I have always wanted to discuss the Higgs Boson.

The Higgs Boson is the most elusive scientific particle ever. It is the cornerstone of 21st century physics, it just HAS to exist, or else all of science's theories on the universe and on particles will collapse. Physicists believe that Higgs particles generate some type of soupy ether through which other particles move, and this translates to their masses on a macroscopic scale.

The Higgs Boson has never been captured by the dimensions of science. Multimillion dollar projects have been in progress since circa 2000 to find this particle without which ALL other particles would have no mass. To no avail. By faith, more assumptions are being fostered in science based on this model.

True enough, there are Higgsless models in science, but most of the mainstream science you know, and have worked with, has foundations in Higgs. Unseen, undetected, yet science believes it must exist. Why? There is an evidence of its expression.

This is 100% science and my honest question is, Why should this same reasoning NOT be applied to the possibility of existence of spiritual realms and to the (possible?) existence of God? It appears like atheists who are scientists are heavily biased because when confronted with physics, they do not begin to say where is the evidence for a Higgs Boson? Knowing fully well that Science does not know, recognize or explore all dimensions and realms. Gradually science is growing more holistic than reductionist.

In a related matter I'd also like to know why atheists are quick to compare God to a unicorn, Santa Claus, or a white bearded man in the moon AND NOT the Higgs Boson. It makes no sense, and its just dishonest. Those listed items are not observable and unlike God, have no valid reasons to exist, neither do they impact the observed world. But science has a million unanswered questions on intelligent design and the universe, even on the Higgs Boson. Yet they vehemently declare that God does not exist. As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

Your honest views on this are welcome.

No takers?

Where are our in-house scientist-atheists?

[size=4pt]mehn I miss viaro[/size]

InesQor:

No takers? 

Where are our in-house scientist-atheists? 

[size=4pt]mehn I miss viaro[/size]

Hello InesQor. I think you have tripped over a common misconception in thought I'd like to term classification by definition . It goes like so; when you define anything in terms of taxonomy, (identifiable traits or characteristics) any something that exhibits such traits or demonstrates such characteristics will cause you to automatically classify that something by definition. Two somethings with immediately identifiable similarities are not necessarily the same.  We inevitably come to perform evidential corroboration of facts (or lack thereof) to "know" why they are different.

I never heard of Higgs Boson AKA "God-Particle" (until i saw your post and did some reading) but allow me to classify it as a Black-Hole. How do we know Black-holes exist. no one besides Capt. Jean-Luc Pickard and crew-members of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) availed me the opportunity to see what a Black-hole looks like  You only know it exists due to its comparative effects on its surrounding environment. I am not sure why you posed this question to Atheists in particular but Higgs is like looking for suspicious movement of the tall grass to know if a tiger is hiding in it - thus far the grass ain't moving.    the very nature of inferential science does not mean it does not exist, it does not mean it does either.

Atheists simply ask for proof that it does and a Black-hole inference will suffice. unfortunately God does not yield to examination as the Scientists have found out 
Atheist will only surmise that Religion(ists) have founded their views (beliefs) on pre-suppositions that are products of words, assumptions, mental speculation and composition

Typical strawman argument. First you twist the scientific theory then argue against the twisted version.

FYI, not finding the Higgs within the predicted energy range would give us just as much information as if we did find it. Perhaps even more. Science is all about trying to explain the natural world, making predictions based on those explanations and testing those predictions through experimentation. A failure of a theory is not considered to be a bad thing because it forces you to think in new ways and pushes you closer to the truth. It was the dramatic failure of Newtonian physics a century ago that gave us quantum theory and relativity. Otherwise, we might not have microchips and GPS today. That's how scientific progress is made.

The beautiful thing about science is that it's honest. Scientists (well good ones, anyway) never claim to know everything. Even the most well established principles (e.g. evolution) are still called theories and scientist are constantly looking for ways to test or disprove the established thinking. That's the main difference between science and superstition religion. Religious people refuse to adapt their beliefs to new information. They deny or ignore facts that contradict their faith and cannot use simple logic to explain anything. If you are so sure that god exists, why don't you find some real proof instead of the logical fallacies that apologetics bandy about?

In any case, we have just started scanning the energy ranges where the Higgs is likely to be found. the machine that has the best chance of finding it (CERN's Large Hadron Collider) only recently got up to speed. There's still every chance that they'll still find it. I, for one, hope that they don't. I hope they find something completely unexpected. I want to see some new physics.

lagerwhenindoubt:

Hello InesQor. I think you have tripped over a common misconception in thought I'd like to term classification by definition . It goes like so; when you define anything in terms of taxonomy, (identifiable traits or characteristics) any something that exhibits such traits or demonstrates such characteristics will cause you to automatically classify that something by definition. Two somethings with immediately identifiable similarities are not necessarily the same.  We inevitably come to perform evidential corroboration of facts (or lack thereof) to "know" why they are different.

I never heard of Higgs Boson AKA "God-Particle" (until i saw your post and did some reading) but allow me to classify it as a Black-Hole. How do we know Black-holes exist. no one besides Capt. Jean-Luc Pickard and crew-members of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) availed me the opportunity to see what a Black-hole looks like  You only know it exists due to its comparative effects on its surrounding environment. I am not sure why you posed this question to Atheists in particular but Higgs is like looking for suspicious movement of the tall grass to know if a tiger is hiding in it - thus far the grass ain't moving.    the very nature of inferential science does not mean it does not exist, it does not mean it does either.

