home
RSS
‘God particle’ coming into focus
December 12th, 2011
01:57 PM ET

‘God particle’ coming into focus

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN

(CNN)–Gossip isn’t just for teenage girls – scientists spread rumors, too. Physicists are giddy about an announcement that will come from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on Tuesday at 8 a.m. EST, although the details remain tantalizingly secret.

The word on the street is that scientists will unveil the first hints of the Higgs boson, also called the "God particle" in popular culture. This unimaginably small particle has never been detected, but would explain several unsolved mysteries about the universe – for instance, why building blocks of our world have mass.

But listen to Tuesday’s revelations with caution – there’s not enough data to make definitive statements yet about the Higgs, said Joe Incandela, chief spokesperson for the LHC’s Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment as of January.

Read the full story from CNN's Light Years Blog
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • God • Science

soundoff (390 Responses)
  1. Ungodly Discipline

    George, you did not answer my question. How long have physiologically modern humans been on Earth? Come on this is a soft ball.

    December 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Geore said "humans have been here since the beginning"

      Ok George that is fine, and forgive me for being a knitpicker, but how many years is that exactly? or at lease roughly?

      December 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
    • George

      I'm going to pull the "I'm no expert" trick of Answer. However, I believe that it is 5000-6000 years. I know the answers can be found at the Creation Museum.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Ok, well nice try. You are only off by about 195,000 years.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:33 pm |
    • Mad The Swine

      How do you explain human skeletons that are tens of thousand of years old then?

      Also, according to your book (the bible), humans weren't created "in the beginning." They were created on the 6th day. Not the beginning.

      I have to ask. How is it that you blindly believe in this religion when you clearly do not understand what is in the book that governs it? Have you actually read the bible? It appears that you have no shame in completely deflecting questions because you openly admit to not knowing any of the answers. Call me logical, but the questions people are asking can be answered easily. You don't have to do any research because it has all been done before. All you have to do is fire up Bing or Google in your web browser of choice. Do not use Yahoo's search engine.

      If you'd like a good search string to begin with, try "bible contradictions." This is a fantastic beginning point. This is a problem with belief, George. Most believers do not fully understand the book that governs their faith. Most christians are guilty of not reading the bible. Instead, they go to church and believe what they're told to believe based on the interpretations of the man at the pulpit.

      If you actually sit down and read about what is in the bible, you'll walk away from it disgusted with your own faith. Once you've seen the lies, contradictions and false promises, then you can start going further in depth with your reading and find out where the origins of the bible's contents come from. To illustrate, some of the terminology used by the authors of the bible come from other religious myths. You will also find that some of the original texts were mistranslated and do not mean what christians today think they mean.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
    • Answer

      @George

      "I'm going to pull the "I'm no expert" trick of Answer."

      It's not a trick – it is self realization that I am not an expert in what one asks from myself. Ask me about my life psychology and what hold I dear.. ask me about my reasoning skills. Those I can readily smack you with.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Oh, brother. Not a reference to the Mis-information Museum.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      "However, I believe that it is 5000-6000 years. I know the answers can be found at the Creation Museum."

      WHAT? WOW!!! Is it really possible for someone to be that brainwashed/dead? For him to think this museum hold the facts is...just wow !! I'm guessing he thinks Adam and Eve were the first people on earth also and that the earth is only 6000 years old.

      George, have you ever taken a real science class? Were you home schooled? The facts have been pointed out to you and you, for whatever reason, fail to open your mind to them. I can't imagine a life like that. How sad!!

      December 13, 2011 at 5:10 am |
    • Mirosal

      I think ol' George would fail recess at home-schooling!!! Even the earliest WRITTEN records date to about 4000 BCE. This is the year 2011. Ok George, there's your 6000 years. In that time, not ONE person has ever recorded any sightings of any huge reptiles, flying or ground-based. Do you rhink man just popped into existence, and was able to read, write, speak a language other than grunting, build ships, explore and produce sellable goods right off the bat? Do you know how long it takes to actually form a civilization, complete with trade, government, infrastructure, defense, etc. etc.? If man first appeared 6000 years ago as you claim, we'd still be a nomadic, hunter/gatherere species. I think George would fail a GED test.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:28 am |
    • Snow

      "How do you explain skelitons that are tens and thousands of years old"? didn't you know.. god put them there just to f with us humans.. you know.. for giggles..

      December 13, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  2. Sam Yaza

    quarks are never observed or found in isolation; they can only be found in those litle machines that this story was about,.. there proven

    December 12, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
    • Newsflash

      Sam, your knowledge of Physics is almost as bad as your English.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
  3. Ungodly Discipline

    Christians, who wants to have an exciting conversation about physics and the origin of the Cosmos. Where we came from, where we care going. Sub-Atomic particles and the possibility of a multi-verse?

    Don't Panic! I was just kidding. Go back to praying. I don't really want to hurt your tiny brains.

    December 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • George

      All that you need to know about those things, you will find in the Bible. I think it so awesome that much of what science is just learning today was written within the covers of the Bible thousands of years ago. Did you know that many of the fossils being found today were from animals killed in the great flood?

      December 12, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • Mad The Swine

      George.

      Seriously.

      Dinosaur fossils are millions of years old. According to the farce, the bible, the flood happened a mere few thousand years ago.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
    • Answer

      "Did you know that many of the fossils being found today were from animals killed in the great flood?"

      So laughable.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      George, if your idiotic posts weren't so funny, I would just ingore you. You are a profoundly stupid person.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      the multi-verse, do you have any evidance on that.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
    • George

      You only think that those fossils are millions of years old because they are buried under the silt build-up resulting from the flood.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Sam, no but it is an awsome theory and comes in many flavors.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:12 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Ok George, please admit you are just pulling our legs.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      oh and swine although gorge is an idiot he never once said dinosaur he said many fossils of animals, technically they are remands but he’s still illiterate because science proving the great flood does not prove the bible the great flood happened after Noah (Gilgamesh) and the great flood is a myth it’s an attempt to understand an event the great flood or the Flood of the Mediterranean did in fact happen but unless Noah or Gilgamesh could create a closed space there’s no way they got all the animals it also was not the entire world

      December 12, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      and gorge those Dino bones they found were dug up and reburied by the water when you read a finding in nat-geo please follow-through after the investigation

      December 12, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
    • Answer

      Never mind dinosaur bones and fossils of plants and live creatures embedded in amber. Consider even the tools of our barbaric past forefathers. Those primitive weapons – only around 60 thousand to 120 thousand year old are more than enough to highlight the fallacy of religious history.

      The religious freaks always refuse to accept the proper accounting of our past. They can never dispute it away.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Am I the only one who can't understand what the hell Sam is saying? It is like he is talking with Marbles in his mouth....

      December 12, 2011 at 10:22 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      George, is your wife's name HeavenScent?

      December 12, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Hey George, make me proud...how long have physically modern humans walked the Earth?

