The big bang the god particle and the universe

[Blain]

So I am one who is fascinated with science and also with outer space though I lack the intelligence to fully understand it all my friend who is a very scientific kind of guy told me a couple years ago about a discovery called the god particle. If I remember and understand correctly the god particle was always there and was in fact the direct link to mass and gravity the big bang and all creation and scientists say the fact the god particle existed and made something out of nothing proves god is not needed.

But there are so many flaws with this theory, first off say the god particle really was just always there, that in itself disproves it's existence or at least it way of existence because in this universe that we live in never once has anything simply come from nothing it always had to be made born created or evolved in some way or manner to say this particle simply always existed defies the laws of this universe. I am a very firm believer in cause and effect, if say the god particle is the cause and everything we see is the eventual effect it still doesn't explain how that cause was in existence when everything else was an effect.

In other words while every other thing in this universe had to be made created or born in some way it's extremely unbelievable that a single particle didn't have to and is the one exclusion to laws of this universe. Now scientists can argue about God in the same way however our faith and belief in God is not limited to this universes laws while their god particle is. The big bang theory is no longer considered a theory to many scientists as they believe it is now fully proven but say I am right about my view of the god particle what made the god particle and what made that thing that made the god particle and so on and so forth eventually it's like how there is never truly the number 0 you will always have an infinite amount of 0.1 at the end there has to be a source but the issue is if there is a source then it only proves the existence of an all knowing eternal being not disproves it

 

[tourist]

How can this so-called god particle come into existence by itself? If you take a bunch of nothing and wait a billion years you will still have a bunch of nothing because there wasn't something to make it out of in the first place.

You certainly have more intelligence than this misguided friend of yours.

It might be as you say that there may not truly be a number 0 because the probability of this god particle and how it came into existence is less than zero.

I am in full agreement with your well written estimation.

 

[Blain]

How can this so-called god particle come into existence by itself? If you take a bunch of nothing and wait a billion years you will still have a bunch of nothing because there wasn't something to make it out of in the first place.

You certainly have more intelligence than this misguided friend of yours.

It might be as you say that there may not truly be a number 0 because the probability of this god particle and how it came into existence is less than zero.

I am in full agreement with your well written estimation.

Precisely my point, if you have nothing you cannot make something out of it because it doesn't exist and scientists have been trying for a long time to make their big bang theory absolute even enough to completely debunk the existence of God himself which would be the greatest victory for science my friend even said that he hopes science does this because he wants religion of all kinds non existent he even assumes if you believe in religion at all your dumb because to logically believe in such nonsense as he puts it shows a great lack of any kind of intelligence and he knows about my brain damage and blames that for my faith in God lol.

as for the well written estimation comment I appreciate it, I don't write in this manner that much only when I am doing research and when the science nerd in me arises lol

 

[Depleted]

So I am one who is fascinated with science and also with outer space though I lack the intelligence to fully understand it all my friend who is a very scientific kind of guy told me a couple years ago about a discovery called the god particle. If I remember and understand correctly the god particle was always there and was in fact the direct link to mass and gravity the big bang and all creation and scientists say the fact the god particle existed and made something out of nothing proves god is not needed.

But there are so many flaws with this theory, first off say the god particle really was just always there, that in itself disproves it's existence or at least it way of existence because in this universe that we live in never once has anything simply come from nothing it always had to be made born created or evolved in some way or manner to say this particle simply always existed defies the laws of this universe. I am a very firm believer in cause and effect, if say the god particle is the cause and everything we see is the eventual effect it still doesn't explain how that cause was in existence when everything else was an effect.

In other words while every other thing in this universe had to be made created or born in some way it's extremely unbelievable that a single particle didn't have to and is the one exclusion to laws of this universe. Now scientists can argue about God in the same way however our faith and belief in God is not limited to this universes laws while their god particle is. The big bang theory is no longer considered a theory to many scientists as they believe it is now fully proven but say I am right about my view of the god particle what made the god particle and what made that thing that made the god particle and so on and so forth eventually it's like how there is never truly the number 0 you will always have an infinite amount of 0.1 at the end there has to be a source but the issue is if there is a source then it only proves the existence of an all knowing eternal being not disproves it

Actually, scientists don't buy the Big Bang in mass anymore. Hawking had another theory borne out of his hatred for God for giving him ALS. His theory is the universe expands and collapses ad infiniti, much like the ripples after tossing a stone into a pond. So don't buy scientists are united.

