Recently the Higgs boson was detected by scientists utilizing the Large Hadron Collider. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN, disclosed that their experiments found this boson, often referred to as the "God particle" after The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? was published in 1993.
While Lederman and Teresi helped give the Higgs boson a nickname, it was Peter Higgs who, in 1964, postulated the idea of a particle that was (at the time) undetectable, but would be the last piece of the particle physics puzzle and the probable answer to the questions, "what holds everything together?" and "where do these subatomic particles acquire their mass?" These questions are questions about the world we can observe today. However, many laymen and scientists mistakenly perceive the brief existence of said boson in the LHC collider as proof of the Big Bang.
A brief look at recent comments and my answers concerning the clash of the Christian versus Atheist worldviews and then an overview on what the observation of the Higgs boson means to you and me:
"Is there or is there not a Creator God?"
Anonymous commenters in black, when they quote me it will be in blue. I will use my normal font color for the answers to comments and the rest of my assertions otherwise.
"If you check the math of Big Bang equations (prepare for a headache), you'll find that only around 4% of the equation is actually observed, while 96% of it is supposed (hoped for) but absolutely bereft of any kind of proof"
That puts the Big Bang Theory 4% ahead of belief in God. Or if you want to look at it another way, 100%."
Naturalists are not even in good shape if the equation was 100%, because they still would have no explanation for where the "singularity" came from and how it came to explode AND how the results of the explosion were directed to form the elements and the four basic forces and the innumerable laws of physics which can be described and sometimes predicted with math.
I say a Supernatural God creating the Universe is logical and isn't missing 96% of the evidence. Every scientific statement of the Bible holds true. God was not required to tell us how He created nor is it likely we could understand the explanation. But Christians have a First Cause and naturalists do not.
The two postulations , ie that a god existed before the universe, and that the universe exploded from nothing, are both mutualy possible and mutualy exclusive, the god (if we ignore the question of its own origin)obviously exploded, and in its anhialation , created everything. simples , and gets round the atheist / theist thing. by making both sides right, one before and one after the big bang.As an atheist myself, and understanding that i can never know what happened before the big bang, im willing to let this one ride, god may of created everything, but he wiped himself out in doing so, probably was suicidaly bored with the lack of deity type totty.
Both of these comments are so incoherent that it is hard to respond. Christianity does NOT assert that God exploded, but rather that He created ex nihilo (from nothing). A Supernatural God created time and space and matter and energy and all the physical laws, yes. He also created the Solar System and the Earth and all the life found there.
Christians believe that the natural was created by the Supernatural.
Naturalists believe that something came from nothing.
The concept of learning in a human being has no bearing on the question of the origin of all things, unless of course you believe that you ARE the Universe and everything is simply a mirage you have created for your own amusement?
These comments illustrate that the general public is quite ignorant on subjects such as the Higgs boson and what the apparent observation of said particle in the Large Hadron Collider actually means. The comments also suggest that there is a segment of society who are deliberately ignorant, which is what we commonly call being stupid. For the sake of argument I will assume that you, the reader, are either informed or ignorant and will not address my remarks to those who are intentionally stupid.
Steve Cornell's blog, WisdomForLife, addressed the subject nicely. I will include some quotes from his blogpost, but if you go read the post you will be able to see his opinion of the discovery. My excerpt does not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the entire post.:
Let's look at these last statements carefully, not going to be concerned about the numbering system, but I will take them one at a time.
Yes, in that it is an observation of the last unobserved particle in the "particle zoo" of particle physics....as far as we know. Remember that science is less proving things to be true and more about disproving things or eliminating possibilities and placing a label of "fact" on the latest opinion of scientists...until that fact is cast aside for another idea. This is perhaps the most disappointing and unscientific aspect of Darwinism, because the evidence has always supported Creation over Naturalism. Darwinists have completely ignored settled laws of science to propagandize us all with the idea of organisms evolving from non-life. Belief in a Big Bang rather than a Big God is our primary focus today, however.
Not precisely. It helps scientists explain mass that is in existence today but does nothing to reveal where it or anything else came from originally.
To confirm the standard model of particle physics, yes. A standard model for the Universe is relatively (pardon the pun) commonly taught in Physics classes these days, but it is far, far, FAR from being the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that would give Naturalists an explanation for the formation of the Universe.
