Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,489 comments
- 1,143,246 views
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Next.
Once again, you've made a fundamental mistake in your understanding of what science actually does.
What science doesn't do:
- Person predicts with an off-the-cuff remark that Higgs boson "probably doesn't exist"
- OMG HE MUST BE RIGHT, WE HAVE TO GIVE UP LOOKING!
What science does:
- Person predicts with an off-the-cuff remark that Higgs boson "probably doesn't exist"
- Continues searching for evidence of the particle
- In absence of evidence, alternative theory is explored
- Experiment to test validity of alternative theory
- Wash, rinse, repeat
I've no idea who the condescending, loud-mouthed twonk presenting the video was either, but he also makes the same mistake several of you in this thread have already made:
Here's what didn't happen in the big bang:
- Explosion
- People appeared
Here's what did happen in the big bang:
- Explosion
- *billions of years of other stuff*
- Life appeared
- *millions more years of other stuff*
- We were born
The second you start simplifying the process of the big bang then people start misinterpreting it and once you misinterpret something so complicated, then you end up with the same old "God must have done it" argument. I will fully admit that "God did it" makes more sense than "Explosion happened, people appeared", but since the latter statement is woefully inaccurate and simplified it cannot be used as evidence for God.
Last edited:
- 87,682
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Have you read the original article?
CERN: Higgs boson God particle likely does not exist - Andrew Couts; Digital Trends
In it he says "Scientists have discovered why the infamous Higgs boson particle, also known as the God particle, has been so hard to find: it probably doesnt exist. This disappointing proclamation comes from scientists at CERN, who told the crowd at last weeks Lepton-Photon conference in Mumbai, India, that their research shows a 95 percent probability that the hypothetical Higgs boson particle is nothing more than a figment of our imagination."
He provides one reference. That reference is a story on the BBC which says nothing of the kind. And is itself unreferenced, but it does at least say where the information came from.
So you have an original story that says the search for Higgs is narrowing after ruling out some energies where it might have existed, picked up and reported as "Higgs doesn't exist, say CERN" and that's grabbed by a Youtuber with a clear agenda (I turned it off at "the Big Bang never happened"). I have no idea how you can get from "We've ruled out parts of the range" to "95% probable it doesn't exist", but that's what Andrew Couts has done. Couts article is then the source for hundreds of other versions of "Higgs doesn't exist"...
What's more important - feeding someone who is starving through socio-political stupidity in their own country without solving the problem that causes it or finding out how the universe works to prevent the presently-inevitable extinction of the entire human race?
Science's limitations are possibly the universe and probably the multiverse. These are finite bodies that are, for all intents and purposes, infinite.
Incidentally, one of the many hundreds of discoveries and advancements made by CERN (resulting in three Nobel Prizes) is the internet. If the money spent at LHC made to discover the thing that gives weight to all things in the universe that have weight makes you lose all "trust" you had in science, best turn off that router...
Higgs has nothing to do with stars - at least nothing more to do with stars than with everything else.
You know that we orbit a star, right? And that all energy on this planet is sourced from that star, right? And that if we can understand exactly how it and the entire universe works we can harness infinite resources for an infinite time and prevent all of what you term "real problems" indefinitely, right? And that without this understanding we will be wiped out by a single incident in a relatively (astronomically and possibly geologically) short time, right?
Only I'd class the future of the entire human race as pretty important compared to a dearth of food in tinpot central African republics caused by corrupt, self-serving dictators (who often proclaim their power to be devolved from a deity) buying guns for their personal armies which cannot be solved by buying a load of food and sending it there.
*Dirty summary - particles' weights are expressed as energies; Higgs is the heaviest (most energetic) lepton but since we haven't found it yet we only know the range of energies it's likely to be in rather than its energy (mass). The LHC is the only collider capable of running at those collision energies and it has acquired significant amounts of data ruling out Higgs at energies in the middle of the range. Moreover, the LHC can't run to energies at the top of that range and so may not discover it at all.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
The original statement from a CERN Press Release.
As has been said 95% of a range, even if it's the most likely thought one, is not the whole story. They do seem to think an answer will come either way within months now which makes this an exciting time for physicists.(maybe I should ring my dad up
)
Is being misread by the media This I found linked out from the CMS web page Which also has a link to The bbc story referenced in Cout's article. The latest news I found on the CMS site Homing in on the Higgs. It took more time doing the silly clicky links then actually finding the info but I figured it's worth it. I'm assuming all links CMS provides to be credible sources.
As has been said 95% of a range, even if it's the most likely thought one, is not the whole story. They do seem to think an answer will come either way within months now which makes this an exciting time for physicists.(maybe I should ring my dad up
)
- 87,682
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yep, that looks about right.
