Scientists to unveil proof of ‘God particle’

[bobcollum]

You assume my belief system. I'm not an atheist, because in the words of George Will, "I'm not that decisive", but it's also why I don't worship a god. You're correct in noting that I believe everything can be explained, however you once again assume that I have a motive other than finding factual answers, which I don't. If it turns out there is hard evidence proving the existence of a god besides 'I don't know what else it could be', well guess what I'm going to accept?

Your belief system precludes the existence of God, simple fact. That does not make you an atheist, anymore than my belief in the existence of God makes me a Catholic. I am not making assumptions about your beliefs.

Based on my statement at the end of this post, you'd have to admit that I don't try to prevent the existence of a god through my beliefs. My beliefs are based upon my own logical reasoning, and if I found it logical to be religious I would be. If one day I feel that it's logical for whatever reason to worship a god, than I will. I don't fight any urge, or ignore any information that would change my mind.

I want to point out something, math has proven that it is impossible to know everything. Science did not do this, scientists, rightly, refuse to believe that there are questions it is impossible to answer.

Me, being a contradictory and stubborn human being, can accept that math has conclusively proven it is impossible to have all the answers, and still strive for all the answers.

Fair enough, I personally am aware that it's impossible for one human to know everything, so it's conceivable that as a species it would be the same. Tell me, at what point do you determine when we're heading down a futile path on any particular scientific theory? As stated before, the theory of the Higgs has been around since 1964 if I remember correctly, what if someone had decided that it wasn't going to be solved? This thread wouldn't be here, for one...

Thanks for the answer. I have to ask is it evidence, or in all actuality a lack of evidence on the scientific end that has led you to conclude that god is real?

It is evidence. The evidence happens to be coincidental, and mostly subjective, but it is still evidence.

Well seriously, what would you say if someone tried to use that argument against you? Doesn't have to be the same topic either...you'd be less than receptive I'd guess.

Link to what? The Bible? The fact that Jews were often thought of as evil because they did not get sick when everyone else in a city got the plague?

Instead of wondering about the basis of my belief system you might want to examine the basis of yours.

That's that subjective evidence you spoke of apparently.

Of course it doesn't, because the fact that a human being is constrained by ethical and legal choices in no way proves that it is logically consistent to presume that God might have similar constraints.

Okay then, why did you use it to try to make a point?

What evidence do you have of that other than your own prejudice? (I will admit that koshergirl might be a tad unwilling to accept evidence as definitive at first, but that does not mean she is going to reject it altogether.

I asked PC earlier, and like my initial post, she ignored it. She really hasn't been very cooperative in this thread, and basically started this whole discussion.

I see absolutely no reason to suspect that there is a god besides a lack of an explanation at this time from a scientific standpoint, but that doesn't make the grade as evidence, not to me anyway.

Yet you demand grade a evidence of His existence.

Interesting.

Why is it interesting? It's consistent with everything I've said on this board. I demand grade a evidence from science as well, what have I said that would make you think otherwise? In fact, find the quotes and put them in your next post.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works.

Period.

It probably will be able to in the future, but I am perfectly comfortable saying it cannot.

Care to elaborate on this? As far as I am concerned GR does a great job on explaining how gravity works. Not only does it explain it, but it has been tested thousands of times and is incredibly accurate. As far as I know, the only time that it hasn't worked is in situations that we can't even examine, such as black holes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Based on my statement at the end of this post, you'd have to admit that I don't try to prevent the existence of a god through my beliefs. My beliefs are based upon my own logical reasoning, and if I found it logical to be religious I would be. If one day I feel that it's logical for whatever reason to worship a god, than I will. I don't fight any urge, or ignore any information that would change my mind.

What did you just say that contradicts my statement that your belief system precludes the existence of God? I appreciate that you like to believe that you are open minded about it, but you saying that does not make it true.

Fair enough, I personally am aware that it's impossible for one human to know everything, so it's conceivable that as a species it would be the same. Tell me, at what point do you determine when we're heading down a futile path on any particular scientific theory? As stated before, the theory of the Higgs has been around since 1964 if I remember correctly, what if someone had decided that it wasn't going to be solved? This thread wouldn't be here, for one...

The Higgs was difficult to pin down because we didn't have the tools to look for it, not because it was particularly difficult to isolate. We have been pursuing a theory of gravity for a lot longer than we have been looking for the Higgs, I don't expect people to give up simply because it has been over 300 years.

Well seriously, what would you say if someone tried to use that argument against you? Doesn't have to be the same topic either...you'd be less than receptive I'd guess.

You would be wrong.

That's that subjective evidence you spoke of apparently.

Pointing out that Leviticus contains detailed instructions on preventing the spread of infectious disease long before anyone knew how diseases were spread is subjective evidence? Personally, I am pretty sure that falls into the category of circumstantial evidence. feel free to explain why I am wrong.

Okay then, why did you use it to try to make a point?

You don't understand why I am using an allegory to make a point?

I asked PC earlier, and like my initial post, she ignored it. She really hasn't been very cooperative in this thread, and basically started this whole discussion.

You accused me of being uncooperative and unequipped to debate the points you were making also.

Why is it interesting? It's consistent with everything I've said on this board. I demand grade a evidence from science as well, what have I said that would make you think otherwise? In fact, find the quotes and put them in your next post.

You think it is consistent of you to apply two different standards of evidence to different sides of an argument? I bet you also think I am unreasonable for pointing this out, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works.

Period.

It probably will be able to in the future, but I am perfectly comfortable saying it cannot.

Care to elaborate on this? As far as I am concerned GR does a great job on explaining how gravity works. Not only does it explain it, but it has been tested thousands of times and is incredibly accurate. As far as I know, the only time that it hasn't worked is in situations that we can't even examine, such as black holes.

Amazing how people who don't understand science think they understand science.

General Relatitivity is a description of what gravity does to space-time. It does nothing to explain how gravity works, how it actually bends space-time, or the mechanism that enables the whole process.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works.

Period.

It probably will be able to in the future, but I am perfectly comfortable saying it cannot.

comfortable in your ignorance? how very pedestrian of you. you actually mean physics does not explain how gravity works, not cannot explain how gravity works. To say that physics cannot is to deny the proposition that it probably will. Cannot, rules out probability.

Amazing how people who lecture others on science, often think they know enough about science to attempt humiliation of others on the subject. All this while making complete buffoons out of themselves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

telling windy this is to box her into a corner. watch out, she will scratch, bite, and will piss all over you in an attempt to wiggle out of the trap you set out for her.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works.

Period.

It probably will be able to in the future, but I am perfectly comfortable saying it cannot.

comfortable in your ignorance? how very pedestrian of you. you actually mean physics does not explain how gravity works, not cannot explain how gravity works. To say that physics cannot is to deny the proposition that it probably will. Cannot, rules out probability.

Amazing how people who lecture others on science, often think they know enough about science to attempt humiliation of others on the subject. All this while making complete buffoons out of themselves.

I specifically said cannot twice, what makes you think I got it wrong?

 

[bobcollum]

Hate to get back on topic but...

Higgs boson gets set to music

Scientists generate a musical picture of so-called "God particle" by attaching musical notes to each data point.

Higgs boson gets set to music | Cutting Edge - CNET News