Atheists simply ask for proof that it does and a Black-hole inference will suffice. unfortunately God does not yield to examination as the Scientists have found out 
Atheist will only surmise that Religion(ists) have founded their views (beliefs) on pre-suppositions that are products of words, assumptions, mental speculation and composition

@lagerwhenindoubt
You may not have much knowledge of physics, but you possess the mind of a true scientist. You would be pleased to know that I have added your name to my "Nairalanders who are not r.etarded" list.

Congratulations

Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some intepretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, inasmuch as they have them. For those who challenge these scientists, for the work they do researching human origins or the origins of the universe, remember that science is what gives you the life you live today,  from the technology that allows you to read this post, to the car you drive, to the mobile phones you use, to the medicines that keep you healthy, a growing wonderous understanding of our universe as well as the microscopic world, DNA, electricity, even to the way your food is produced etc. So think twice before you knock the scientific fraternity - imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than any God or religion has and will ever do.

Religionists love to ride on the coat tails of science if they can make it seem like it supports their claim, but they slander them at every opportunity when it conflicts with their magic story--even as they benefit from the fruits of science. . . . . . When Newton couldn't figure out how the planetary orbits could remain stable, he quit looking for natural explanations and concluded that God must be intervening to put them back on track. He was wrong because he let faith cloud his thinking. Religious folks have just gotten used to not having their pet superstitions questioned.  They like to feel like it's ennobling to believe in their version of magical thinking.  I feel pretty equal about all superstitions. . . . . . . Scientology, Astrology, psychics, Christianity, angels, mythologies, all belief in the paranormal, supernatural, and other pseudoscientific beliefs. They just don't hold up under testing, and I'm tired of fooling myself.  I'd rather not know something than believe a lie, and as far as the evidence goes, all belief in invisible beings is equally delusional IMO (not saying it as an insult sha).  There is no more evidence for Thor than Jesus-God or Allah all Gods are the same because they are all a man made invention  and all religions are basically the same IMO.

There is not 2 sides to "the debate."  There is one truth, and so far science is the best path for illuminating the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe in. On the flip side, there are millions of faiths, humans have always invented gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand.  But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins it tells us that there are no weather gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops.

You picked one version of a magical story to believe over all the other possibilities because somehow you thought it was "the truth" but doesn't every believer think that?   And, yet, statistically they cannot all be true, but they can all be myths.  Certainly, no  matter what is true, the vast majority of people are confused or mistaken or just wrong.  Everyone is going to hell according to Somebody's religion,  . . . .Move forward to the early 21st century and the advances in science help explain what was once seen as supernatural (volcanoes, earthquakes, biology, physics, age of the universe, etc).  It is my belief the modern day Religious apologists see the advances in science as influencing people to abandon their religious beliefs and worship the god of "science".  Thus, the apologists stepping into the fray are faced either with trying to discount science or elevate religious belief to an equal of science. 

At least that is what I see from the opening post on this topic.

If that understanding is correct then the modern day religious apologist are doomed.  Religion is not science and science is not religion.  Science is based on observation and theories based on those observations.  One can argue that is also what religious apologists attempt to do but the key difference is creating an experiment which will substantiate the theory.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no chant, ritual, incantation, prayer, series of gestures, etc. which will consistently produce an entity which can be seen and measured and identified as "God". . . . .

I like this thread. You people should talk more

Ah finally some responses

I will be back. Terribly busy at the mo'.

InesQor:

Ah finally some responses

I will be back. Terribly busy at the mo'.

Bros InesQor, time don go ooh, ha far?

Evil Brain:

@lagerwhenindoubt
You may not have much knowledge of physics, but you possess the mind of a true scientist. You would be pleased to know that I have added your name to my "Nairalanders who are not r.etarded" list.

Congratulations

Nice to know, thanks

@lagerwhenindoubt: I apologize for the delay, and for the record I don't call it a "God-particle", which is a crap phrase to me. I am only making an analogy to show an unfounded bias.

Unfortunately, my points have not been addressed at all by anyone. Only Mazaje made a good attempt, but he skirted the issue. Evil Brain says I have presented a typical strawman argument, a "misrepresentation of an opponent's position" <---- Care to show how I have done this? What is my misrepresentation of the atheist's positon?

All I said is this:
1. Atheists don't believe in God because he is not "tangible". They ask, where is the evidence.
2. Some Atheists are Scientists who also believe there is a Higgs Boson, which is intangible and they have no evidence either but build their "lives upon it.
3. Why the bias?

In simple terms, if you are an Atheist, and a Scientist, I want to know why there is such a Bias. That's all.

Evil Brain, I am a graduate Engineer and I know all you are saying here. I personally and professionally know that research is ongoing in this field. The only point I am making is that science relies on Faith too!! Sometimes you don't have all the evidence. Why the double face, then? Why is it that when religion makes a claim or a belief, once there is no immediate evidence it is discarded?

Personally I think Science and Religion have intersections, and they are different angles of observation.

I hope my point is made. If it's not clear, I may return to explain further.

@vescucci: Unfortunately I don't think this thread is designed to live long. Thanks for stopping by. . .

Science keeps exploring new frontiers, new dimensions. YET they believe that every point in time, they have already explored the dimension in which God exists (so to speak) and found him missing? That's dishonest, gross hypocrisy to me.