And, don't be fooled thinking they only have one Big Bang to contend with. There are four! All unprovable by scientists.
[video]https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/does-god-exist-4-new-arguments[/video]

 

[Depleted]

Actually, scientists don't buy the Big Bang in mass anymore. Hawking had another theory borne out of his hatred for God for giving him ALS. His theory is the universe expands and collapses ad infiniti, much like the ripples after tossing a stone into a pond. So don't buy scientists are united.

And, don't be fooled thinking they only have one Big Bang to contend with. There are four! All unprovable by scientists.
[video]https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/does-god-exist-4-new-arguments[/video]

(Just once in a while it would be nice if my video links showed up. lol)

 

[Blain]

(Just once in a while it would be nice if my video links showed up. lol)

I have only gotten youtube links to work

 

[Marcelo]

I believe in the Big Bang theory, but atheists are probably skeptical about it. They don't like the idea of something being created out of nothing because only God can do that.

 

[Zmouth]

How can this so-called god particle come into existence by itself?

It's eternal....matter can not be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms, i.e. from living matter to non-living matter.

Or so say the scientists...

 

[notuptome]

If there was a big bang it came from the lips of God. God said let there be and there was. Creation is everything out of nothing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Zmouth]

If there was a big bang it came from the lips of God. God said let there be and there was. Creation is everything out of nothing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

While I agree with you in spirit and that's might be inspiring for a moment yet Genesis 1:1 doesn't contain any reference to God saying let there be a heaven or earth, just created so FYI if you use that statement amongst radical Bible haters. They wait to pounce on things like that

 

[maxwel]

Actually, scientists don't buy the Big Bang in mass anymore. Hawking had another theory borne out of his hatred for God for giving him ALS. His theory is the universe expands and collapses ad infiniti, much like the ripples after tossing a stone into a pond. So don't buy scientists are united.

And, don't be fooled thinking they only have one Big Bang to contend with. There are four! All unprovable by scientists.
[video]https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/does-god-exist-4-new-arguments[/video]

This was what scientists believed before the expansion rate of the universe proved that a collapsing universe was impossible... meaning the universe had a clear and definite BEGINNING.

I think Hawking has been trying to say that the Higgs boson (God particle) has the potential to create "catastrophic vacuum decay" and basically destroy the universe... and he probably came up with this because there's no REAL way in physics to show that our expanding universe could ever collapse back on itself gravitationally.

* Our expanding universe (which measurably is unable to collapse back on itself gravitationally) defeats the old ideas of a steady-state universe which has ALWAYS EXISTED, or an expanding/collapsing universe which has ALWAYS EXISTED. This expanding universe we're in, which cannot collapse, tends to disprove any theories of an infinite universe or infinite matter, and thereby supports the story in Genesis. This is why Hawking wants there to be some way for the universe to destroy itself, or collapse on itself.

I'm not a physicist, but I think that is the basic, general ideal.



Anyway, Hawking has proven, numerous times, he's capable of 2 basic types of rubbish:

1. Making utterly absurd assertions that other physicists PUBLICLY SAY are nonsense.
2. Straying completely out of the realm of physics, and making non-scientific claims in the realm of philosophy, and stating these philosophical claims as absolute fact.

* Basically... the man has said a lot of stupid things, that people way smarter than me have called him on.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

"Science" is man's explanation/definition/excuse for what (observed) nature supplies to mankind, turned inward to feed a modern mindset determined to erase the explanation/definition/definition from God. Truth is God's expose'. That should be all that matters. By adopting that eternal mindset, mankind ought to understand the why's of life better.