So what they've done is a found that energy levels of 145 to 466 GeV (with some uncertainty remaining at around 250 GeV) do not reveal the Higgs Boson and, with 95% confidence, can preclude Higgs having a mass in that range. Previous experiments precluded Higgs with 95% confidence below 114 GeV, between 157 and 173 GeV and, with 90% confidence, between 156 and 177 GeV.
They've thus narrowed the range of Higgs to 114 to 145 GeV. They've not said that Higgs doesn't exist to 95% certainty.
So what they've done is a found that energy levels of 145 to 466 GeV (with some uncertainty remaining at around 250 GeV) do not reveal the Higgs Boson and, with 95% confidence, can preclude Higgs having a mass in that range. Previous experiments precluded Higgs with 95% confidence below 114 GeV, between 157 and 173 GeV and, with 90% confidence, between 156 and 177 GeV.
They've thus narrowed the range of Higgs to 114 to 145 GeV. They've not said that Higgs doesn't exist to 95% certainty.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
There's some pretty colorful arguments here for continuing research until the question is resolved. I agree with them.
From the reading I've done on other (physics oriented) forums, I'd hazard the guess there's a rising generation of younger scientists that are not particularly invested in the Higgs or indeed in the Standard Model, and would be only too happy to explore a range of other models about "how the universe works".
I for one am happy with experimentally discovering any errors or shortcomings in our sciences, and working towards the best explanations possible. In this way we will both redeem the future of the human race and reveal the workings of God - or whatever it is that makes our universe the way it is. As always, let the chips fall where they may.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
- 87,682
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The Standard model happily accommodates a Higgs up to low TeV ranges, so although the likeliest mass (through previous and indirect observations) for a Higgs is somewhere around 130GeV plus or minus 30 it could well be out of the reach of the LHC. Luckily there is a planned successor - the SLHC - already 
There are Higgsless models too, of course.
There are Higgsless models too, of course.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
What exactly are you contributing to this thread other than popping in every couple pages to tell somebody how big of an "ass" or "dick" they are (which is exactly what you're being in the process by the way)?
Yeah, a few posts in this thread get a little heated, but at least most of us are actually participating in the debate, and have the guts to present our own beliefs.
It's amusing that you accuse me of being on a soap box earlier, when that's the only thing you're doing. You hover over this debate, offer up no real opinion on either side, and just hurl down accusations of people's misconduct.
I can respect people that have opinions and have the courage to argue for them, even if they get a little mean about it every once in a while. Carrying yourself as some pompous, holier-than-thou, non-committed observer of this conversation is pathetic.
- 5,812
- shmogt
Hahaha go learning!HeathenprideShmogt! I'm so proud! You're structuring your posts & using paragraphs!
Lol, seriously mate the content isn't as bad when it looks half decent
huskeR32
Shocked. First I get someone to actually try and think of an answer, than I get what I think is a compliment lol, now someone who agrees that, that guy isn't helping anything and only hating on people. If this doesn't show there is a god I don't know what will because it's clearly a miracle lol.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
I read that entire article and nowhere within it did I find support for your statement that "Christians give more money to the charities than any organization around the world." Perhaps I managed to overlook it, so could you please quote the specific part of that article where it claims that Christians give more than anybody else?
Yes it says that Christians give a lot. There's no denying it. But more than anyone else?
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
BobK
91 percent of Christians give to charity
66 percent of atheists give to charity.
Conservatives give more money to charity than Liberals.
67 percent of Christians volunteer.
44 percent of atheists volunteer.
Conservatives volunteer more than Liberals.
Christian families give $2,210 to charity each year.
Atheists families give $642 to charity each year.
Christians give away more money and more time when comparing any income level.
71 percent of Christian families give to non religious charities.
61 percent of atheists families give to non religious charities.
Conservatives give more to non religious charities than Liberals..
60 percent of Christians volunteer for non religious causes.
39 percent of atheists volunteer for non religious causes.
Conservatives volunteer more for non religious causes than Liberals.
Christians give $532 to non religious charities each year.
Atheists $467 to non religious charities each year.
Christians give more blood than atheists.
Christians are more likely to help the 'homeless' with food or money.
Christians are more likely to return excess change to a cashier.
Red states(conservative) give away more money than blue states(liberal) despite lower incomes.
In light of the above it is interesting to note that;
(1) A higher percent of Liberals than conservatives believe that the income discrepency is too large between the poor and rich.
(2) A higher percent of Liberals than conservatives believe that the government should do more to reduce the income discrepancy.
(3) A higher percent of Liberals than conservatives believe that we have become a society of 'have' and 'have nots'.