I think it's the religious stories that people have heard, that make them think they know anything about God, or that he does not exist.

To prove my point: Look at all the replies above. None of the respondents dealt with the topic of "God", they all deviated into "Jesus this", "Allah", "Hell", "superstition". Na wa for all of una o.

InesQor:


All I said is this:
1. Atheists don't believe in God because he is not "tangible". They ask, where is the evidence.
2. Some Atheists are Scientists who also believe there is a Higgs Boson, which is intangible and they have no evidence either but build their "lives upon it.
3. Why the bias? 

In simple terms, if you are an Atheist, and a Scientist, I want to know why there is such a Bias. That's all.

The problem with god, as Lagerwhenindoubt touched upon, is that the god concept cannot be addressed at all by science. The reason this is the case is because the complete lack of any coherent/meaningful definition of what god IS. It is not a matter of just being intangible. Of the attempted definitions I have heard so far, most are based entirely on saying what god is not. That is as uninformative as no definition at all. The Higgs boson on the other hand has a clear coherent and meaningful definition that can be addressed by the first principals of Mathematics,Logic, and Science.

InesQor:

Science keeps exploring new frontiers, new dimensions. YET they believe that every point in time, they have already explored the dimension in which God exists (so to speak) and found him missing? That's dishonest, gross hypocrisy to me.

I think it's the religious stories that people have heard, that make them think they know anything about God, or that he does not exist.

To prove my point: Look at all the replies above. None of the respondents dealt with the topic of "God", they all deviated into "Jesus this", "Allah", "Hell", "superstition". Na wa for all of una o.

No one has addressed the topic of God because you have not defined what you mean when you say God. So they just address all the God concepts[b] they[/b] know of. These discussions about God always start this way. We put the cart before the horse when we discuss something without first clearly and coherently defining it. So perhaps you can be the first to produce a logically coherent definition of God that can be addressed within the realm of science.

InesQor:

Evil Brain, I am a graduate Engineer and I know all you are saying here.  I personally and professionally know that research is ongoing in this field. The only point I am making is that science relies on Faith too!! Sometimes you don't have all the evidence. Why the double face, then? Why is it that when religion makes a claim or a belief, once there is no immediate evidence it is discarded?

This is the definitions of Faith

faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

If you mean the first then yes those who apply science have confidence in science(reason being that it actually works). However, Faith for spiritualist/religious/theist usually entails the second definition in which case I would respond categorically with a no we(including yourself as an engineer) do not. Proof or more appropriately evidence whether direct or indirect, is the corner stone of scientific inquiry. Again it all comes down to lack of definitions. I am constantly bombarded with references to vacuous/incoherent/undefined concepts like the soul, the spirit, transcendent. These cannot be the basis of any functioning belief in any realm much less science.

InesQor:

Personally I think Science and Religion have intersections, and they are different angles of observation.

In form, execution and application they are completely dissimilar. When you want to build strong house you use science not religion. When you want to cure a disease you use science not religion. When you want to treat a mental illness you use science not religion. When you want to engineer a device you use science not religion. People often equivocate science and religion, but in terms of safety, health, convenience etc. . . they overwhelmingly choose the observations of science over those of religion.

Idehn: The reason this is the case is because the complete lack of any coherent/meaningful definition of what god IS.

And you KNOW what a Higgs Boson is?

Idehn:
The problem with god, as Lagerwhenindoubt touched upon, is that the god concept cannot be addressed at all by science. The reason this is the case is because the complete lack of any coherent/meaningful definition of what god IS. It is not a matter of just being intangible. Of the attempted definitions I have heard so far, most are based entirely on saying what god is not. That is as uninformative as no definition at all. The Higgs boson on the other hand has a clear coherent and meaningful definition that can be addressed by the first principals of Mathematics,Logic, and Science.

Wow you don't mean it! What is this clear coherent and meaningful definition of the Higgs Boson THAT IS NOT speculation and conjecture and can be addressed by Archimedes and Leonardo Da Vinci the first principals of mathematics, logic and science? Sorry, principles, I meant. 

Idehn: No one has addressed the topic of God because you have not defined what you mean when you say God. So they just address all the God concepts they know of.

So in essence when they hear "God", those who do not believe begin to colour their reasons with their bias and subjective opinions. Seen. Lame excuse (that's not done in science) but it's alright. That was my point all along.

Idehn: . . . because you have not defined what you mean when you say God

Na wa o. Maybe you did not read between the lines. Here, I remember saying the below in the OP

InesQor: In a related matter I'd also like to know why atheists are quick to compare God to a unicorn, Santa Claus, or a white bearded man in the moon AND NOT the Higgs Boson. It makes no sense, and its just dishonest. Those listed items are not observable and unlike God, have no valid reasons to exist, neither do they[b] impact the observed world[/b]. But science has a million unanswered questions on intelligent design and the universe, even on the Higgs Boson. Yet [i]they [/i]vehemently declare that God does not exist. As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

I don't know about you, but if I were reading the OP in an unbiased mind, my LOGICAL deduction would be that according to the OP, God is some entity who the OP thinks might exist thanks to millions of unanswered questions on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in nature, and the complexities in the universe(s).

In summary, I would then conclude that the OP takes "God" as an intellient designer of all. Nothing more for the sake of this gist!

Then, if I were arguing or discusssing honestly, THIS, defined here, is the "God" that i would be dealing with in my argument, and I would not be hitting out with words like "Allah", "Jesus", "myth" and "superstition", which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. We are talking about science and its stultifications and glories; it's possible discoveries and its many questions.