 

[Yahweh_is_gracious]

The "God Particle" is a misnomer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God and was never intended to be taken as such. The Higgs Boson is a fundamental particle that provides the mechanism for the other fundamental particles (quarks, gluons, mesons, leptons, etc.) to have mass.

The Big Bang is an interesting theory to study, but it remains only a theory. There is no way to reproduce it experimentally, so all physicists can do is infer based on other observations. They are making a W.A.G. about what occurred, according to them, based on running the cosmic clock backwards and coalescing matter together into a finite area. It's all well and good, but there are a couple of major issues physicists can't get around:

1. Any physical area smaller than 10^-35m cannot exist. Non-locality.

2. Any time period shorter than 10^-43 seconds cannot exist. Non-locality. Again.

 

[dcontroversal]

I think God was clear....the things seen are not made of what they appear to be made of.........We cannot even begin to comprehend the depth of wisdom, power and knowledge that has went into creation.....It takes man years and years to engineer, blue print, machine and assemble (with numerous changes, fixes etc.) a fighter jet, submarine etc.....

Jesus said the very hairs of the head are numbered, the grains of sand and stars are numbered, God put specific weight to the air (JOB)....at the base of ALL things created is the spoken word.....How do we even begin to comprehend the word of God bringing all things into existence and then sustaining all things...(HE upholds all things by the word of his power)

Humanity can guess, surmise, claim to know what it is all made of, but at the end of the day....supposition does not equate to knowing.......just saying....

for the record I have always been amused by space, atoms etc.......blows my mind that every thing seen is just a mass of vibrating power packs held together by some invisible force--> ATOMS (our perspective) The Word of God

 

[Zmouth]

The Big Bang is an interesting theory to study, but it remains only a theory.

If it is a scientific theory then it is:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through thescientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.

Or in other words a immutable fact. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation which does not satisfy the scientific requirements to be considered a scientific theory.

 

[Tintin]

I believe in the Big Bang theory, but atheists are probably skeptical about it. They don't like the idea of something being created out of nothing because only God can do that.

Atheists love the Big Bang theory. Evolutionists in general do. There are huge problems with the theory, not least of all that everything can come from nothing and that that nothing is actually something. They don't have any authority to change the definition of 'nothing' to suit their naturalistic agenda. Also, early Genesis doesn't share many details about Creation Week, but what it does reveal we should believe. The Big Bang theory is false. It doesn't have a leg to stand on. And God wouldn't use evolutionary means to do anything. That's like a Brachiosaurus (sauropod dinosaur) asking a cockroach for help. At best, it's counter-productive. At worst, it's stupid.

 

[49]

As a fellow CC'er said some time ago concerning the Big Bang theory...God spoke, and BANG!! It happened.

 

[Zmouth]

They don't have any authority to change the definition of 'nothing' to suit their naturalistic agenda.

So if God said let be, then what is the substance unseen that the foundation of the world was laid?

The word of God was used to frame it according to Heb 11:3, "... we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Besides the things which are seen are temporal as written in 2 Cor 4:18, But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; Luke 6:49 You frame a house upon the foundation.

And God wouldn't use evolutionary means to do anything. That's like a Brachiosaurus (sauropod dinosaur) asking a cockroach for help. At best, it's counter-productive. At worst, it's stupid.

So you didn't have a tail at one point in your life?

 

[Tintin]

So if God said let be, then what is the substance unseen that the foundation of the world was laid?

The word of God was used to frame it according to Heb 11:3, "... we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Besides the things which are seen are temporal as written in 2 Cor 4:18, But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; Luke 6:49 You frame a house upon the foundation.



So you didn't have a tail at one point in your life?

I'm not sure why I bother replying to you, because you play fast and loose with the Bible and you know nothing of context. The foundation of the world is the earth that God created. Even if there is an unseen substance, that's still something.

And no, I never had a tail at any point in my life. God just used similar blue-prints for some elements of His creation.

 

[Magenta]

If it is a scientific theory then it is:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through thescientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.

Or in other words a immutable fact. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation which does not satisfy the scientific requirements to be considered a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is not an immutable fact.