      December 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      sorry about that. I forgot the periods, and such am being a little lazy

      December 12, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
    • George

      @Ungodly

      Humans have been on this earth since the beginning.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • Answer

      @George

      False.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      George it’s one thing to have a religion and a beliefs in god define you and give your morality foundation but that’s a myth. Myths are just story’s it’s entertainment its used to tell kids something else but the hard reality. “Don’t put your finger in the crack on the wall a monster will get you.” Is better than saying don’t put your finger in the crack on the wall you damage the house more. Because everyone knows the kid will just say “Why?” and so one, and so on and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one and so one
      So you say something that makes them go “wow”

      December 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
  4. George

    First, God is not a particle. Second, physics is a religion for atheists. All the answers to the universe can be found in the Bible. The Bible contains all the Truth you will ever need.

    December 12, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Physics is not a religion. You George are a profoundly stupid person.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • George

      Physics seeks to find an alternate explanation for the beginning of the universe other than God. It is thus a religion and is in direct conflict with Christianity. It asks it's adherents to believe in an unproveable "big bang" on faith .Also, it tells its followers that things such as quarcks exist. Have you ever seen a quark? Didn't think so. You gotta take it on faith. I could go on and on about how physics is a religion.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      1. George “Physics seeks to find an alternate explanation for the beginning of the universe other than God.”

      No it doesn’t. Physics seeks to find the truth for the beginning of the universe.

      2. George: “It is thus a religion and is in direct conflict with Christianity.”

      No it is not because it relies on provable facts. Christianity is a cult and has no basis in reality.

      3. George: “It asks it's adherents to believe in an unproveable "big bang" on faith”.

      No it doesn’t. There is excellent data to suggest the Big Bang happened, but it has not been proven and is therefore a theory. That is the beauty of Science. Unless it can be proven by experimentation and then verified by peers, it is not called fact. Someday it may be proven. Scientists are just as interested in what happened before the big bang too. And what comes next.

      4. George: “Also, it tells its followers that things such as quarcks exist. Have you ever seen a quark? Didn't think so. You gotta take it on faith.”

      It is called a “Quark” George, and it is an elementary particle that cannot be directly observed, however much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of hadrons. The science is there to support it. Think about it this way, we can’t observe planets that are many trillions of miles away, but by observing their stars, we can detect their existence by the small gravitational wiggle, or some case the steady “blink” of the planet passing between the star and us.

      5. George: “I could go on and on about how physics is a religion.”

      No you couldn’t, because it not a religion and you are a profoundly stupid person.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • George

      Prove that a qurk exists.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:52 pm |
    • Answer

      Your first real attempt to learn George?

      It's easy – study science like we do.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • Mad The Swine

      George.

      Something tells me that you aren't really a believer. Rather, you are an atheist posting outlandish lunacy for the sake of riling up the masses.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • Answer

      Why presume? Just ask outright of George to confirm what he is..

      A man of faith will tell no lies right? lol

      December 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
    • George

      @Answer

      You didn't prove it because you can't. You atheists don't take "read the Bible" in response to your request to prove God exists so saying "study science" carries no weight. Quarcks are taken on faith.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      George, to my knowledge there is no evidence that a "qurk" exists. As for Quarks, I have already stated my case. If you wish to learn more, please look it up.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Answer

      @George

      You are correct. I can not. The reason .. I have no specialty in that field of science to do the study. Others who have will tell you right off the answer. There is no shame for one who does not have the qualifications to admit it. You – what do you have in your knowledge of the quarks? Nothing.

      You base your assumptions on what you have reference to – the ID-iots webpages that you found ways to attack the science. All you intelligent design freaks all work the same way. You go to your dedicated sites to get the same manure retorts.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      George, go read up on the rabbit's digestive system. That should pretty much prove there is no intelligent design lol.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
    • George

      @Mad Swine

      "Something tells me that you aren't really a believer. Rather, you are an atheist posting outlandish lunacy for the sake of riling up the masses."

      You would be wrong. I could never be an atheist because I have seen and felt things that you couldn't even begin to imagine. Real mysteries that could only be explained by God. I was going through a very hard time, and God talked to me and said he was sending me someone to help. A few months later, I met the lady who became my wife. There are no other explainations for that. That is just one instance where God has helped me.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      gorge quantum physics is the religion that’s all hypothetical

      December 12, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
    • Answer

      @George

      Who cares how much you plea your case that a just being gave you guidance? You are not relating any solid evidence.
      Don't get reality and your poor man – unhappy history til I found god spiel to win someone over from evidence based reality.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
    • George

      @Answer

      Then when an atheist asks me to prove that God exists, I'm going to refer them to an expert because I know only what I know in my heart. I'm not a theologian.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
    • George

      @Answer

      That instance happened after I found God. And it is just one of several. In any case, you are changing the subject because you have not offered any evidence of quarcks. There existence is taken on faith.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      don’t worry dude, to prove your god exist all you need it to believe. To prove god doesn’t exist all you need is http://youtu.be/iUNqer9N12U

      December 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Putting my question where it belongs....

      George, is your wife's name HeavenScent?

      December 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
    • George

      @Sam

      "gorge quantum physics is the religion that’s all hypothetical"

      I know it is Sam. Modern physics is a religion.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:33 pm |
    • Answer

      "Then when an atheist asks me to prove that God exists, I'm going to refer them to an expert because I know only what I know in my heart. I'm not a theologian."

      Do that, tell them to bring empirical evidence. All your heartfelt stories on how you found god is just a skimpy story.
      The heart of the matter is that when people who desire so badly to change – their minds will help them to change.
      If you did not decide and firmly hold onto that desire to change for the better you would not change. That is pure fact.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:33 pm |
    • George

      @HotAir

      No, my wife is not on these boards. She has her own that she belongs to.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      “I know it is Sam. Modern physics is a religion.”
      I said quantum physics, not all physics.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Hmmm deja vu

      George, Physics is not a religion.

      December 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      You have to belong to these boards?? OH CRAP!

      December 12, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Geor'gy Por'gy,
      Sorry to burst that awesome bubble of intelligence that surrounds you, but, QUARKS, (note the spelling), HAVE been observed, first in the deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator in 1968, then all six flavors of quarks were observed in other linear accelerator experiments, and the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered. I know all THAT is WAY over you head, but maybe you should go back to your 2nd grade bible study, and leave science to the big kids. I also know you will NEVER go to the doctor, and will find any cure you need in the babble. 😈

      December 12, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • Mad The Swine

      Things I can't explain. Hm. Well, I did used to be a member of a penticostal church. Something I'm sure you're not aware of, George, is that people of other religious faiths have the same experiences you claim. They hear voices, they feel the "presence of god." The truth is that it is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. It can all be explained, George. Easily, and without santa firing his turds down your chimney. Do you have a chimney, George? Do you?

      December 12, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
    • George

      @Mad Swine

      It's not that I just hear God or feel Him. It's that what he tells me comes true. That is why it is more than just a chemical reaction.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
    • Mad The Swine

      George, how many things have come true that "god" has told you? Furthermore, was god's message via USPS, UPS, FEDEX, phone call, text message or email?