Personally I think Science and Religion have intersections, and they are different angles of observation.

Crosshair.

Religion in general begins with a conjecture about an original intelligent design by God (a form of design, mandate, origin or the other) and try to figure out how we got here in the present; Science starts from where we are or what we have right now and begin to make conjectures that backtrack to the past in order to discover and utilize origins. Some aspects of religion and science as well do vice-versa.

That was my point.

It often appears like [i]Atheism [/i]begins to stutter whenever there is no particular or generally accepted abstraction or concept of God for Atheists to express their displeasure or misgivings about, or a peopled religious system that they have qualms with.

@InesQor
I accused you of making a strawman arguement. This is what I mean:

InesQor:

All I said is this:
1. Atheists don't believe in God because he is not "tangible". They ask, where is the evidence.
2. Some Atheists are Scientists who also believe there is a Higgs Boson, which is intangible and they have no evidence either but build their "lives upon it.
3. Why the bias?

In simple terms, if you are an Atheist, and a Scientist, I want to know why there is such a Bias. That's all.

The Higgs Bosun may not have been observed directly, but its far from intangible. The belief in its existence was arrived at through a process of deduction. lagerwhenindoubt gave an excellent analogy of using the movement of the tall grass to tell that there must be a tiger hiding there. Of course you can't be 100% sure until you actually see the tiger, which is why they built the large hadron collider.

You've created a strawman by suggesting that the scientists believe in the Higgs' existence for they same reason theists believe in god. This cannot be farther form the truth. Physicists believe in the Higgs because so far its the simplest way to explain how gravity is mediated taking into account all the information we have till date. Scientists are actively trying to prove/disprove the Higgs' existence, and if some new information shows us that the Higgs theory is wrong, the scientific community would happily discard it for a newer and better idea. No scientist has "faith" in the Higgs Bosun. To suggest that they do is just being disingenuous.

You cannot make similar claims about religion or belief in god. People did not start believing in god because of logic suggested he exists. There is no evidence proving or even suggesting that there is such a being. Theists never consider contrary opinions and will not change their views in response to new information. Theists do not apply logic or common sense to their world view and even seem to be proud of it. They believe that they are above logic. There is no amount of proof that can convince a theist that god does not exist, they reach their conclusions first then look for facts that support them while ignoring or denying contrary evidence. That is the very opposite of the scientific method.

If theists were like scientists, they would have all abandoned religion the moment it became clear that the earth was not the centre of the universe. If scientists were like theists, we'd all still think that the sun goes round the earth and the apparent movement of moons round Jupiter was caused devils trying to trick us. The bible tells us that if we built a tall enough building that we could reach heaven. Where would we be if nobody ever questioned that?

InesQor:

It often appears like [i]Atheism [/i]begins to stutter whenever there is no particular or generally accepted abstraction or concept of God for Atheists to express their displeasure or misgivings about, or a peopled religious system that they have qualms with.

InesQor: There is a bujubuju on your head!
Scientist: Don't be silly, there's nothing on my head. And what the hell is a bujubuju?
InesQor: See? You precious science has begun to stutter since I won't/can't tell you exactly what a bujubuju is.
InesQor: Praise Bujubuju!

InesQor:

And you KNOW what a Higgs Boson is?
Wow you don't mean it! What is this clear coherent and meaningful definition of the Higgs Boson THAT IS NOT speculation and conjecture and can be addressed by Archimedes and Leonardo Da Vinci the first principals of mathematics, logic and science? Sorry, principles, I meant. 

Pay a visit to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson to learn about the definition of the particle. Part of the definition is the same as any other boson the most notable of which is the photon. The clear, meaningful, and coherent definition of bosons(possibly Higgs as well) is that they follow the conservation laws meaning that their observed behavior must, at certain states, follow other certain patterns(particle nature is verified experimentally). Another meaningful and coherent definition of boson is that they follow the Schrödinger equations meaning observed behavior must, at certain states, follow other certain patterns(wave-nature is confirmed experimentally).

In short clear, coherent, and meaningful definitions are required to make meaningful observations/predictions/hypothesis in science(mathematical definitions in particular).

InesQor:

So in essence when they hear "God", those who do not believe begin to colour their reasons with their bias and subjective opinions. Seen. Lame excuse (that's not done in science) but it's alright. That was my point all along.

If you are sick of people misunderstanding you, clarify your position. Produce a clear,meaningful, and coherent definition what you mean by God instead of this.

I don't know about you, but if I were reading the OP in an unbiased mind, my LOGICAL deduction would be that according to the OP, God is some entity who the OP thinks might exist thanks to millions of unanswered questions on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in nature, and the complexities in the universe(s).

As far as I can tell your definition of God is nothing more than your ignorance of the world around you. Fine, but we already have a word/concept for not knowing/understanding something. It is called ignorance and we do not require another one(especially one as emotionally loaded as the word God). I am fine in just saying that I do not know/understand something.

In a related matter I'd also like to know why atheists are quick to compare God to a unicorn, Santa Claus, or a white bearded man in the moon AND NOT the Higgs Boson. It makes no sense, and its just dishonest. Those listed items are not observable and unlike God, have no valid reasons to exist, neither do they impact the observed world. But science has a million unanswered questions on intelligent design and the universe, even on the Higgs Boson. Yet they vehemently declare that God does not exist. As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

The existence/nature of the Higgs boson is a hypothesis which is defined by the principles of quantum theory. IF the particle exists, then it would very much have impact on the observed world. The very reason it is postulated was to answer just one of those millions of unanswered questions.

