SCIENCE IS AN AMAZING WORK WHOS PURPOSE IS TO EXPLAIN GOD'S CREATIONS.

[zorro]

Science is an incomplete investigation into the truths of God's. God created Everything From Nothing and gave mankind some tools to explain a bit of it.

 

Since Science is an explanation of God's elegant creations. The closer we get to Scientific reason, the closer we understand God's Works.

 

So far, "The Big Bang" says it all. .... At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation, Everything from Nothing.

 

Carry on Science.

 

Copernicus looked to God (not religion) and changed how we look at science and interpretations.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHUWP9zu4W8

Edited August 12, 2013 by zorro

[John Cuthber]

I can't imagine any evidence turning up for this thread so shouldn't it be in speculations?

It certainly isn't science.

[zorro]

I can't imagine any evidence turning up for this thread so shouldn't it be in speculations?

It certainly isn't science.

Copernicus is at the root of science and explained the Solar system almost as it is.

 

I am looking for a pleasant conversation that sets Sciences within the elegances of God as is Evolution. I allowed Atheists to participate also wherein God is still an open question not as yet discovered by the scientific method. After all we now have almost found the "God Particle".

 

If it turns into a Intelligent Design rant, we can trash the thread.

Edited August 12, 2013 by zorro

[Arete]

After all we now have almost found the "God Particle".

 

[zorro]

 

 

 

Levity is ok including God Jokes and Scientist Jokes.

Edited August 12, 2013 by zorro

[Moontanman]

The GOD Particle has nothing to do with God, google is your friend and you are begging the question big time by presupposing god with no evidence what so ever...

Copernicus is at the root of science and explained the Solar system almost as it is.

 

I am looking for a pleasant conversation that sets Sciences within the elegances of God as is Evolution. I allowed Atheists to participate also wherein God is still an open question not as yet discovered by the scientific method. After all we now have almost found the "God Particle".

 

If it turns into a Intelligent Design rant, we can trash the thread.

 

That is mighty white of you to allow atheists to participate... Please google god particle before this becomes embarrassing...

[zorro]

The GOD Particle has nothing to do with God, google is your friend and you are begging the question big time by presupposing god with no evidence what so ever...

 

 

That is mighty white of you to allow atheists to participate... Please google god particle before this becomes embarrassing...

 

 

 

I have considered your point and googled the bjebus out of it but it is entirely irrelevant here. Big Science came to the finance world with a multibillion program to settle basic theories and scientific conjectures. One was the most basic tenant was a fundamental particle. To gain stature in the theory and give it the highest sort, they named it the “God Particle” to connote a connection to creation and to sap as much monies as they could. It wasn’t named the Zorro particle, it is the GOD particle to aggrandize Science as a semi diety wherein CERN Bureaucrats is a new Pope and the machine is the Sterling Cathedral.

 

CERN is underway thank you, and many more Scientists salaries are riding on finding God’s design even if it is only a Name. From this exchange we all benefit.

 

Now don’t take me wrong here, seeking finances is fair game in this world. You need to admit it that Big Science long ago sought aggrandizements to put itself up into the category of royalty. ….. and as the Priest of past, they sought out God and his wonderful creations.

Edited August 13, 2013 by zorro

[Moontanman]

I have considered your point and googled the bjesus out of it but it is entirely irrelevant here. Big Science came to the finance world with a multibillion program to settle basic theories and scientific conjectures. ..... more to come.

 

 

The God particle was originally called the God Damn Particle because it was so difficult to find, not because it had anything to do with god...

The publishers didn't want to publish a book with God Damn in the title so they shortened it to God Particle...

[zorro]

 

 

The God particle was originally called the God Damn Particle because it was so difficult to find, not because it had anything to do with god...

The publishers didn't want to publish a book with God Damn in the title so they shortened it to God Particle...

 

 

 

On target as usual, Moontanman.

[Arete]

I have considered your point and googled the bjebus out of it but it is entirely irrelevant here.

 

You used the term in post #3 in a rather unequivocally religious context. Given the name has nothing to do with actual religion - it would at least appear, prima facie to reveal a considerable level of scientific obliviousness.

 

This would cast doubt on your assertions about connections between religion and science, and indeed considerable doubt on your speculation as to the motivation for the name of the particle in question.

[Moontanman]

I have to admit that if I was to consider theism this would come close to the stance i would have to take because no holy book contains any information not already available to the people who wrote it...

 

Science is an incomplete investigation into the truths of God's. God created Everything From Nothing and gave mankind some tools to explain a bit of it.

Since Science is an explanation of God's elegant creations. The closer we get to Scientific reason, the closer we understand God's Works

 

.

 

But I can't go there because of the total lack of positive evidence for god, in the face of a total lack of positive evidence for god the default position is there are no gods...

[zorro]

 

You used the term in post #3 in a rather unequivocally religious context. Given the name has nothing to do with actual religion - it would at least appear, prima facie to reveal a considerable level of scientific obliviousness.

 

This would cast doubt on your assertions about connections between religion and science, and indeed considerable doubt on your speculation as to the motivation for the name of the particle in question.

