The Higgs boson explains why particles have mass -- and in turn why we exist. Without the boson, the universe would have no physical matter, only energy.

The cosmological implications are hotly debated. Can God fit in a scientific story of creation?

The answer is "no" for Lawrence M. Krauss, an Arizona State University theoretical physicist. He argued in Newsweek that the Higgs boson discovery "posits a new story of our creation" independent of religious belief.

"With enough data, physics would make God obsolete, he said. "If we can describe the laws of nature back to the beginning of time without any supernatural shenanigans, it becomes clear that you don't need God."

What will be enough evidence for science to prove that there is no god?.

I had stated in another conversation about this that no matter what science proves, the religious will just say that it is still some divine intervention. God allowed us to see this etc. etc. instead of simply showing himself. Groan!.

"Alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra said in a YouTube video that the boson hints at a divine interconnectedness of all things.

"It only strengthens the notion that the universe comes out of a nothingness which is everything," he said."


At the end of the day, even a slap in the face does not wake people up. They ask us to prove the lack of existence of god, we give it to them in so many instances and yet they still choose to be delusional simply based on feelings rather than facts.


As usual with Huffington Post news stories, I always encourage you to read the comments as this is where most of the action happens.


Full Story Here: Higgs Boson

Also: 9 Great Nonbelievers In U.S. History


Views: 1600

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think it would be very logical to pose the question, as you have, "Who's to say whether something happened because of natural cause-and-effect or God?" And the answer shouldn't be that science becomes badly compromised, but rather that it is amended and becomes superior, because our understanding of the world increases. It is useful to note that the laws of physics describe what we know of the physical world so far, using our current knowledge and empirical data; it is not an actual perfect reflection of the natural world as it is. If something comes in to challenge that, it might prove some of our laws to be false, but it will never disprove the scientific method. Science necessarily amends the laws when it is appropriate.

If it ever becomes possible to interact with God such that it changed the laws of physics, then it is no longer necessary to have faith. It would be reason that we must use to confront it.

I completely disagree.  Either the laws of nature are regular and predictable or they are not.  I don't see the whim of some all-powerful deity as having any form of predictability.

Now ... if the mechanism of miracles is nothing more than physical law which has not been discovered to date, that those laws are available to be discovered, understood and utilized, that is entirely another matter.  The problem is that there is no evidence to suggest anything like that.

Put bluntly, if there is a god, he/she/it can come out and show him/her/itself.  Far more likely, the concept of god is nothing more than the recession of ignorance in the face of knowledge, as Neil deGrasse Tyson suggests, which also means the eventual death of the concept of god is only a matter of time and the advance of human understanding of the reality we live in.

I see science, not as a thing, but as a process; it's a way of thinking where you test the empirically observable to affirm your hypothesis. So even if God exists in a completely unpredictable manner, people would still use science as a means to guide them on whatever that remains predictable.

The likelihood of God does not denote the possibility of God.

Science is indeed a process, a process which deals in fact and evidence and the objective assessment and analysis of those elements with the goal of a fuller understanding of the reality we live in.

Any concept which wants to be included in the scope of science needs to substantiate itself within the scope of fact and evidence.  Just because someone thought up the concept of god does not substantiate the reality of god, and without hard, objective demonstration of the concept, god has no more meaning than a left-handed zindlefinger.

I continue to subscribe to the Null Hypothesis.  Without hard, testable evidence, the concept of god is only that: a concept, devoid of any practical reality.

I agree with you. God is not in the scope of science. But I maintain that the existence of God and the existence of science are not mutually exclusive, or that they both could exist at the same time -- even if science is not used to test God directly. However, if theoretically "God" manifests itself to be able to affect our known laws of physics, then it is no longer unobservable.

There are an uncountable number of unmanifest things that could be invented or imagined, perhaps as a mental exercise.  Said exercise does not bring those imagined things into reality, nor does it give them substance or abilities or any meaningful interaction between the concept and WHAT IS.

I dismiss the concept of god for this very reason: it has no demonstrable utility, nor does it have any mechanism for interacting with my world or having any possible impact on me.  Just because someone thought it up doesn't make it real, nor does it necessitate my recognizing the validity of that concept.

I have better things to do with my time than to fool with such a brand of baseless suppositions.

You are free to not believe in God (hence, Atheist Nexus), however the lack of proof of existence does not substitute for proof of non-existence, neither does further understanding of the physical world disprove hypothetical entities existing outside the physical world, which was what Sandi was attempting.

Of course hypothetical exercises are not real. Hypothetical exercises are not meant to demonstrate reality, they are meant to demonstrate logical consistency.

Proving the existence of a truly omniscient, omnipotent deity would be a first for this world.  It would be so because it would establish the very first Absolute Referent in the midst of a reality which knows NO REAL ABSOLUTES.  That said, the proof that such a being represents an absolute would have to be considerable and rigorous ... as is any proof in the scientific community.

That there isn't even so much as a hint of such evidence speaks to the unlikelihood of such an event, which means that anyone attempting to prove such has one hell of a curve to climb.

am i right, the real meaning of god's particle is Goddamn particle? and no god involved at all, right?

The original title of the book describing the research into the Higgs Boson was to be called The Goddamn Particle, because of the elusive nature of the Higgs.  The publisher didn't like the potentially offensive nature of the title and edited it ... and created offense of an entirely different sort!

I'm with Jonathan Chang on this one. I'm not sure how Sandi sees the recognition of the Higgs boson as proof of the lack of existence of God. I don't think there has been any instance at all were God has been "disproved."

My 'desire' to disprove god has nothing to do with what the Higgs Boson is nicknamed rather that what it stands for, what we discover from it.

I feel that we disprove god and or religion every time we dig a fossil from the ground or look at the sedimentary layer of rocks or unearth bones from a prehistoric era simply because it refutes their story of creationism and miraculous happenings. I hate the fact that no matter what scientific findings there are to prove evolution or the beginnings of the planet or universe they come up with some other story that just covers their asses and no matter what is found or proven, goddidit anyway with no substantiation.

I live in a state that wants to push creationism and religion into our education system by rewriting school books. How fucking ignorant and backward. It's scary. How a group of Texas conservatives is rewriting your kids’ textbooks

As is said, it has nothing to do with the nickname, I just don't want to live in a world where we are going backwards and I do believe that science and atheism do go hand in hand. It is our argument, our proof that questions can be answered and more questions can be asked. It broadens our minds.

As it stands now, we can't even elect a President without religious issues being at the forefront. Family values and morality are key components of the debate. Even Chick Fil A are getting in on the act, now I get good christian family values with my chicken sandwich. Seriously?????

I have never ever had any religious thoughts in my life, atheist upbringing from atheist parents and my thinking may be just as stubborn as any christian's but I guess that is just the way it is. Perhaps I want the 'miracle' of some scientists to actually say "Here it is, we have finally disproved it, now stop being silly and delusional". I can only dream.

There are many, many scientific theories that tell different stories, different scenarios of how the universe began or how the Earth came about and while I find them interesting and even possible, I don't run around telling everyone how I believe this to be true, I keep it in mind and wait and see what else they come up with. In my mind, just about anything is possible, but I cannot and will not even consider a mythical being taking responsibility for it.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service