You are being dishonest when you pretend like you have any semblance of answer to these questions. Moreover, no evidence exist suggesting design in the Universe beyond that which the organism of planet Earth produced ourselves.

If your God is nothing more than ignorance then I will leave you to it. However, if you claim it is more than that then by all means present a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition. Tell me what your God IS. Does it explain why there are low levels of antimatter in the Universe? Does it explain why the Universe is expanding faster rate than ever? Does, it clarify the nature of Gravity in Quantum theory? What does this word MEAN in terms of our universe?

If you cannot or will not then it only suggest that even you have no idea what you mean when you say God.

I am biased for the following reason - Science and Religion are not alike in form, nature or purpose. they "may" have a common origin (yet to be proven by science) but they are not birds of the same feather. but that is just me talking.

InesQor:

It often appears like Atheism begins to stutter whenever there is no particular or generally accepted abstraction or concept of God for Atheists to express their displeasure or misgivings [/b]about, or a peopled religious system that [b]they have qualms with.

Bros InesQor e never reach like this naa, haba. Let us ignore the emotional undertones in each posts as they do not define the argument nor add value to it (it is a human failing we all have to live with) . We must derive purposeful statements from all these and hope it enlightens rather than cause derision. Even the Bible actively encourages scientific endeavors.

InesQor:

Personally I think Science and Religion have intersections, and they are different angles of observation.

Religion in general begins with a conjecture about an original intelligent design by God (a form of design, mandate, origin or the other) and try to figure out how we got here in the present; Science starts from where we are or what we have right now and begin to make conjectures that backtrack to the past in order to discover and utilize origins. Some aspects of religion and science as well do vice-versa.

That was my point.

Evil Brain, I am a graduate Engineer and I know all you are saying here.  I personally and professionally know that research is ongoing in this field. The only point I am making is that science relies on Faith too!! Sometimes you don't have all the evidence. Why the double face, then? Why is it that when religion makes a claim or a belief, once there is no immediate evidence it is discarded?

Personally I think Science and Religion have intersections, and they are different angles of observation.

I hope my point is made. If it's not clear, I may return to explain further.

@vescucci: Unfortunately I don't think this thread is designed to live long. Thanks for stopping by. . .

I am a bit lost on that but i shall attempt to find my way. what I understand from the above is an attempt to equate Science and Religion based common similarities. i.e Intelligent Design seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations but deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism as there are conceptual and factual flaws in its approach. IMHO Science is two parts, Methods and Inferences.I noticed your use of the word conjecture. It demeans science as much as the word superstition demeans religion. conjecture is an inference from defective or presumptive evidence i.e a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork. An Inference is a process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. Conjectures are as useful as gossip is to the deaf. only bad science and self-fish religion put it to good use  
Accepted there are several evidence in various Religious texts that indicate knowledge of Fundamental Scientific laws even before the age of contemporary/modern science. It is not necessarily Supernatural - i narrow it down to scientific thought nothing more.

InesQor:

Science keeps exploring new frontiers, new dimensions. YET they believe that every point in time, they have already explored the dimension in which God exists (so to speak) and found him missing? That's dishonest, gross hypocrisy to me.

I think it's the religious stories that people have heard, that make them think they know anything about God, or that he does not exist.

To prove my point: Look at all the replies above. None of the respondents dealt with the topic of "God", they all deviated into "Jesus this", "Allah", "Hell", "superstition". Na wa for all of una o.

    It is a common human malaise known as sentiments - a ruse of emotions that do not add value to facts. Science is all about discovery, in 2 centuries Science has barely scratched the surface of the unknown that religion claims to have created in 7 days. of course there is that exploratory possibility that if such a condition exists (BIG BAN.G theory)and its origin is widely known as God to Religion(ists) perhaps this "GOD" can be conceptualized, observed, hypothesized then theorized to explain the unknown. there is nothing wrong with that, it does not however mean that Science intersects Religion. (IMHO) Perhaps Science attempts to explain parts of Religion by doing this, but can Religion explain Science? not a trick question

Let me humbly attempt to deal with the topic of GOD by asking you a question I hope does not derail this thread further. WHAT IS GOD?
The purpose of my question is to seek a definition of GOD that puts HIM outside the realm of Religion. one that infers on HIS characteristics thus allowing for observation.

@vescucci: this thread may be designed for quick-death by misogyny     Science=Man Religion=Woman. forgive my lack of gender ethics but please keep an eye on this in your spare time.

For the purpose of clarification, I am neither Atheist nor Pro-Religion so do not let this affect your analysis

@Idehn  at your posts If i were an observer i would suspect double nairaland ID was in use, you explain my thoughts exactly (though rashly)

Thanks all for the discos its really flowing on the issue of God and Higgs Boson.
Inesqo and co well done for being civil in your posts.

This a little question that i want to put forward while reading through the following thread. . .

Evil Brain:

Typical strawman argument. First you twist the scientific theory then argue against the twisted version.

