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: 1020

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh cool! Thanks Sandi I'll read the article and the comments.

Just because you don't need God, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm an atheist, but I don't think science will ever disprove God. It is logically impossible. Nor does it really need to. God and science do not need to be mutually exclusive.

"God and science do not need to be mutually exclusive." Fairly absurd statement... None of these can be disproved either.

 

Thor and science do not need to be mutually exclusive.

 

Hobgoblins and science do not need to be mutually exclusive.

 

Orcs and science do not need to be mutually exclusive.

 

Pink elephants and science do not need to be mutually exclusive.

As easy as it might be to emotively reject pink elephants or hobgoblins, tbey do not contradict with science. Science is not a set viewpoint, it's a process that affirms what we observe. But God, and by extension Thor, must be included on another level. The Abrahamic God is, by definition, an entity that exists outside of the physical realm, so it cannot be empirically observed. It created everything, supposedly, so it encompasses all science. Reject it with all your might as an atheist, but it is not science's role to disprove God, but only to affirm what is empirically verifiable.

"Science is not a set viewpoint, it's a process that affirms what we observe."

 

Well said, but in the complete absence of anything to observe, the argument becomes unnecessary. Because I can imagine a dog's head on a snake's body in no way creates an increased potential for such a creature to manifest. A universe approaching unlimited time and space opens the possibility for any number of absurdities, but what would be the point of considering such possibilities?

There is no point, but I'm not suggesting that we try to prove God with science. All I'm saying is that the existence of God doesn't necessitate that we stop using science, and vice versa. As far as I'm concerned, it is logically impossible to prove or disprove an omnipotent God.

"it is logically impossible to prove or disprove an omnipotent God"

 

I agree, but would add that considering the existence of God should be weighed as no more important than considering the validity of any other fiction. 

The concept of god was a guess, an attempt to explain phenomena which an unsophisticated man observed in this world.  As man became more learned and more conversant with his environment, he came up with other guesses, some better than others.  These include successes, such as the theory of gravitation and the germ theory of disease.  They ALSO include phlogiston chemistry and the ether theory of light, both of which have been decisively disproved.

If someone wants to posit that "god does this-or-that," in a scientific environment, the immediate question is: HOW, by what mechanism, following what pattern, in accordance with what known physical law does this god accomplish this-or-that.  The question is as unanswerable as it is ludicrous.

The concept of god is that of an ignorant, proposed in an educated forum.  The only reason why it persists is because people have been indoctrinated with it or become emotionally attached to it, but neither the indoctrination or the attachment substantiates any reality to be associated with a mistaken concept.  It has no more validity than that of the ether or phlogiston chemistry.

And it deserves to be DROPPED.

Loren says it right - the god question is unanswerable and deserves to be dropped.

You're reversing cause and effect. Scientific laws are said to describe the natural world. The natural world do not describe scientific laws. If hypothetically God does exist naturally, then it does not need to conform to the laws of physics, the laws of physics need to conform to the existence of God.

Concepts cannot be ignorant, but I'm not the one who brought it up. The (non)existence of God is constantly commented on in this forum, even by yourself, so I don't understand why you would tell me to drop the subject, all because I said science could not disprove God.

Because the concept of god is a concept without substance and without functionality.  It makes no logical sense, nor does it have any utility in providing a useful explanation of how this reality works.  It is equivalent to the ether theory of light or phlogiston chemistry in that regard.

The only life that god has is that which believers cling to in the hope that it will someday have relevance in something which science cannot explain.  Stipulated that science will almost certainly never have all the answers, but the likelihood of god fitting into the description of how reality works, especially considering the ignorance with which the concept of god was formulated, strikes me as vanishingly low.  Add to that the fact that there is no supporting evidence, fact, or theory which bolsters any argument for god.

The Null Hypothesis states that in the absence of evidence, the default position is that the phenomenon does not exist. The concept of god has NOTHING to recommend it, other than the insistence of its followers.  It deserves to be rejected, and I reject it.

The concept of science is substantiated; it is a process by which to observe the physical world, and affirm these observations; science does not expressly reject anything. Imagine if CERN had proved that particles could travel faster than the speed of light. Would they complain that this must be absurd because it violates known laws of physics, or would they change the laws of physics so that they, again, accurately describe the physical world given those new observations? The answer is obvious. Science works the way it does regardless of the absurdity of concepts like God.

However, God is different from ether light theory or phligiston chemistry because it is impossible to prove or disprove by definition. As you alluded to before, science cannot logically prove an absolute referent. Science also couldn't grasp omnipotence, which would be hard to define. Something that by definition does not follow any laws is outside the scope of science for sure, but it doesn't mean people should abandon all scientific aspirations and enter epistemological nihilism if God did hypothetically exist. People should still strive to explain the natural world even if it ended up being impossible.

You're acting as if I'm defending the concept of God so you have to justify to me why you do not believe in it. I am also atheist, believe it or not. I believe science necessarily coexists with a hypothetical God. I believe a hypothetical God cannot logical be disproved, by the definition of it. The belief of God can be absurd, but acknowledging the hypothetical concept does not have to be.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service