xjwsforChrist

SABASTIOUS SAID

Hello XJWSForChrist. Over the years I have posted online about the existence of God at the moment of the Big Bang. I have taken some major heat for this belief, but nonetheless it has remained my faith. The discovery of the Higgs Boson has provided compelling evidence for my faith and further strengthens it. I can do nothing but thank the scientific community for providing me the tangible information I need to fill in the gaps of my own understanding of the universe.

54 days before the Higgs Boson discovery was tentatively announced I was involved in a thread discussing this YouTube Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234

The video makes the claim that the Christian God watches idly while little kids get murdered and women get raped and refuses to help. This is blasphemy because it's not taking into consideration all factors even though the creators of the video know that they don't have all the information. Such as the confirmation of the Higgs Boson Particle which is refered to as a revolutionary step in the understanding of all matter.

Renowned Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, an esteemed colleague of Richard Dawkins, had this to say on the discovery:



I agree that supernatural shenanigans are not a beneficial force for our world, but the Higgs Boson is not supernatural and provides itself as evidence for the credability of Genesis 1:1's reference to heaven and earth and their interrelationship. In the thread about the YouTube Video I had this to say on the subject:




What many atheists do along with Dr Krauss is ignore the methodology that was used to create the Torah. They do this because the methodology was not preserved only the product was so the scientific method stalls.

Dr Michio Kaku just put out a new video on BigThink which talks about the God particle and why it's an explanation for Genesis 1:1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCnvuKb0T7E

He says that that Genesis claims "God put the universe into motion" which is exactly what the Higgs Boson Class of particles played a part in doing, if not is the sole force that set the universe into motion. Now, this discovery is NOT scientific evidence for the existence of God, but it is a unified theory of everything as in everything that has mass is given that by these particular particles.

Faith is not something that is blind that's what the Watchtower taught us all and it's a lie. Something doesn't just spring forth from nothing, there has to be something to work with in the first place. In the beggning there was a Force, and that Force broke symmetry. Was it God? I believe so.



-Sab

WILLIAM SAID

Hi Sab,

To me it seems like you are to prove your faith to yourself. I do it all the time but not as technical.

SABASTIOUS SAID




Hi William, I am not trying to prove it to myself as that would just be confirmation bias, but I am gathering evidence in the spirit of Philippians 2:12, 13:




-Sab

WILLIAM SAID

I'm still working on the confirmation bias. Sometimes it don't look too good.

AGUEST SAID

Greetings, dear Sab, and the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one! May I offer that the point at which the Higgs Boson would relate to the creation would most likely not be "in the beginning" (more accurately, "In the ark")... because that relates to the spirit realm ("heaven") AND the physical realm ("earth")... but more likely at the point where the Most Holy One of Israel said the equation that translate in man's language as, "Let Light come to be!"?

I offer this because it was at the point that the Light, our Lord, the Holy One of Israel that is the energy source of THIS world... "flashed forth"... and the physical creation... and matter... including physical particles as tiny as the Higgs... came ["through" him and] into existence.

"Light arises in the darkness for the upright; He is gracious and compassionate and righteous.

Genesis 1:3-5; Psalm 112:4; John 1:5,7-9; 8:12)

This is my understanding but maybe I have the event timings mixed up?

Again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

CRIMINY SAID

This stuff is way over my head so I'm just going to compliment you on how neat and tidy you have formatted your post.

Well done, Sab.
_________________
I could'a been a bug.

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

All that has been proven with the Higgs Boson is that that STANDARD physics model is correct.
Anything BEYOND that is pure speculation and any physicist tha takes it that route has an agenda outside is field of expertise.

AGUEST SAID

The moniker "God Particle" is unfortunate, dear P and Glad (peace to you, both!). It is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. It's irresponsible of those who use it, IMHO, and those who believe it has anything to do with "finding 'God'" should do a little research.

While the following does contain some "high science" language, it is pretty clear, IMHO, in explaining what scientists had hoped to prove: the existence of the Higgs "field", to explain how the Higgs "mechanism", a process by which some particles (bosons) gain mass (i.e., "something" from "nothing") occurs*:

"In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson, a type of particle that allows multiple identical particles to exist in the same place in the same quantum state. It has no spin, electric charge, or colour charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately. Some extensions of the Standard Model predict the existence of more than one kind of Higgs boson.[/b]

"On 4 July 2012, the CMS and the ATLAS experimental teams at the Large Hadron Collider independently announced that they each confirmed the formal discovery of a previously unknown boson of mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2, whose behaviour so far has been "consistent with" a Higgs boson. Proof of the Higgs field (by observing the associated particle) and evidence of its properties are likely to greatly affect human understanding of the universe, validate the final unconfirmed part of the Standard Model as essentially correct, indicate which of several current particle physics theories are more likely correct, and open up "new" physics beyond current theories. If the Higgs boson were shown not to exist, other alternative sources for the Higgs mechanism would need to be considered.