 

There is a clear distinction between religion and science as there is a distinction between religion and God. Here I attempt to portray the fact that science highly values God's creation while trying to remain aloof that, as yet, no scientific machine yet has discovered the transition in God's elegance of the singularity from Nothing to Everything.

 

Science's perplexity with this concept is that the scientific axiom is that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. To God however, this is easily handled by staging the creations and its rules. The Axiom is treated as a transitory until fruition within creation.

Edited August 13, 2013 by zorro

[John Cuthber]

"Science's perplexity with this concept is that the scientific axiom is that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed."

No, it was an axiom but we discovered that it's a deduction.

Noether's theorem shows it to be true as a consequence of Symmetry- specifically symmetry with respect to time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy

 

But, time did not exist before the big bang so the symmetry breaks down at that point and there is no expectation of conservation of energy or mass at that point.

Science hasn't got a theoretical problem with the creation of the universe.

On the other hand, can you similarly explain the creation of God?

[Strange]

So far, "The Big Bang" says it all. .... At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation

So what you are sying is that out of the 14 billion years of history, science has left God with just 10^-64s in which to operate. And will presumably continue to learn more and squeeze Her into an ever smaller gap.

[Unity+]

Sorry to say, but it is you that makes the religious, like me, look bad. No wonder so many people think the religious are cranks. Please, stop trolling.

[zorro]

 

So what you are sying is that out of the 14 billion years of history, science has left God with just 10^-64s in which to operate. And will presumably continue to learn more and squeeze Her into an ever smaller gap.

 

 

Something like that. ....... As I read it from Sciences googlings of the BIG Bang, I speculate that they are saying that it took God 10**-64 sec to plan our Universe, then a 10**-33 blamb BB burst to create everything, then 15 billion years to create/consolidate in several stages of temperature layering cooling and element making. Down now to Dark Matter and Gamma wave propagations their reconsolidation.

 

What does a 10**-33sec Big Bang look like. 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,010 sec

Edited August 13, 2013 by zorro

[Arete]

What does a 10**33 Big Bang look like.

 

I speculate that God rode the big bang on the back of a T-rex on a surfboard. What color were the T-rex's board shorts?

 

* The point of the clearly ridiculous question I've posed is that, if I make a series of unfounded assumptions, and begin the debate at that point in deduction, the foundation of the debate is quite likely, fundamentally flawed.

[iNow]

Sorry to say, but it is you that makes the religious, like me, look bad. No wonder so many people think the religious are cranks.

He's hardly an exception. He is, in fact, quite representative of the online apologist population.

[Unity+]

He's hardly an exception. He is, in fact, quite representative of the online apologist population.

I have seen many who are actually trolls, but most I know that are Christian aren't like that(both in real life and online).

[krash661]

To gain stature in the theory and give it the highest sort, they named it the “God Particle” to connote a connection to creation and to sap as much monies as they could.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77794-why-the-god-particle-answered/?p=758123

 

and also,

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77794-why-the-god-particle-answered/?p=758127

[Unity+]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77794-why-the-god-particle-answered/?p=758123

 

and also,

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77794-why-the-god-particle-answered/?p=758127

I think the user is just trolling about this. Responding with rationality won't do much.

[iNow]

I have seen many who are actually trolls, but most I know that are Christian aren't like that(both in real life and online).

But is the troll label appropriate if they are sincere and genuinely think that way? I suspect not.

[Unity+]

But is the troll label appropriate if they are sincere and genuinely think that way? I suspect not.

Well, he is online so we can never know, and even if he says he is serious the chances we can trust this user is about the approximation of none.

[swansont]

I am looking for a pleasant conversation that sets Sciences within the elegances of God as is Evolution.

 

!

Moderator Note

No, you don't get to set the parameters of discussion. You cannot assume this to be true and also conclude it. If you assume it to be true you are free to make predictions about how the universe would unfold, but must do so in a falsifiable way. If you want to conclude it, you must establish a line of reasoning and evidence that ends there, without God as the null hypothesis.

 

For example, if one takes your "At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation" at face value, you are positing a universe that is classically determined. Do you have evidence of that?

 

I allowed Atheists to participate also wherein God is still an open question not as yet discovered by the scientific method.

!

Moderator Note

You do not get to choose who participates.

 

After all we now have almost found the "God Particle".

I think this has been adequately dismantled.

[zorro]

!

Moderator Note

No, you don't get to set the parameters of discussion. You cannot assume this to be true and also conclude it. If you assume it to be true you are free to make predictions about how the universe would unfold, but must do so in a falsifiable way. If you want to conclude it, you must establish a line of reasoning and evidence that ends there, without God as the null hypothesis.

 

For example, if one takes your "At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation" at face value, you are positing a universe that is classically determined. Do you have evidence of that?

Zorro: .... from the time science advertises it can take the BB back to.

 

 

You do not get to choose who participates.

I control the limits of the OP discussion but all can participate.

 

 

I think this has been adequately dismantled.

 

Great, see ya.

Edited August 13, 2013 by swansont