      I'd also like to question "god" further in asking a fairly simple question. The bible states in short that with faith anything you ask for you will receive. This includes telling "god" that you want a mountain to move. The bible promises that this will in fact happen. My question then, is why haven't I ever seen a mountain get up and walk somewhere? I've never seen this in the news. Perhaps a smaller request and another question. Why is it that "god" has not grown someone's missing limb back? I have not seen this kind of miracle in the news. Apparently, the good lord is more interested in showing up on pieces of toast.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • AGuest9

      George, Anatoli Petrovich Bugorski doesn't have to "take particles on faith". Look him up and see what one of these little particles that you don't believe in can do to a particle accelerator researcher.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
    • JA

      @George

      "Second, physics is a religion for atheists."

      As a Christian, i will have to disagree. I am an Electronics Tech at Fermilab in suburban Chicago which houses the largest particle accelerator in the western hemisphere. I am very familiar of what goes around here with physics and particle science. There are many other Christians who work here as scientists and techs. I dont believe that physics defy God in any way. God cannot be measured by any instrument, but molecules and atoms and even quarks can be measured.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:24 am |
  5. Answer

    @fred

    Word of advice and suggestion.

    Just post your regular comment that you have something called the 'truth' you want to say today.
    It will make your day here shorter. That's a guarantee.

    December 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Bob

      No one gives two hoots for your advice.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • Answer

      Of course that's your choice also.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • Huh?

      "No one gives two hoots for your advice."

      Yet you took the time to reply. LMAO!

      December 12, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      I give at LEAST two hoots. But it is hard to imagine Fred posting about this article. I doubt if he even knows what a light year is or how old the Earth is or how old humans have been on this planet or why rabbits eat their own poop.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • :O

      Rabbits eat their own poop? OMG!

      December 12, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      They are not really poops, but they look just like poops. I don't know how the rabbits can tell. But they have to eat them to digest their food. Now there is a clear case of "intellignet design" right? LOL

      December 12, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • fred

      A light year is the distance light travels in a year. I'm not doing the math on it, but I do know that light travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second. I also know that the second largest known black hole in the Universe, which is part of a system of two black holes called OJ287 is approximately 18 Billion solar m@sses. This one I did do the math on and calculated that the amount of time it would take for light to travel around it would equal just over 10 weeks. The smaller black hole orbiting this one is approximately 100 Million solar m@sses. Just last week, news broke that there is another black hole in existence that shatters the record of OJ287. This new black hole is approximately 37 Billion solar m@sses in rough estimates, or five times the size of our solar system. Logically speaking based on previous math on the circ-umference of OJ287, I am going to guess that light would take roughly 20 weeks to circle the much larger black hole. I could be wrong, and if I am then sue me.

      The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The Universe is approximately 13.7 Billion years old. A common misconception is that the Universe is 13.7 Billion light years across. This is false. Let's assume that the Earth was dead center in the Universe and that we could see equally in all directions. From the center to the outer "wall," this would equal 13.7 billion years of expansion. This would only be equal to half of the distance from one side to the other. This means that the known Universe would be 27.4 Billion light years across. Since we are only able to see the past, with continued Universal growth the current estimates to the edge of the observable Universe is approximately 46 Billion light years. The total circu-mference of the known Universe is approximately 93 Billion light years. However, the actual shape of the Universe has only been theorized. Here is a fascinating fact. Due to the speed of light, there may be objects in existence at the edge of the known Universe that we will never see. If two objects are moving away from each other and the speed is equal to the speed of light, neither will ever be visible to each other. It is also known that the rate of Universal expansion is increasing.

      As for rabbits eating their own fecal matter, it has never been an interest of mine.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:20 am |
    • Shame on fred

      fred cut and pasted that from elsewhere. I saw some of that in a different blog. God sees you lying, fred. Aren't you ashamed of yourself for your hubris and dishonesty?

      December 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
  6. Ungodly Discipline

    Everything is relative. The world of the very large is also the world of the very small. The world of the very small is also the world of the very large.

    December 12, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • Bob

      Between large and small you have been able to encapsulate the entire universe. You are one amazing NUT!

      December 12, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      I am NOT amazing Bob and don't you say it!

      December 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Ungodly undisciplined

      I suspect you are intimatly fimilar with the very small

      December 12, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      No UU, I am afraid I have never seen you na-ked, sorry.

      December 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
  7. william

    The universe is so weird I wouldn't be too surprised is they found that this "God particle" were some type of black hole with trillions of galaxies in it.

    December 12, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  8. Anne Clemens

    Great news and we live in really exciting times! I've just finished reading the book about the Higgs Boson (http://popsciencebooks.com/physics-2/massive-the-missing-particle-that-sparked-the-greatest-hunt-in-science/) and am very curious to know if they have really found this God particle.

    December 12, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  9. Nonimus

    This article shouldn't be on Belief Blog.
    The "God" part of the "God particle" is a nickname and has absolutely no relationship to any god(s).
    This is science pure and simple.

    December 12, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Bob

      That was very profound! How did you come up with that?

      December 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Huh?

      "That was very profound! How did you come up with that?"

      Same way you came up with this lame comment. LOL!

      December 12, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  10. AGuest9

    What is this "God particle" nonsense?

    December 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Alfred E Neuman

      That would be science. Ever heard of it?

      December 12, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Science doesn't need a "god".

      December 13, 2011 at 7:00 am |
  11. QuantumSpinTopology

    I am making a prediction that they will not find a Higgs boson because gravity does not work that way according to my personal theories.

    When everyone freaks out about how they can't find it, come looking for me. I'll be somewhere laughing just like I did when my prediction about neutrinos having mass were verified.

    Gravity is caused by the expansion of space-time. I have a partial quantum theory of gravity sitting right here, but explaining it is rather difficult, although I have tried at times to get a dialogue going.
    Being caused by the expansion of space-time, gravity does not need anything quite so silly as a particle to exist, thus no Higgs boson is even needed.
    The equations dealing with gravity express themselves quite well without a particle. HIggs' hypothesis is clunky and will, I predict, be proved to be unworkable.

    QST

    December 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Answer

      Well good for you. Keep that goal in mind for when they do coming knocking to you.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • AGuest9

      You left out gravitons.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      Gravitons do not exist. Anyone who thinks they do is a product of fuzzy thinking and teaching of fuzzy math.
      The same with the Higgs boson. Being predicated upon the Higgs field means that Higgs did not properly investigate quantum gravity. This is not to denigrate the man, for he is a great physicist who has done some great work, but gravity eludes the grasp of many a scientist, or so it would appear.
      Any math that leaves out dimensional physics is not good science even if it is good math by itself.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Actually, it is through the use of fuzzy math that defines twistors by the use contour integrals, as have been determined by Penrose, et al., rather than the Spin 2 closed loops of Superstring Theory These contour integrals are determined by the poles in a general twistor function in twistor space. Therefore, gravitons possess a dual helicity of 2/-2 and hom.ogeneity of -6/+2.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • DOCTOR TRAN

      Well, you can continue touting how awesome you are here, on the belief blog, where you words don't mean a thing and will end up buried. The real scientists out there will continue with real world experiments. Keep riding, keyboard cowboy. You're working miracles.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      Aguest9, the math does not support gravitons. It has been shown to be an unworkable hypothesis. Nonsensical results are produced with the standard work-up, or so I have read. Therefore we can rule out gravitons.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      Doctor Tran, I can only assume you are neither a doctor nor a physicist but only a religious troll, since you have nothing pertinent to say but can only be insulting.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • DOCTOR TRAN

      Mongrel idiots make assumptions. I'm an atheist, genius. Any more assumptions you'd like to make?