...

"The Higgs mechanism shows how some particles can gain mass by symmetry breaking without affecting parts of current physics theory that are believed approximately correct. (More exactly, it shows how gauge-dependent expressions for some particles' mass can arise even in a gauge-invariant theory). In the Standard Model the term almost always refers to electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) which is responsible for the mass of some gauge bosons (a kind of elementary particle). The existence of some kind of symmetry breaking Higgs mechanism is believed proven, although there are a number of ways it could happen and physicists have not yet determined which of these takes place in nature.

"The Higgs field is the current preferred theory of how the Higgs mechanism occurs. If correct, then a field exists throughout space that is responsible for the Higgs mechanism and the resultant electroweak symmetry breaking. The field — if it exists — would have a related particle, which would be a previously unknown type of boson. That field can be proven to exist and its properties studied, by finding and examining the boson and studying its properties. The Standard Model allows for extensions where the details of the Higgs field and number of related Higgs bosons can differ. If the Higgs field does not exist then other approaches could explain how the Higgs mechanism arises, and these would be examined instead.

"The Higgs boson is the massive and fleetingly short-lived boson associated with a Higgs field, and also the Higgs field's smallest possible excitation or quantum. If the preferred theory is correct, then this massive boson will exist, and can be detected in experiments and tested to see whether it is a Higgs boson. If successful, this would prove the Higgs field exists, which in turn will confirm that the Higgs mechanism takes place. Further studies would be needed to test which model among the Standard Model and its extensions best describes the experimental findings. At present as of 2012, a particle has been detected but not yet tested fully to show if it is a Higgs boson."

[*"... it seems that none of the standard model fermions or bosons could "begin" with mass as an inbuilt property except by abandoning gauge invariance. If gauge invariance were to be retained, then these particles had to be acquiring their mass by some other mechanism or interaction. Additionally, whatever was giving these particles their mass, had to not "break" gauge invariance as the basis for other parts of the theories where it worked well. The solution to both these problems came from the discovery of a previously unnoticed borderline case hidden in the mathematics of Goldstone's theorem, that under certain conditions it might theoretically be possible for a symmetry to be broken without disrupting gauge invariance: this became known as the "Higgs mechanism."]

Worthy to note is this comment (in the right-hand notes):

"[b]A boson 'consistent with' the Higgs boson has been observed, but as of August 2012, scientists have not conclusively identified it as the Higgs boson[/b]."

wiki/Higgs_boson

Does any of this have relevance to the creation of the physical universe? It does, which is why it's important to some. It does not, however, prove... or disprove... the existence of God. It might, though, go toward showing "how" the physical universe came into existence. That the physical universe had a start is something I believe science will prove at some point; the question will remain, however, as to the impetus/trigger for the initial event... and by WHOM.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you, all!

A slave of Christ, the true "God Particle"...

SA

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

Science can help us understand the HOW's of something that we can see observed in nature but that is all it can do.
To try and use science for something beyond what it is designed for is an insult to science.

SABASTIOUS SAID


I'm wondering why anyone in this thread feels compelled to reiterate what I have already said in the OP:




I am perplexed as to why it's being regarded as an issue at all. This is a thread about the relation of the Higgs Boson Particles to the philosophy of Genesis 1:1 which is not a unique concept to Judaism therefore also the relation to the creative God of the universe. This thread is not about calling the Higgs Boson God at all.

-Sab

AGUEST SAID






Yikes! I can only answer as to myself, dear one (the greatest of love and peace to you!), and that's because (1) others have recently asked me about this matter and so I took advantage of the opportunity to clarify; and (2) your title: the Higgs boson... nor any other boson... is a "God" particle, as the moniker suggests. That you relate that to Genesis 1:1 was why I initially responded as I did.




Ah, now, dear Sab... it was just additions to a topic of discussion. And it is an issue for some, trust me, but not all, no. Please forgive if the responses seemed... mmmm... out of line. Just a misunderstanding of where you intended/needed/wanted the thread to go, perhaps?



Yes. I mean, I got that and although I can't speak for them, I think others did, too. Again, though, I don't believe it relates to Genesis 1:1, but Genesis 1:3 and what came after that. We can discuss that, if you wish.



Hmmm. Now, see, I didn't get the impression that anyone stated that the thread was about that. True, it took a turn toward explaining what the Higgs was (mea culpa!)... but that is still on topic, is it not? I mean, in order for some to understand your premise, they may need to know what the boson, etc., IS, right? I was personally asked not too long ago why it was called the "God Particle". At that time, I posted (on JWN) the same explanation as dear PSacto (re it being called the "Goddamned Particle". So, I admit, I did take advantage of this opportunity to further explain just WHAT it is... what it isn't... and why it's considered important in the scientific community.