FYI, not finding the Higgs within the predicted energy range would give us just as much information as if we did find it. Perhaps even more. Science is all about trying to explain the natural world, making predictions based on those explanations and testing those predictions through experimentation. A failure of a theory is not considered to be a bad thing because it forces you to think in new ways and pushes you closer to the truth. It was the dramatic failure of Newtonian physics a century ago that gave us quantum theory and relativity. Otherwise, we might not have microchips and GPS today. That's how scientific progress is made.

'Must' everything around us be subject to science before we should accept it? sorry i dont intend to derail it.

Part two of this topic should be Atheism, Gravitons and Zeus.

After that, we should also indulge the muslims and discuss, Atheism, Higgsino and Allah.

Then will discuss Atheism, quarks and harry potter's magic .

We should then build a sort of hadron collider to smash particles together in order to finally get evidence of something that cannot even be defined and whose main attributes are invisibility and complete absence of evidence.  We'll call it a faith machine and it will finally prove "God".

InesQor:

In a related matter I'd also like to know why atheists are quick to compare God to a unicorn, Santa Claus, or a white bearded man in the moon AND NOT the Higgs Boson. It makes no sense, and its just dishonest. Those listed items are not observable and unlike God, have no valid reasons to exist, neither do they impact the observed world. But science has a million unanswered questions on intelligent design and the universe, even on the Higgs Boson. Yet they vehemently declare that God does not exist. As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

Your honest views on this are welcome.

God has never been described as a fundamental particle so why should he be compared to the Higgs Boson? The only comparisons for your god are mythological characters and fictional characters because that is what "gods" are.

People compare god to unicorns because unicorns are fictional depictions of horses just like gods are fictional and outrageous descriptions of humans. In other words gods are made in man's image.

Santa Claus grants wishes and gods answer prayers.  Adults admit that the former DOESN'T exist but refuse to acknowledge the fact that their version of the latter is just as fictional as the rest; and because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling of comfort, they will deny it and call it "FAITH".  Anyone smart enough to know how science works and is educated that still believes in a god is just someone who loves the idea of a personal god who protects him/her. The person is scared of his own mortality and the fact that death means the END of conciousness.

Intelligent design is not science! It's just christian apologetics.

Before mankind could fly, the gods used to live on mountains and in the sky. Technology disproved that notion and since we are now able to observe vast distances in the cosmos, "God" is said to be "all around you" or "outside space and time" .
I have another idea, maybe God lives in the deepest parts of the ocean since we don't really know what's in there.

Martian:

I have another idea, maybe God lives in the deepest parts of the ocean since we don't really know what's in there.

Atlantis (not God) is the deepest parts of the ocean you meecrob!

lagerwhenindoubt:

Atlantis (not God) is the deepest parts of the ocean you meecrob!

Hey, watch your mouth! I'm a freaking martian so you DO NOT want to piss me off because I will teleport from here to your bathroom while you're taking a sh_t and zap you out of existence with my Anti Matter Particle Beam Weapon (AMPB duhb-uhl-yoo)

EvilBrain:
The Higgs Bosun may not have been observed directly, but its far from intangible. The belief in its existence was arrived at through a process of deduction. lagerwhenindoubt gave an excellent analogy of using the movement of the tall grass to tell that there must be a tiger hiding there. Of course you can't be 100% sure until you actually see the tiger, which is why they built the large hadron collider.

But this is my point. The tall grass moving is the brilliant nature of nature. There must be a tiger (an intelligent designer) somewhere. The beauty of nature can't be due to a random occurrence.

You've created a strawman by suggesting that the scientists believe in the Higgs' existence for they same reason theists believe in god.

All I am saying is: scientists believe in the Higgs existence because it fills a gap for them: it explains WHYs for mass and gravity. Theists believe in God because God fills the gap and explains the WHYs of existence. Neither have definite evidence. THAT's my point, and I'm puzzled that you don't seem to get it.

You cannot make similar claims about religion or belief in god. People did not start believing in god because of logic suggested he exists. There is no evidence proving or even suggesting that there is such a being. Theists never consider contrary opinions and will not change their views in response to new information. Theists do not apply logic or common sense to their world view and even seem to be proud of it. They believe that they are above logic. There is no amount of proof that can convince a theist that god does not exist, they reach their conclusions first then look for facts that support them while ignoring or denying contrary evidence. That is the very opposite of the scientific method.

If theists were like scientists, they would have all abandoned religion the moment it became clear that the earth was not the centre of the universe. If scientists were like theists, we'd all still think that the sun goes round the earth and the apparent movement of moons round Jupiter was caused devils trying to trick us. The bible tells us that if we built a tall enough building that we could reach heaven. Where would we be if nobody ever questioned that?

Sorry, I think all of this is dross. I have personally gone through various religious phases, so many that you will be amazed: ever questioning, ever advancing and in all I have no doubts that God exists. There is NOTHING that is cast in stone or is not subject to my scrutiny, when objectively considered. I don't get why you are generalizing about theism like this. Can you please stick to the issues? My only generalization on atheism is a denial of God's (possible) existence. As you can see, I am not joining issues with agnostics on this thread: only atheists who might also believe in science: which sometimes employs some conjecture as well.

Evil Brain:

InesQor: There is a bujubuju on your head!
Scientist: Don't be silly, there's nothing on my head. And what the hell is a bujubuju?
InesQor: See? You precious science has begun to stutter since I won't/can't tell you exactly what a bujubuju is.
InesQor: Praise Bujubuju!

This does not even deserve a response but I'm gracious like that.