      December 12, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Answer

      Someone is defending their ego and making assumptions.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      So that was the only thing I got wrong? What a relief to know that you are just a poseur troll who is also a rude one. Thanks.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • DOCTOR TRAN

      Let us all know when you leave your couch to conduct some real scientific work, hero.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      You have strange ideas about "scientific work", "Dr" Tran.
      Did you think there's a "science machine" that one must have to do "scientific work"?
      Well, let me be the first to tell you that you are quite mistaken about that.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • DOCTOR TRAN

      So, uh.... the Large Hadron Collider is in a scientist's living room in front of his TV? I see. Wait, or are you saying it's not a "science machine?" Say, how come you aren't working with those real scientists? Do you base your theories on History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" shows? I have such a high level of respect for armchair science commandos.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • Ed

      this is a rarity Ateist fighting with Atheist could it be there is trouble in your paradise?

      December 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      A rarity? Hardly. Athiests argue all the time when searching for truths rooted in reality. Dialouge leads to discovery. The reason you don't see athiests arguing on these blogs much is because why argue over supersti ion and fantasy? Truth is interesting and stimulating.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      A rarity? Hardly. Atheists’ argue all the time when searching for truths rooted in reality. Dialogue leads to discovery. The reason you don't see atheists’ arguing on these blogs much is because they don't argue over superst itions and fantasies with each other. Truth is interesting and stimulating.

      December 12, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • :O

      :O

      December 12, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Well, QuantumSpinTopology, I'll march right in tomorrow and demand my tuition back because you said so.

      I guess spin-2 in the framework of the first-order theory using the 30-component wave equation based on the Pauli-Fierz approach is just a bunch of nonsense? I'm guessing that you can disprove this using Lie algebra, Riemann and Ricci tensors and a gauge principle in accordance with Einstein's equations for gravitation? By the way, the latest paper published by the group at Cornell was released in September.. It's hardly without merit.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
  12. GodPot

    God – "This unimaginably small "being" has never been detected, but would explain several unsolved mysteries about the universe – for instance, why Catholics of our world attend mass."

    December 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Answer

      In the science context of your comment we can firmly state their total 'mass' when converted to the sum of energy and then converted to the nature of light their total would be equal to nothing. So in fact in the light of science that is what a religious mass equals to – nothing. Once again proving the concept true -religious masses are nothing.

      Worth no value in attending or reflecting on.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  13. The Crestroyer Theory

    I would like to comment on the probability of a scientific discovery tomorrow.

    Scientists measure their experiments by a term called sigma.

    There is no scientific discovery about a sigma 2.5 or 3.50 as probably will be the case tomorrow. Maybe even lower.

    If Newton were sitting under his appletree and made 100 observations, and in one instance the apple didn't hit him in the head, it is a sigma 2.5. A sigma 5.o is EVERY time that the apple falls down, and that includes doing it a million times and more.

    THAT is a scientific discovery.

    At sigma 3 the apple fals wrong one out of every 370 times you do the experiment. That is not a scientific discovery either.

    My prediction is that the Higgs particle never will reach close to a sigma 5.

    Behind the prediction there is a theory, if you are interested.

    Google crestroyer theory and find it or visit directly at

    http://crestroyertheory.com/the-theory/

    December 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Chris

      True, but that is because the number of observations required to get a sigma of 5 and the difficulty of getting each observation, means that proving it is almost impossible, so they are settling for "We probably found it".

      December 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • tantalizing secret!

      They call it is a 'tantalizing secret' yet to be revealed, how did you get the scoop on this tantalizing discovery to say it will not be close to a sigma5?

      December 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      The postulate from this theory, (which has no evidence, mathematical, or otherwise for it), that light is "created" in a vacuum, is just a "belief". No evidence. But I do like that joke...."Two atoms were walking down the street. One atom said to the other, "oh oh, I just lost an electron". The other one said "Are you sure?". It replied, "Yes, I'm positive". 😈

      December 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      And BTW, if you think you have to do it 370 times, or 1,000,000 times for confirmation, then you apparently skipped Statistics 101.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      Bucky Ball, I liked your joke even if it was sort of old. 🙂

      December 12, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      Crestroyer, from looking at the first few paragraphs of your theory, I would put you firmly in the category of religious nut-job.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • John Richardson

      The transition from supposedly talking about physics to referencing "god, spirit, the soul and the id" was way too early and jolting on your website to avoid the conclusion that you are a religious crank.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  14. hippypoet the 5th grader

    My spelling and grammar is atroicious, yet I expect everyone to decipher my incoherent message and think what I'm actually saying is intellectual.

    Hey hippy – Word to the wise; If your spelling is that of a 5th grader, your knowledge is also assumed to be that of a 5th grader.

    December 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • Actually

      "Word to the wise; If your spelling is that of a 5th grader, your knowledge is also assumed to be that of a 5th grader."

      You're an idiot some of the most brilliant minds have poor spelling skills.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • Bob

      Hipppoet's posts are often brilliant. The same cannot be said for his detractors such as you.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Bob

      Hippypoet's posts are often brilliant. The same cannot be said for his detractors such as you, 5th grader.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • hippypoet

      wow, thank you Actually and Bob... i would never have given myself such a compliment. And besides, with these morons imiating me, i have all the compliments i can handle....well i guess that one extra won't hurt anyone – thank you again.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • fred

      For those of you defending this idiot, I invite you to scroll all the way down to the bottom of this page to view queen bonehead's comment about the "god particle" and how he wishes it had a different name. Apparently, stupidity compels uneducated simpletons to ignore the obvious and make the most moronic statements known to mankind. Someone get this imbecile a Higgs Boson.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • Bob

      fred, re "for those of you defending this idiot", well, no, we weren't defending you.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • fred

      I don't need to be defended. hippy does.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:23 am |
  15. HotAirAce

    From "Father of the 'God Particle" (James Randerson, The Guardian, Monday 30 June 2008):

    "Peter Higgs rarely gives interviews. The 79-year-old might be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize if the LHC finds evidence for the fundamental particle he proposed in 1964 – known as the Higgs boson or, more colourfully, the God Particle – but he is a reluctant rock-star scientist, too self-deprecating to even refer to the particle by name. He prefers to call it the "boson named after me".

    Finding the Higgs boson is probably the only thing many people outside physics know about the impending experiments at Cern. And until recently, the man behind it has been as mysterious as the missing particle.

    In April, Higgs visited Geneva for a peek at the LHC before it was super-cooled with liquid helium, ready for the near light-speed buzz of the first proton beam around the ring.

    The Higgs boson is the particle that is thought to give everything else in the universe mass, but that bit of theoretical physics is unlikely to be the reason most people have heard of it. Its theistic nickname was coined by Nobel-prize winning physicist Leon Lederman, but Higgs himself is no fan of the label. "I find it embarrassing because, though I'm not a believer myself, I think it is the kind of misuse of terminology which I think might offend some people."