Even deducting church tithing, Christians give more than atheists. Of 15 large studies being studied and combined it has been shown that that in no measurable way are Liberal atheists more charitable than Christian Conservatives. In fact, of all of the demographic groups studied it is the Liberal atheists who give the least time and money than anyone else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E
From:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211105517AA5eByt
I don't live in America so I don't know much about this.
noisiaturismo
(Banned)
- 2,093
- Netherland
- help me im banned
No, I don't believe in God. Believing in a dictator who created everything would be acceptable earlier in the history, but now we are at the stage that science is the real answer.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
You know, I couldn't find a single one of those statements in this article. You had claimed specifically that the article said Christians gave more than any other group. I'm simply asking where in that article it says that. Please don't avoid my question with another wall of stats from someplace else.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Tell you what, isn't it great how many atheists give to charity without feeling obligated to do so by their religion?...
- 381
This is ridiculous. Let's pretend that theists gave ALL of their money to charity, and atheists gave absolutely zero, would that make the supernatural beliefs true?
No.
Now, I've got to go write another cheque for the child I sponsor in Peru.
One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. (Arthur C. Clarke)
No.
Now, I've got to go write another cheque for the child I sponsor in Peru.
One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. (Arthur C. Clarke)
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
SkierPS3
Church of England congregations give more than £51.7 million each year to other charities - that's even more than the BBC's annual Children in Need appeal. (1)
(1)http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats.aspx
and
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/11/study-proves-conservative-christians.html
- 1,601
- Connecticut
- Skier1017,GTP_Skier
- PSN Skier
I just saw this article, only furthers my disgust with religion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-cure-HIV-God-die-abandoning-medication.html
Dude WTF, do you see the URL for that second link? That site is religiously biased to the max. Your first link is also in a similar boat of bias, and that is only one church. Tally them all up if you want to make a point about religion in general, instead of one group of people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-cure-HIV-God-die-abandoning-medication.html
Dude WTF, do you see the URL for that second link? That site is religiously biased to the max. Your first link is also in a similar boat of bias, and that is only one church. Tally them all up if you want to make a point about religion in general, instead of one group of people.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
People obliged to be generous by their religion vs. people being generous from the goodness of their hearts. Not much of a surprise.
Once again:
- 87,682
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Only £52m annually from the world's largest private landowners?
Try this one. Keynotes:
* Private charitable donations from individuals in the UK was £9.9 BILLION in 2009.
* Most popular cause by number of supporters is medical research
* Cause that takes the most charitable donations is... religion
* 7% of private donors give 49% of all donations
Oh, and that source is independent, referenced and cites its own references...
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Tic Tach
My post was not boasting about my religion, but rather sticking up for it. People continually say that Christianity is no longer needed and is stupid (and some say it should be wiped out). Christianity is the foundations of western civilisations.
Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter. -Jurgen Habermas
- 1,601
- Connecticut
- Skier1017,GTP_Skier
- PSN Skier
- 87,682
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Christianity - which has no elections (outside the Papacy) and no voice of the people - is the foundation of Western democracy? The Greeks, who both invented democracy 500 years before Christ was born and the word "democracy" itself might object to that one...
Last edited:
Right if like the inquisition didn't even exists, and that is just one part of story that the chruch carefully hides from its past.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to do, but discussing the topic objectibly isnt part of your agenda.
I also wonder why the concept of god as a mental construction is not bring up to this discussion, and I wonder if theists think in the possibility of god as a mental construction rather than an existing entity.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
- 1,601
- Connecticut
- Skier1017,GTP_Skier
- PSN Skier
That link along with this one are why I'm an atheist. Yes, there was some tension caused by the Turks, but the Pope sent in people to murder them. Why? Because of religion, and how the middle east was regarded as a holy area for them. This is one reason why I'm an atheist, as religion only leads to anger and bloodshed over imaginary figures. It's sad really.
- 381
It isn't needed, except for those who need their morality and life choices laid out for them like babies. The fact that there are millions of non-theists who live productive, healthy, loving moral lives displays that you can too.
See. It is ignorant statements like this that make me want to scream from the rooftop. And then you want respect!?!?
Another stink-bomb.
How do you suspect all of humanity got along all over the planet for hundreds of thousands of years before your little cult got started? Your blinkered arrogance is just too much to take.
- 87,682
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'm going to suggest you stop posting links. The last seven you've posted have been either heavily biased or unreferenced or both - people have gone to the effort of showing you why they're wrong and you've just skipped onto the next one without even an acknowledgement.
Accordingly, I'm not even going to bother clicking on that as I suspect it'll be an a-historical whitewash of why the Crusades were good and justified and since you'll pay no attention whatsoever to a factual correction of it, it does no-one any good to attempt it.
Similar threads