---

Idehn: Pay a visit to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson to learn about the definition of the particle. Part of the definition is the same as any other boson the most notable of which is the photon. The clear, meaningful, and coherent definition of bosons(possibly Higgs as well)  is that they follow the conservation laws meaning that their observed behavior must, at certain states, follow other certain patterns(particle nature is verified experimentally). Another meaningful and coherent definition of boson is that they follow the Schrödinger equations meaning observed behavior must, at certain states, follow other certain patterns(wave-nature is confirmed experimentally).

Dude! God also has a wikipedia entry with a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God . My point is THIS: the definition or description of the Higgs Boson is CONJECTURE. It is not yet explored in practice, and as such any "scientific" definition is no different from a theist coming up with a "definition" for God.

If you are sick of people misunderstanding you, clarify your position. Produce a clear,meaningful, and coherent definition what you mean by God instead of this.

Oh no I am sick of nothing. You only helped me present my point about your bias. Thanks!

As far as I can tell your definition of God is nothing more than your ignorance of the world around you. Fine, but we already have a word/concept for not knowing/understanding something. It is called ignorance and we do not require another one(especially one as emotionally loaded as the word God). I am fine in just saying that I do not know/understand something.

As far as I can tell science's definition of the Higgs Boson is nothing more than their ignorance of mass and gravity on the microcosmic scale.

You are being dishonest when you pretend like you have any semblance of answer to these questions.

LOL WOW
Where have I said I have any semblance of answers? How exactly do you read, Idehn? This is what I said:
As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

Which means I am saying there JUST MIGHT be that possibility that Atheists have been looking in the wrong place, or looking the wrong way, or not even looking, and thinking that they are looking.

Moreover, no evidence exist suggesting design in the Universe beyond that which the organism of planet Earth produced ourselves.

This is absurd, that you will say there is NO (not LITTLE) evidence of intelligent design in the Universe. Come on, put your bias aside. Why are we into DNA computing, clean energy, etc i.e. borrowing technologies from biological and natural life forms? You really don't mean what you said here that "besides what organisms produce, there is no natural design", do you? If you do, I will accept it as your convictions. But don't tell me there is NO evidence of intelligent design. You may say the evidence is inadmissible for you to agree that God exists but don't say there is none. That is just dishonest because even science knows the natural design is beyond anything man can reproduce with ease.

If you cannot or will not then it only suggest that even you have no idea what you mean when you say God.

I think I already answered this question, as it applies to this thread. God = The original designer.

I will leave off you, Idehn, at this point. Thanks for stopping by.

---

lagerwhenindoubt: IMHO Science is two parts, Methods and Inferences.I noticed your use of the word conjecture. It demeans science as much as the word superstition demeans religion. conjecture is an inference from defective or presumptive evidence i.e a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork. An Inference is a process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. Conjectures are as useful as gossip is to the deaf. only bad science and self-fish religion put it to good use

WHAT is this here, man? 

Here is a simple question: is the Higgs Boson theory (which is the subject of this thread) inference [/b]or [b]conjecture ? Does the conjecture make it bad science?

Do you know the IMPACT of Fermat's Last Theorem on science (the so-called Most Difficult Math Problem according to Guinness World Records till 1995), even though it was a conjecture for over 300 years as scientists tried to prove it, until Andrew Wiles proved it in 1995 and it can now be called a theorem? Conjecture is NOT guesswork. Calling the Higgs Boson a conjecture does not demean it. P is not NP, Collatz, Goldbach, Pointcare, Beal. . . so many conjectures in science and they are damn yeah terribly important, man!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjectures
[size=16pt]A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.[/size] Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" in scientific philosophy. Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds. [size=16pt]In mathematics, a conjecture is an unproven proposition or theorem that appears correct.[/size]
When you have also proven [/b]that God does not exist, as opposed to the theist's belief that God's existence may be taken to be true as it is not disproven and appears correct, THEN you can have the gist you are trying to lay down above.

lagerwhenindoubt: Science is all about discovery, in 2 centuries Science has barely scratched the surface of the unknown that religion claims to have created in 7 days.

Dude you stay disappointing me. What religion claims it created anything in 7 days? Is it all religions or just a couple of them? Will you just put your bias aside for the sake of this thread and discuss theism and atheism without the strings attached [b]Can you even discuss this topic without any reference to a religion in particular, like we can discuss science without going into details of the soft sciences versus the hard sciences and their respective differences?

Let me humbly attempt to deal with the topic of GOD by asking you a question I hope does not derail this thread further. WHAT IS GOD?
The purpose of my question is to seek a definition of GOD that puts HIM outside the realm of Religion. one that infers on HIS characteristics thus allowing for observation.

If after all I have said you still do not have the answer to this question as it pertains to this thread, then I am sorry for taking your time.

---

God has never been described as a fundamental particle so why should he be compared to the Higgs Boson? The only comparisons for your god are mythological characters and fictional characters because that is what "gods" are.

I think now the puerile and superfluous posts have started rolling in 'cos everybody can have a say on a public forum.

For the sake of clarity, Martian, I was asking why God is not similarly compared to the Higgs Boson instead of mythical creatures since they have more similar outlook: i.e. they are believed respectively by theists and scientists to have caused something, and both are [i]conjectured [/i]to exist because it helps to understand WHY things are the way they are. Both are documented respectively by theists and scientists as having an undeniable effect on nature, but science accepts the POSSIBILITY of the latter while the POSSIBILITY for the case for an intellgent design is left hanging orphan.