    It wasn't even Lederman's choice. "He wanted to refer to it as that 'goddamn particle' and his editor wouldn't let him," says Higgs."

    December 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Yes...he wanted it called the 'godd.amn particle' since it continued to elude detection even though it was predicted to exist. There are also a bunch of "yet to be discovered theoretical particles" that would satisfy supersymmetry quantum mechanics.

      This really has no place in a belief blog. The name 'God Particle' is a misnomer.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • Answer

      The only reason the religious freaks want in on the action is of course they like to stick their noses into it. They need to find a reason to make a stake science and own it – like they try with everything else. The emptiness in their religion tells them to justify any means to distort science just like they want with morality.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Gee, there aren't really little angels flying around in the chamber like in Angels and Demons? ROFLMAO

      December 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • captain america

      canadian circle jerk club meeting?

      December 12, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Answer

      That's right captain.. you're the main attraction. Spotlights on you.
      Your hate and supremacy in a kettle and hot man to man action.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • captain america

      So there is a use for canadians?

      December 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • Answer

      Of course not, we don't need Canadians to hate. We need religious supremacists to do that.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • captain america

      So bottom line canadians would screw up a circle jerk?

      December 12, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Answer

      Of course. Without the supremacists guidance in their professionalism we Canadians wouldn't know the benefits of the proper way of doing it.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • captain america

      Amazing admission of incompetence given the fact that the overwhelming majority of canadians are qu eer.

      December 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • Answer

      Being q-u-e-e-r is better than spewing your garbage hate. So we're infinitely better.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • captain america

      Fact ain't hate get used to it, canadians are such whiners.Too easy to avoid your own problems by pointing your perverted finger of hate at someone else. When we take over canada there won't be anyone left. Qu eers don't reproduce and we will just walk over the pakis. It will be a slam dunk. We will leave you a homeland north of james bay , probably the nwt but we will take all mineral rights.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:51 am |
    • HotAirAce

      So not only does CA hate Canadians, he's also a rascist. A picture of a grumpy old uneducated white dude repressing homosexual tendencies (not that there is anything wrong with being gay) and struggling with the outcome of his country's misadventures abroad and changes at home is beginning to emerge. That's a lot of baggage for one person. I hope he finds comfort within his cult.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:11 am |
  16. Sam Yaza

    Um wern't thy just saying in all likelyhood it doesn't exsist
    http://news.yahoo.com/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-172205263.html

    December 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • Chris

      Because this hadn't come out yet, so everyone thought they had found nothing when it seems they were simply working to confirm what they had found.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Who said? There are 43 projects, with hundreds of staff working at CERN. One researcher can say just about anything, and a researcher on another concurrent project can say the exact opposite.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      I know that what I love about science there open to scrutiny. But still they won’t find it because in all likelihood the big bang never happened. Now can we please stop wasting money we need to crack the code of fusion, the price of hubris is about five billion to market, and there clearly over paying. We have worked up the question “Why” so much even if we find it we won’t be happy about it will be a letdown you know like “42” we will never be satisfied and frankly we haven’t even solved world hunger, granted were pretty close, but perhaps understanding all of this is beyond us right now, “don’t reach for the stars, reach for a ladder” eventually you will get to that star. The hadron collider is arrogance at its best even if the find the particle,…what can they do with it?;.. more theoretic? More quantum physics? Another six billion? Let’s work on what we can do that six billion could have gone to the field of propulsion so we can actually began colonization, that it the last piece of the Mars puzzle is getting there this is a waste of resources, and were limited. We should be researching on increasing that limit.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • AGuest9

      More quantum physics? Of course. Without the past 100 years in physics, nanotechnology wouldn't exist (not to mention nuclear medicine.) The cool new cell phone? It wouldn't exist, either, nor the solid state hard drive.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
  17. Colin

    I have no idea why this article is in a religios blog. Putting it here presupposes some kind of divine dimension to the issue of the origins of the Universe. This is a scientific question with a scientific answer. Let the theists debate how many angels dance on a pin while the scientists do the real work.

    December 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • QuantumSpinTopology

      You are correct. This has no business being in a religious blog at all. I guess the word "god" is all it took, though.
      Some people just like to troll religious folks with a religious blog. It's amazing the number of anti-science religious people posting about this. They think it has something to do with religion but it is just science.
      Perhaps they should have called it the "Pixie" particle instead.
      Then people could joke about leaving a saucer of milk behind the LHC to appease the wee folk.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Lack of proper editing in the web department at CNN.

      December 12, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
  18. J.W

    I am not an expert on science, but I am sure this particle will prove God exists eventually.

    December 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Colin

      And, let me guess, that would be YOUR god, right?

      December 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • HellBent

      The second half of your comment confirmed the first.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • J.W

      Well yeah it would definitely be my God. I am the smartest dude in the world.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • GodPot

      "God exists eventually."

      You are correct, God will exist eventually, or at least something people call God.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • TerrenSentient

      The Christian god has already been proven to not exist, since its characteristics are contradictory and logically inconsistent, and stories about it are so error-loaded (among many other reasons).

      On those grounds alone, any god that is to be found is not the one that the Christians claim.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • fred

      Null hypothesis; God is visible in the presence of faith. Alternate hypothesis God is not visible in the presence of faith – False every time experiment is conducted
      Throughout all know history of the God of Abraham whenever a man is given the faith of even a mustard seed the things of God become visible. Christians would die terrible deaths rather than recant Jesus is Lord.
      The God particle can be as the mustard seed a very small thing but, it will change you completely. This man made experiment will never find that smallest of faith that can change the biggest heathens known to mankind into loving Saints. God shows himself as God determines as he chooses not as man would like.
      The particle man seeks may reveal mass but, that is about all. That is because we all find what we are really looking for.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • Boris

      fred, you just presented a non-hypothesis. Next time, though, try for some punctuation, and at least make an attempt at coherence.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • fred

      Boris
      Well, ok! Then, what’s “with” the “punctuation”?
      Love, Natasha

      December 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • fred

      Boris
      Нулевая гипотеза правильна

      December 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Snow

      Here is the summation of your argument fred..
      Step1: Assume there is god and we are to believe that god's existence is unquestionable
      Step2: Now, since by step 1, we know that god exists, this proves that everything said in religion is true and accurate
      Step3: Steps 1 and 2 can only be correct if we are talking about Christian god. Other gazillion religions are all assumed to be wrong.

      The fact that you read the word "god" in "god particle" and immediately attributed it to religious god shows how much you know about any aspect of science. Next time you come to a battle of wits, try to arm yourself..

      December 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Actually

      "God is visible in the presence of faith."

      It's funny my daughter told me about her invisible fairy friend, I kept trying to gently reminder her she wasn't really there. Well my daughter told me I didn't have faith in fairies and I just needed to believe. It's time to become an adult now.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • fred

      Actually
      Please have your daughter explain to Snow that a given null hypothesis is proven when the alternative is false and can be reproduced every time. Also, apologize to your daughter as it does not work with fairies except for children of certain ages.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • fred

      Snow
      You restated the null hypothesis so you will not get a false result. You know better. The issue is you cannot disprove it thus is correct. Restating makes it your own not the one given. Any science teacher out there wish to gade Snow's paper?

