible. I totally disagree that evolution is incompatible with a created/designed universe as I hope you can glean from the mutterings above. Evolution would be consistent with a designer who wanted subjects with the free will to choose, who were also required to choose, and incentivized to choose wisely, and for the good. (I am also asserting that evil, as compared to good, is a poor long term survival strategy, individually, socially, politically).

The conditions of a given universe are variable. I do not think this one had be the way it is.

You would not have to look far to find a scientist who would say that there are many other universes, and conditions aren’t the same in those universes as they are here.

I do not however, represent my opinion as revealed truth, or representative of any religion. There is a chance I could be completely wrong. I just happen to think that if you start from first principles and question everything, there are too many improbabilities to account for, especially when the system we are left with appears to so obviously require moral decision making every freaking day. Especially if you concede that the physics in a given universe can be variable. If so, it is a ripe irony indeed that this universe, improbable as it is physically, also just happens to be wonderfully designed to require development — evolution (again not just physical but also ethical/spiritual.)

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:02:43 +0000

Well said, Hammer and Kevin_B.

By: Kevin_B

Kevin_B — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:24:56 +0000

I’m going to give a few comments on these. There’s probably not a whole lot of coherence going on here.

First of all, the discovery of the Higgs boson is great. Scientists made a theory (long ago), they have experimented and tested a lot, and they have now proven that theory was probably correct. Well done. As someone who likes science, I like and appreciate that, and definitely applaud it.

Science, although, has, in my opinion at least, nothing to say about whether God exists or not. That is one of my beefs with the militant atheists… I have no problem with people not believing in God, but I don’t like science being used for something it really can’t or shouldn’t be used for.

When it comes to this name “the God particle”… that sounds like something a lousy journalist would come up with. It doesn’t really sound much like a term a scientist would come up with. I prefer using the term Higgs boson.

As for faith and reason, I think they can coexist well. I also think there is a place for both. There is no inherent conflict, I believe.

Regarding the origin of the universe… as a theist, I believe a ‘supreme being’ has played a role in the origin, evolution and development of the universe and of life on earth. This is not to discredit the scientific theories and explanations. As to life on earth, I am a theistic evolutionist – and I believe nearly all of the scientific explanations (evolutionary theory, Darwinism, Big Bang et cetera) are valid, but I also believe these are part of how the supreme being works, and that the supreme being may have intervened at some points. As for the origin and evolution of the universe and of life, I believe pretty strongly that science and the supreme being can and should coexist, and that they both are a part of the explanation. Also, the current scientific theories, and I recognize that, have their flaws and gaps.

Last but not least, I want to say this. As I said, I really like science. I also think that science is a great way to discover, try to understand and marvel at what the supreme being and nature have created. But still, however much we have already discovered as humans, and however much we may still discover, we still know very little. There is no reason for arrogance and know-it-all pride.

By: roylofquist

roylofquist — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:41:19 +0000

How was the Universe created? That’s not a very interesting question. The Universe as a whole is not very complex. We have all the tools – mathematics and physics – to explain what is. The problems extant are those of fitting the observations to the equations.

How was life created? Nobody knows. Science offers no plausible, nor even far fetched, explanations.

What is life? DNA – deoxyribonucleic acid. The very simplest DNA like molecule is carsonella ruddii, an endosymbiotic bacteria that lives in plant lice, which has a genome of only 159,662 base pairs. There are 4 base pairs – A,C,T and G. The possible combinations of base pairs is 4 raised to the 159,662 power or 4 ^ 159,662 (4^2=16, 4^3=64, 4^4 = 256, etc.). That number is impossibly large. No calculator available can handle it. It requires calculations that I haven’t done in more than 40 years. As a taste, 4^100 = 1.6 x 10^60 – that is, 16 followed by 59 zeros. For perspective, the number of seconds since the big bang (20 billion years) is 6.3 x 10^17.

Random combination of base pairs can not produce viable DNA, yet it is all around us. It was created by an unknown intelligence. Might as well call it, or them, God.

By: gpc31

gpc31 — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:14:30 +0000

Highly recommend a witty and fun new book by Jim Holt called “The Puzzle of Existence”.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:19:13 +0000

Regarding the origin of the universe, I suspect that if there was some intelligent agency involved in that event, it may be that its nature does not bow to our speculations about what it should or should not be thinking or aiming at. I would find believers’ desire to address such an entity in awe-ful and respectful terms to be a little bit more understandable than people who dismiss the idea of an adorable creator simply because their 1400 cc of brain matter don’t feel comfortable with the idea.

I’m with Book on the question of the “God particle.” How did it originate? (or are we going to submit to some modern physicists’ ludicrous contention that something can emerge from nothing? Perhaps “emanations and penumbras” preceded the Big Bang?)

Some get around that question by saying the universe has always existed. The problem with that contention is that time extends infinitely in both directions in such a universe, past and future, therefore this moment cannot possibly exist because the infinite number of moments that precede it have yet to pass.

The Hindus cleverly get around this by saying that while the universe has always existed, it goes through repeating lebenty-zillion-year cycles. This allows us to point at this moment and say that we’re on such-and-such point of the current cycle, which is exactly like all the cycles that came before and all the cycles to come. Nifty!