---

The only reason I will return to this thread is if further posts show that the point being discussed is understood. Else, have fun guys cos I'm on to another thread.

Can you even discuss this topic without any reference to a religion in particular, like we can discuss science without going into details of the soft sciences [/b]versus the hard[b] sciences and their respective differences?

@InesQor. How you can mention God+Science in one breath beats me - I miss your points entirely - no probs. by your statements God+Religion as pertains to this title of your post is not relevant to discussion/answers you seek. You have not wasted my time, it was mine to use in the first place. cheerio

InesQor:


Dude! God also has a wikipedia entry with a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God . My point is THIS: the definition or description of the Higgs Boson is CONJECTURE. It is not yet explored in practice, and as such any "scientific" definition is no different from a theist coming up with a "definition" for God.

Again, their are MANY definitions of God on the wiki page which I might add include Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, etc . . . that you have objected to. If you are going to use the wiki then pick a definition so that the discussion can move along.

Furthermore I think you need to look at this part of your definition.

Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.

That is the difference between the Higgs Boson and all the definitions of God I have heard so far. For example(using the wiki), you cannot test a God defined as being a Supernatural being in a natural context(our Universe). Being able to would render the meaning of the words natural and supernatural meaningless as they are necessarily mutually exclusive. We cannot even postulate the existence much less the nature of God because we do not know what it means for a supernatural being to exist. Our entire worldview of existence is informed by a natural context. Saying God is a supernatural being is clear but is not meaningful. Saying that the existence of said God can be established using the natural world is neither meaningful nor coherent.

That is why science has nothing to say the existence of that God, but can say much about the possibility of the existence of the Higgs Boson. It is because we need a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition to tell us what we are looking for. The Higgs boson has one, but God/Santa Clause/Fairies do not. I would also like to add that if the Unicorn is defined solely as sub-species of horse with a single drill like horn on its head, said definition would be meaningful, coherent, and clear. We know what to look for and so far we have not found it.

InesQor:

All I am saying is: scientists believe in the Higgs existence because it fills a gap for them: it explains WHYs for mass and gravity. Theists believe in God because God fills the gap and explains the WHYs of existence. Neither have definite evidence. THAT's my point, and I'm puzzled that you don't seem to get it.

Again God does not fill the gap. You have not presented any definition of God that fills gaps in knowledge.The definition(s) you have presented so far are not meaningful. What does it mean to be intelligent outside the context of our current Universe(does it have a brain)?  What exactly is this being designing anyway and how? Can we humans do it as well? Most importantly in a scientific framework how do we identify/test for the "designs" of said entity? The answer to the last is of course that we cannot because the definition does not entail any of this. We cannot tell the difference between nature and this entities "designs".

InesQor:

Oh no I am sick of nothing. You only helped me present my point about your bias. Thanks!

Everyone has biases. You think you are correct. I think I am correct. That is why we are having a discussion. However, you are biased in favor of something you can hardly even define much less in a clear, coherent, and meaningful fashion. I am not biased against you concept of God because I have no idea what it is you are talking about when you say God.

LOL WOW
Where have I said I have any semblance of answers? Huh How exactly do you read, Idehn? This is what I said:
As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

Which means I am saying there JUST MIGHT be that possibility that Atheists have been looking in the wrong place, or looking the wrong way, or not even looking, and thinking that they are looking.

You just said that God fills Gaps in knowledge did you not? That would be called an answer. I read just fine, but perhaps you would do well to remember your own statements.

All I am saying is: scientists believe in the Higgs existence because it fills a gap for them: it explains WHYs for mass and gravity. Theists believe in God because God fills the gap and explains the WHYs of existence.

LOL WOW
As if they have searched all extents of possibility of existence!

Which means I am saying there JUST MIGHT be that possibility that Atheists have been looking in the wrong place, or looking the wrong way, or not even looking, and thinking that they are looking.

If you know other extents of existence, then please define them so that we may study them. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

This is absurd, that you will say there is NO (not LITTLE) evidence of intelligent design in the Universe. Come on, put your bias aside. Why are we into DNA computing, clean energy, etc i.e. borrowing technologies from biological and natural life forms? You really don't mean what you said here that "besides what organisms produce, there is no natural design", do you? If you do, I will accept it as your convictions. But don't tell me there is NO evidence of intelligent design. You may say the evidence is inadmissible for you to agree that God exists but don't say there is none. That is just dishonest because even science knows the natural design is beyond anything man can reproduce with ease.

The bias is yours. YOU are the one looking for design/intent in the Universe but are unable to tell me how you recognize it. Bioengineering, applies the natural processes to engineering problems. In this respect it is no different than Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical or any other form of engineering. Engineering is a science and like all others requires observation and study of the natural world. You have not even defined God in anyway that would allow you to recognize its "designs". I do not think even you know what you mean when you say God designed X(insert concept here).

I think I already answered this question, as it applies to this thread. God = The original designer.

I would say the first creature to use tools is the real OG OD.

To shut up a theist just ask him to describe God in a coherent manner.

The only thing I will respond to is:

We cannot tell the difference between nature and this entities "designs".

And my response is that [b]I thought it was clear [/b]that theists believe that the very same "nature" is synonymous to "this entity's (God's) designs".

But your post is well read though I yet disagree, Idehn. I will leave it all for agents in posterity to make their own opinions. Thanks for joining the thread.