It reveals the likely source of the electroweak force. To explain that force would require an explanation for the very existence of the boson itself. Science has been able to identify a source for the strong, weak and electroweak forces, which is in no way an explanation for why they work or where they come from...and science is completely unable to identify the source of gravitional force. It is one thing to equate mass with gravity, it is quite another to explain "why does mass exert a gravitational pull?" To know that gravity works and to be able to predict what force it will exert is a far cry from understanding the source of that force!
The observation of the Higgs boson doesn't either support or destroy the concept of supersymmetry. It would be predicted to exist by all particle physicists because it was predicted to exist mathematically. It can be observed today under the right set of circumstances but it underlies all of existence in an unobserved state.
The LHC was able to produce a brief appearance of the Higgs boson here in observed time and observed space by human actions. It cannot act as a time machine to transport us back to the beginning.
If you have to be certain to prove the existence of subatomic particles like the Higgs boson by observation, then I suppose so...Science has an LHC so if Europeans are paying for it, so much the better for Americans, we pay for too many extraneous things as it is!
That is highly unlikely. The vast majority of secular scientists in this field believe in a supersymmetry scenario and will simply continue to postulate and pontificate along those lines. Observing the Higgs Boson allows those who will believe in that concept to keep believing it. It certainly doesn't PROVE supersymmetry, it doesn't disprove it, it simply allows it to be considered as a possibility by those who want it to be true.
Some scientists may jump to conclusions, but the Higgs boson absolutely does NOT tell us WHY we are here nor does it explain WHY any of what we see exists!!! The Bible has long asserted that there is indeed a force permeating the Universe that gives substance to all things - Hebrews 1:1-4, which will be displayed a bit farther down. First, lets be clear about the differences between the two basic worldviews, and I will call upon WisdomForLife again:
The Supremacy of God's Son
In the world today, too many American Christians are suffering from a malady I call "Worldview Creep." The previously mentioned Dr. William Lane Craig (a well-known Christian author, editor and college research professor) has just published an article in the Christian Research Journal entitled, "The God Particle." It is not available online. But he is one of those who have caught the "Creep." The next two quotes below from the last issue of CRJ, Volume 35, Number 6, 2012 of the Christian Research Journal.
Craig rightly points out that "...the theist enjoys a considerable advantage over the naturalist in explaining the uncanny success of mathematics. For the theist has a ready explanation for a applicability of mathematics to the physical world. God has created it according to a certain blueprint that He had in His mind. The world exhibits the mathematical structure it does because God has decided to create it according to the abstract model in his mind." Well said!
Meanwhile, Physicist Michio Kaku was gushing: "Realize that the Higgs boson takes us to the instant of creation itself and we can run the videotape before the big bang; we can talk about the universe before the creation of the universe itself. If our universe is a soap bubble of some sort and it is expanding, there could be other soap bubbles out there, other universes."
Ouch! The definition of the Universe: universe [ˈjuːnɪˌvɜːs]
How can you have multiple aggregates of all existing matter, energy and space? How can Kaku pretend to be transported to the beginning of creation, or even BEFORE the creation by observing matter NOW in our world of observable time and space? Then he switches to "soap bubbles?" Michio Kaku sounds a bit like a guy who finds a penny on the ground and expects that there is a million dollars therefore sitting on his doorstep.
It is interesting that Kaku uses the word, "creation" just as Hawking uses the word, "design" and in both cases they are borrowing terminology from God without applying it properly. This is not uncommon among naturalistic materialists, who use terms and verbs to give the audience a concept in their minds that does not truly reflect the evidence being presented.
But here comes the Creep. Lane spends multiple paragraphs explaining the concept of the Big Bang and makes it clear that he believes that such a thing happened and that God was the Cause of said explosion.
It is disappointing to see Worldview Creep snagging men like Lane and enticing Hank Hanegraff and William Dembski alike. Having carefully written an article that confirms two importation points, he falls down in the end. The two main points he makes supporting a God-created world in reacting to the Higgs boson story:
- Detection of the God Particle is not equivalent to discovering a replacement for God.
- Detection of the God Particle does not take science to the point of creation.
If you intend to have a Christian worldview that is consistent and based on the Word of God, be sure you keep the Bible as your authority above that of the temporary opinions of fallible mankind!
Genesis 1:1 - Exodus 20:1 & Exodus 20:11-John 1:1-14
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
"And God spoke all these words, saying,..."
"...For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.