      December 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Answer

      @fred

      Why don't you go to their house and actively teach it to her? See if you can emotionally blackmail her to your side.

      December 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • fred

      Answer
      I would tell little Ms Actually the truth which is what you should have done for your cousin. You have a responsibility as an adult to correctly explain that people have different faiths in different things. Christians believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy ............. Atheists are materialists like the Greeks of antiquity. Then take her to several churches and bible study and let her ask whatever questions she likes.
      You see I was forced into a public school system that stated man evolved and no god is necessary because we now have the knowledge. Scientists confirm there is no support for creationism thus we do not teach it in public schools. This is because an atheist filed a law suit against alternate viewpoints being made available to children.
      What we now know is that since that ruling civility and morality in our public schools is at an all time low. Unlike atheists the Christians understand both views and are thus more rounded in all applications. We are not sure why atheists fear the truth or alternate points of view when purpose of our universe is actually not known by atheists.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • HellBent

      @fred,

      We shouldn't teach creationism in science classes because it's not science. Period. This should be a really easy debate.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • fred

      Fine but we do not need to give it a negative slam either. Mention evoluton and study evolution without the secular religion beign shoved down the throat of an innocent child

      December 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Fred

      First you constructed no hypothesis. Faith isn't data and also can't be assigned probability.
      Second even IF we accepted your argument it is still wrong. God or Gods presence or power was visible to many people with faith throughout the Bible. To Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, Abraham...etc. These tests refute your hypothesis and they are from your own reference manual.
      Your hidden God was blatantly obvious to the people who brought this idea into the world. Now however he is revealed only through faith? Why is he now so shy? Could it be that it's all just made up crap? Hmmmm.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Fred, creationism belongs in the same dustbin that contains the 6,000 year old flat earth that is at the center of the universe.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • Answer

      @fred

      Why should I care to highlight even one iota of your falsehood to my cousin? Would you teach your cousin to run headlong into a truck going at 100miles/hr just so you can have a different view? Silly d-o-u-c-h-e-s like yourself have no right and are never right to even suggest that I 'consider' religion. I never consider religion. It is useless to our world.

      You're touchy only because you have no place left on this world! When every last scrap of your hollow faith dies off then every one will be free of your religious emotional blackmail. You hate this term blackmail so much because it is the one truth your kind never wants to see typed or spelled out in front of you. You are riled because of that very word.

      It is blackmail – all your pandering is blackmail. Something you actively deny even in yourself. You yourself want so badly to be saved you trust this blackmail. What a joke you are.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Answer

      Take a real good look at the value of all the words I put into just two sentences!

      "Why don't you go to their house and actively teach it to her? See if you can emotionally blackmail her to your side."

      What are the most important words in there? They are "why, actively teach, and emotional blackmail"
      Those simple 5 words caused you some harm. Why? Simple because on the topic that you want to imbue onto Snow.. one of them is teaching. When you know the subject you actively profess it have knowledge on – there should be no problem.

      Then a simple reply of "yeah maybe i will" will suffice. Hence – you are a moron – with claims on the fake knowledge or subject. The other is of course the blackmail. So of which of the two do I speak truthfully? Both.

      End of reasoning.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • fred

      AtheistSteve
      “Now however he is revealed only through faith?
      =>Not exactly, it has always been a matter of faith “for it was by faith Abraham left Ur for a land….” The difference is that back then everything was in symbolic shadows of what was to come. These ancient people physically walked through the system of blood sacrifice, the ceremonial and other traditions constantly to reinforce their law and beliefs. Not sure why God chose this way but, my thought is they were not advanced enough as a civilization to handle the next phase. Another thought (not biblical) is it proves man could not even handle limited free will. In other words they had exact instructions and still could not keep the law for any period of time.
      " Why is he now so shy?"
      =>God is not shy. Anyone that wants to “see God” can have a personal relationship with God. In the Old Testament God revealed his truth through prophets, his words and specific acts by Angels / limited Holy Spirit. Today we have the Holy Spirit within believers and the written word of God.
      "Could it be that it's all just made up crap?"
      =>No, I think the Bible does a good job of showing us exactly what we are like and what God is like. Man in the Garden with God having everything necessary for a perfect life wants what is unknown / off limits. The chosen ones of old wanted more than the promises, water and manna provided by God and asked for unknown Kings like the other nations had. We were offered a free gift of eternal life in Christ and we prefer the unknown.
      That “godd.amn particle” that eludes us.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • Answer

      @fred

      Always the emotionally blackmail. You never learn.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • fred

      o AGuest9
      “Fred, creationism belongs in the same dustbin that contains the 6,000 year old flat earth that is at the center of the universe”
      =>Creationism belongs in any study of people’s belief on the purpose of the universe and the purpose of life. Put it in humanities if you wish or some other social science but, do not put it in science then discredit it directly or indirectly as is now done. There is no basis for that other than secularism which is a full fledged religion today.
      The Bible never stated the earth to be flat. Translations and interpretations were twisted much later after the death of Christ to fit a denominational preference of “flat”. A flat or round earth has no impact or affect on the doctrine or purpose of the Bible.
      You are assuming the universe has a particular shape in order to claim we are not the center point relative to the whole. Please let me know which of the possible shapes you are assuming for the universe today.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • Bob

      fred, wow, you're still trying to push your god-ass-hole on us after you admitted he was an unfair jerk.

      Re the flat earth, the bible says, in different places, that it's flat and round. Like on so many other subjects, the bible actually contradicts itself on that point. It's quite the book of nonsense and horror.

      Do some reading outside your nasty single book. Here, for example:
      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

      December 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • Answer

      Fred's three favorite items for bible junk stuff goes like this..

      First is to lead onto a line to say that there is "truth"... second he will automatically point to the bible. Third is to rehash til he is satisfied for the day and then continue the next day. Regular clockwork.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • fred

      Answer
      You are trying to draw me into a discussion that requires the Bible for proof yet you reject the Bible. I have seen many kids and studies confirm 75% of Christians stop going to church when they return from college. This should be great news for you. It simply reflects that students have been given the option and information to make a fair choice. Your burning of Bibles is the exact opposite of bringing free choice into a society. But, go ahead burn the Bible and keep your family from making their own choice. I am blown away by supposed free thinkers that restrict access to information. You are afraid that a member of your family may just find some faith and embrace God. I can think of a worse fate. A child that may have embraced atheism out of free will, having evaluated all the options then come to a choice. You would do well not to strip anyone of that experience. My God the thought of a daughter that chooses abstinence over safe $ex must drive you batty.
      Yep, burn those Bibles and replace them with the public school indoctrination into a world of "safe $ex" Shame on you for being part of the secular bullies that are after the daughters of faith.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • Answer

      @fred

      No fred. I do this just to make ridicule on the whole lot of religious tools. You're just someone who I analyze for fun.
      You're easy to read with your so called truth. Always pointing to your one tool – the bible. Completely laughable at how you plead for others to take you seriously when you're an idiot.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • Answer

      "Shame on you for being part of the secular bullies that are after the daughters of faith."

      See another emotional attack. So funny. Oh isn't it supposed to be "fathers of faith"? Women do not matter in religion. Haven't you read your bible?

      December 12, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • fred

      Bob
      I think I need to do what reality does and have long post debunking all the supposed contradictions. The thing is you stil would not care. You goal is not to resolve those apparent conflicts because they have been resolved many times over. My thought is you should revise your goal then take steps towards getting there. Are you looking for happiness, a partner, someone to bully, etc? Be honest sit down and write the first thing that comes to mind " I would really like to ( ) before I die or get to old to make a difference. 'What is it Bob?

      December 12, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • .....

      "I would really like to ( ) before I die or get to old to make a difference."

      I would really like to show Christians their god doesn't exist before I die or get to old to make a difference.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Answer

      @fred

      "Be honest, sit down and write.." Take your own words and do that.

      You're full of idiocy.

      December 12, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Snow

      If Bible was true and perfect source of what god intends for men and shows proof for every lopsided argument you make, why were there so many contradictions in its contents? Why were so many rituals and principles changed over time? you yourself mentioned the rituals that changed over time.. Was god not perfect when he wrote bible?

      if man was imperfect in interpreting gods intentions, logic dictates there are other things in bible that are interpreted incorrectly and are wrong (and still remains in the book). How can you consult such an inaccurate book for your quest for truth?

      heck, How can you not be sure that the whole book is incorrect..

      December 12, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • fred

      Answer
      The Bible does no say that. As a matter of fact women were very important in the Bible. To the humiliation of the Apostles Jesus showed himself to the women first. From the beginning of the Bible the women played an important part. Man could not be happy without Eve, Jesus was born through Mary, It was a women that allowed the line of Christ to survive.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • Answer

      Sure fred.. I'll continue to just pat your head like a little dog that needs attention. Good doggy.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Chris

      "Man could not be happy without Eve, Jesus was born through Mary, It was a women that allowed the line of Christ to survive."

      Yet it was a woman that got them kicked out of the garden, a woman is to sit at the right hand of their husbands and be submissive, they are not allowed to preach in church. The bible was written from the perspective of men, not a God.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Snow

      Few of those contradictions you claim do not exist..,

      2. God dwells in chosen temples
      2 Chron 7:12,16
      God dwells not in temples.
      Acts 7:48

      4. God is seen and heard
      Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
      Ex 24:9-11
      God is invisible and cannot be heard
      John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

      6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
      Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
      God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
      things
      Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

      7. God knows the hearts of men
      Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
      God tries men to find out what is in their heart
      Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

      8. God is all powerful
      Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
      God is not all powerful
      Judg 1:19

      9. God is unchangeable
      James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
      God is changeable
      Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
      Ex 33:1,3,17,14

      10. God is just and impartial
      Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
      God is unjust and partial
      Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

      11. God is the author of evil
      Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
      God is not the author of evil
      1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13

      12. God gives freely to those who ask
      James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
      God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
      them.
      John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17

      13. God is to be found by those who seek him
      Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
      God is not to be found by those who seek him
      Prov 1:28

      December 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • fred

      o Snow
      “ why were there so many contradictions in its contents?”
      => There are not. As a matter of fact there are surprisingly few. Most of the contradictions are from atheists or skeptics using; different translations, applying a historical event as if it was a principal, taking verse out of context or applying a time sensitive cultural event to a different time or culture.
      Why were so many rituals and principles changed over time?
      =>The times, intellect and culture of peoples has changed over 10,000 years. God blasted the people for adding laws, rituals, ceremony etc that were not of God. The big change was that all the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ so things like blood sacrifice etc. were not necessary. Christ was promise, the hope that the old rituals pointed.
      Was god not perfect when he wrote bible?
      =>yes God is perfect. Man was not and story reflects their imperfection. They did dumb things and the Bible recorded it.
      How can you not be sure that the whole book is incorrect
      => I cannot think of a more perfect story or guidebook for man. I know of no other compilation that so clearly reveals God and man over time. I have not found any fault with the Bible and it was my source of salvation, it spoke to me personally, Jesus did exactly what He said and changed who I am. Science has its use and if you are interested in the spiritual side of things you go elsewhere.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • fred

      Snow

      Few of those contradictions you claim do not exist..,

      2. God dwells in chosen temples
      2 Chron 7:12,16
      God dwells not in temples.
      Acts 7:48

      => Snow, I need to run but, just a quick look at the first one I can see one is old testament whereas Acts was written after Jesus had risen to be at the right hand of the Father. The reason it is not a contradiction is the God in the Old Testament was symbolicly in the ark carried around, then behind the Holy of Holies and man built temples for God. In Acts Christ said the soul is the temple for the Christ in the Holy Spirit. We now have the power of Holy Spirit in our hearts, no need for a temple or priests.
      Sorry, I really must run

      December 12, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Snow

      @fred, I don't know about a perfect book for others, but for you, try "Logic for Dummies". Thanks for proving that you did not read one post above yours that clearly .. CLEARLY.. spells out (no need to deduce or conclude, but spells out) the contradictions you claim do not exist..

      Also, null hypothysis proof about god existing is BS.. There is ZERO evidence of god existing (except in the minds of the mad & insane), while there is overwhelming proof that he does not.. for eg, try to tell your boss, that you have cool conversations with god every morning – see how they react..

      December 12, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
    • fred

      Chris
      Many people ignore what Jesus teachings were and do not state the proper position of women. Certainly much of the Bible is filled with historical events, historical relationships and much of that was a male dominatied culture of the time and place. When speaking of women the time perspective is very important. Even Paul brought in much his Jewish custom into his writtings that is why it is important to look at these writting through the lens of Jesus / Holy Spirit.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • fred

      Snow
      N o contradictions I did not have enough time to reply.
      No scientific proof but lots of evidence and observation that we serve a living God
      Know your boss, do not tempt God or your Boss.

      December 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • Snow

      So,
      – all the proof for god's existence is only in your head and
      – you see no contradictions (even when they are spelled out).
      – you see the plan clear as the day in your head when you read the bible.. do you also see codes in it? how about aliens?
      – you are not brave enough to say your convictions to anyone..

      Thanks for clearing how sane, stable, logical person you are.. we now know exactly how much weight to give your opinion

      December 12, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
    • fred

      Snow
      You are correct in your last assesment, read the Bible yourself starting from the new testament with an open mind. Do not rely on my opinion as all men fall short of the glory of God.
      If you did not understand my comment on the 1st conflict you mentioned I will rephrase it when I land. computers off for now, bye

      December 12, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @fred That is just SO lame. God is "visible" (clearly you mean this metaphorically) in the presence of those who assume his existence without or even despite the evidence. Brilliant.

      December 12, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Looking "at things through the lens of the Holy Spirit" just means you get to make up anything you want to change at your convenience, that you happen to want to change. How do YOU know what it thinks, or sees ? I thought "relativism" was of the devil ? Your're telling us you know the "mind of god" ? Heh heh.

      fred, check all 4 gospels, line up the resurrection accounts, and then tell us exactly 1. who showed up at the tomb first, 2. who did they see, and 3. in what position was the stone found ? Then go read the accounts of the death of Yeshua. Did he die on the Day of Passover, or the Day of Preparation, (different in all 4), and what time did he die, (different in 3), and come back and explain the CONTRADICTIONS, and I will give you some more. Hope you have a few hours.

      December 12, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      to snow EvilBible.com

      to the other guy Eve is a b_tch. Seriously Adam had a powerful confident woman like Lilith at his side and he begged god to give him some on subservient. And you wonder why she was so easily tricked by Samyaza… but it was for the better because know we have knowledge Lilith deserved better
      but now we enter confusion,… how can the Grigori fall in love with humans if they didn’t exist before the fall simple it not to be taking literally. Adam is metaphor for mankind Lilith and Eve are woman kind, Eve being the obedient, quite, and docile. Lilith is aggressive, strong willed, and passionate. It is the bible basically saying the wont the latter; it is why the bible is considered misogynistic,. But realy though aren’t woman generally two sided. I Like the Lilith aspect! The apple or Fig is mans passage from hunter gather to agricultural.

      December 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      @Fred

      "You are assuming the universe has a particular shape in order to claim we are not the center point relative to the whole."

      Absolutely not. In an expanding universe the appearance of increasing separation of galaxies is the same from any internal perspective. We're not even in the center of our own solar system let alone our galaxy so to conform to your assertion would imply not only geocentricism but also that the entire galaxy was revolving around the Earth. That is just spectacularly stupid.

      Yet in the first part of your post you said: "Creationism belongs in any study of people’s belief on the purpose of the universe and the purpose of life. "

      Here you ASSUME that there actually is a purpose to the universe and life. Without even a shred of evidence to support your claim. How would you go about determining that the universe or life were created with intent let alone for a reason or ultimate purpose? You can't...not unless you begin with a presupposition of a creator God. A God that itself cannot demonstrated to exist. Your entire line of reasoning(if we even dare call it that) is built upon a house of cards without a base.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:40 am |
    • AGuest9

      Fred,

      "secularism which is a full fledged religion today."

      I guess I can add "secularism " to "Atheism" and all of the other -is.ms that are claimed to exist to be exclusive of a religion???

      "The Bible never stated the earth to be flat."

      Actually, the diagram derived from the Pentateuch (and reproduced at the beginning of the OT in several bibles) showing Sheol (He.ll) located under the "pillars of the Earth" upon the flat plane of the Earth, which lies beneath the sky with the stars located on "the dome of the sky" above the floodgates that keep the firmament of the waters in place. So, are the stars just pin-ho.les in the curtain of night? Who decides to open the floodgates? Whoever it is must have been severely disappointed in Texas this summer.

      "Translations and interpretations were twisted much later after the death of Christ"

      At the time of their writing, perhaps, then again during the "translation" process?

      "You are as.suming the universe has a particular shape in order to claim we are not the center point relative to the whole. Please let me know which of the possible shapes you are assuming for the universe today."

      Of course. Any explosion, take a BLEVE for example (or the famous picture of the Ivy Mike nuclear test), that is unbound by a surface, say the Earth, will form a spheroid, as did the Big Bang. Just because we can now measure the universe (part of a larger multiverse?) in all directions out to 28 billion par.secs, doesn't mean that we in the Virgo Supercluster are THE center of the universe, simply the observable universe (from our point of view).

      December 13, 2011 at 8:44 am |
  19. theoldadam

    Very interesting!

    God, however, will never let His creation catch up to Him. He will always remain just over the horizon. He will only allow Himself to be found in the way that He has decided. And that is in His Son Jesus.

    Science is terrific at uncovering God's thoughts after the fact. Be they ignore the question of 'why?'

    December 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • HellBent

      So, no matter what we do, god won't ever let us know conclusively that he actually exists. But he'll torture us forever if we guess wrong.

      praise god!

      December 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • TerrenSentient

      Indeed, Hellbent. And you have to wonder why a god would put so much effort into making his "creations" look like he didn't create them.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • AGuest9

      So MUCH thought must have gone into useless organs such as the appendix, tonsils, the coccyx. Huh, that coccyx looks an AWFUL lot like a connection point for a tail. Hmmm...

      December 13, 2011 at 8:49 am |
  20. hippypoet

    i wish they'd change the name from god particle to something a little more sciencie ya know... any ideas out there?
    Besides that, i am glad we are finally seeing the creation of the universe and it has nothing to do with god, well execpt the name of the particle by some moron rocket scientist how delusions of an afterlife.

    December 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • Ummmmm What?

      Lay off the drugs, you can't even spell. A poet you are not.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • Abby

      It does have another name. It is called the "Higgs Boson".

      December 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Really?

      they told you that the discovery of "this"particle proves that the creation of this universe has nothing to do with God?
      Gotta give you credit when it comes to rumor mongering!

      December 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • JA

      The only reason why they call it "the God Particle" is because the Higgs Boson has been up to this day undetectable....We should find out more tomorrow. They only have an idea of how it might work if it does exist. Its the missing piece to the Standard Model. If you are curious as of the results : http://public.web.cern.ch/public/ they will be showing a live webcast tomorrow at 7a.m.

      December 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • fred

      Wow hippy, aren't you a genius. I find irony in that you of all people are calling a rocket scientist a "moron." The article itself states the actual name "Higgs Boson" which has been known by everyone since they first started researching it. People are always giving me a hard time about my level of intelligence, but you can't spell, you obviously can't read and you come up with the most idiotic garbage on these comment sections. You sit in a building and do nothing all day (we all know what you do, or should I say don't do, for a living). You aren't contributing anything to society except for these useless bonehead comments you make all day that you obviously never bother to think out before letting your fingers puke letters via the keyboard. Most of the time, the letters aren't arranged in the proper order, or a percentage of them are missing. Based on this breathtaking comment of yours (which by the way, needs to be rewritten to make sense, specifically the last sentence), it's safe to assume you've got nothing worthwhile to say.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • .....

      "Wow hippy, aren't you a genius. I find irony in that you of all people are calling a rocket scientist a "moron." The article itself states the actual name "Higgs Boson" which has been known by everyone since they first started researching it. People are always giving me a hard time about my level of intelligence, but you can't spell, you obviously can't read and you come up with the most idiotic garbage on these comment sections. You sit in a building and do nothing all day (we all know what you do, or should I say don't do, for a living). You aren't contributing anything to society except for these useless bonehead comments you make all day that you obviously never bother to think out before letting your fingers puke letters via the keyboard. Most of the time, the letters aren't arranged in the proper order, or a percentage of them are missing. Based on this breathtaking comment of yours (which by the way, needs to be rewritten to make sense, specifically the last sentence), it's safe to assume you've got nothing worthwhile to say."

      Kettle meet pot, pot meet kettle

      The log in your eye is making you blind.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • fred

      And here comes a hippymoron nutswinger to spray the predictable "log in the eye" comment.

      December 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
    • Portland tony

      DAMNED GOD PARTICLE?

      December 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    • fred

      poet
      All the replys on this post were not from the real fred. Someone has decided to use my name for some reason, nothing I can do about that. Posts from fred with a capital F "Fred" are not from me either. But, fred with the big F makes me look smarter than I am so I don't complain.

      December 13, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
1 2 3
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.