But my sincere apologies, truly, if it seems your thread was hijacked/deviated from the original point. I would be more than happy, though, to continue along the lines of Genesis 1:3 vs. 1:1, if you wish. I didn't see where you responded to that and so moved on the explanation. I thought perhaps you were done; perhaps I shouldn't have assumed, though, but been a bit more patient and waited for your response. Again, my sincere apologies, truly!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

YPPUPLLEH SAID

Does there need to be an origin? Can the universe just be? It's already hard to conceive a million years
_________________
Love is a warm rubber puppy...

SABASTIOUS SAID



My Title does not mention the Higgs Boson specifically, but the God Particle. This is because the God Particle is actually a reference to a broader concept that encompasses the Higgs Boson and the whole of Quantum Physics. In the Michio Kaku video in the OP he states:



What Kaku is doing here is offering the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and he applies it to the Beginning of existence, or MOTION. Kaku says that the Big Bang could have been two universes splitting apart which would mean that Higgs-like Boson particles would be involved in this process.

It's not beyond the stretch of imagination to say that Higgs-like Boson particles were present in the setting of Genesis 1:1. Kaku continues:



Notice the terminology he is using directly after he gives his interpretation of Genesis 1:1. The universe was CREATED (GOD) in a big BANG (MOTION). Now if Genesis 1:1 says that God set the universe into motion then that would mean it's logical to say that the Higgs CLASS of particles are God Particles. As they are involved in the CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE. Which is what Genesis 1:1 is all about. God the "free lunch."



So the higgs class of particles is the "ultimate free lunch" which historically is something you only give to God. Which is why Lawrence Krauss is saying things like this:



Now, Kaku is a sensible man, he sees that the Bible is under attack and he knows that even though it's highly flawed, Genesis 1:1 is not to be trifled with. Even Christopher Hitchens conceded that Deism, as in belief in a First Cause Deity, was a less a eloquent, but acceptable world view.




I don't see how you can justify that. Can you not see that one of the leading physicists is throwing the Bible community a bone? I personally think this is compelling evidence that he's on OUR SIDE. I think that a proper understanding of Genesis 1:1 is paramount which is what Kaku handed to us a silver platter. And it just so happened to be my exact understanding of it which gives me confidence in what I have been doing. Because a year ago I didn't have that understanding, but I did ASK for it. Opposing forces set things into motion the first of which being heaven and earth. Anyway, I am having a little trouble completely getting my point across. I'm sorry for the ranting.



It really appears to me that you are taking the side of people like Dawkins and Krauss on this one which is surprising to me. They are going to try to kill God at any means necessary that doesn't hurt their political images. What Kaku is pointing out is that Genesis 1:1 has a legitimate argument that is not contradicted by science. It appears to me like he is taking the deistic perspective or the way of Thomas Paine, or maybe even a neo-Isaac Newton or Albert Einstien as a deist. I feel like he is saying that God is alive and well and the world needs to hear that right now desperately, because we have some usurpers standing on the doorstep of the throne of God.

The atheists want to pull the Carl Sagan Card and say we're small, but that card is trumped by the Horten Hears a Who Card. And the Michio Kaku Card takes the pot because it states that if the First Cause takes 10 billion dollars, cutting edge technology in the 21st century and massive particle accelerators just to discover ONE GOD DARNED PARTICLE then the First Cause has an ENORMOUS amount of energy. And if you have a bunch of energy you have what it takes to postulate some sort of conscious thought. Was the big bang alive? Kaku doesn't know, but he just quoted the Bible out of no where and it was pretty cool. It should be noted.

-Sab

AGUEST SAID

Yikes, again, dear one (the greatest of love and peace to you!). I made some erroneous assumptions, as the "human" part of all of us sometimes does. I apologize for that. But I hear you, truly. I understand what you are conveying, as well as the correlation thought to be between Genesis 1:1 and something such as the Higgs boson.

I have to stand by my the understanding given me that the [Higgs] boson part would come in at Genesis 1:3 (vs. 1:1, which was a generalization... whereas 1:3 is more specific), though, because the Light that came to be was the impetus FOR the creation of the physical universe.

And I in no way intend to support the theories of Dawkins or Krauss, et al., but just saying that Mr. Kaku is merely two scriptures premature. That's really it and all, dear one. In my tendency to be.... verbose/pedantic, though, I may have give you a wrong impression. Again, I apologize... TRULY... for that, as well. I really was just trying to keep things accurate.

As always, the greatest of love and peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA