Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very interesting article but I have to take exception to the method used to prove the science. The entire premise of the Big Bang theory is that something came from nothing, "This fundamental particle, thought to give mass to all particles", yet there was nothing to collide when the Big Bang supposedly occurred. This leads me to think the whole premise of finding the God particle (and if found), will be based on bad science.
A very interesting article but I have to take exception to the method used to prove the science. The entire premise of the Big Bang theory is that something came from nothing, "This fundamental particle, thought to give mass to all particles", yet there was nothing to collide when the Big Bang supposedly occurred. This leads me to think the whole premise of finding the God particle (and if found), will be based on bad science.
The entire premise of the Big Bang theory is that something came from nothing, "This fundamental particle, thought to give mass to all particles", yet there was nothing to collide when the Big Bang supposedly occurred.
Then it's a very good thing that you are wrong concerning the premise of the Big Bang theory.
It does not require something to come from nothing.
A very interesting article but I have to take exception to the method used to prove the science. The entire premise of the Big Bang theory is that something came from nothing, "This fundamental particle, thought to give mass to all particles", yet there was nothing to collide when the Big Bang supposedly occurred. This leads me to think the whole premise of finding the God particle (and if found), will be based on bad science.
"My favourite definition of an intellectual: 'Someone who has been educated beyond his/her intelligence." - Clarke
There are some people who maintain that the Big Bang represents something from nothing. I think that notion is fading though. It's not unreasonable to think that something happened to cause the Big Bang. The hard part is that it's not yet known what that cause was. Colliding Branes is one possibility that's being considered which could generate more than enough energy to trigger a Big Bang and form an entire universe.
And do you believe there are multi-verses as well? Are there thousands of you living in different timelines at this very moment?
Which came first the chicken or the egg, and if God created man, who created God? What if God said let it be, and it was? The universe is expanding further and further and I've yet to find where he said "let it stop". So, IMHO, the universe was spoken into existence without a stop clause.
With as much as $4B invested (far more in all probability), in CERN's search for such things, I fully expect that science will discover whatever it needs to justify the costs. Can you say Global Warming? Money always dictates that results be found regardless of the actual truth. Science not only discovers truths but creates them as well. Kind of ironic.
Your post confuses me. Were you attacking me or the OP?
And rational thought v. faith is precisely what delineates a non-believer from a theist.
I'm attacking your silly statements that only atheists are able to think straight. Honestly...the dopiest thing you can say is that atheists use rational thought. I've not met one yet that would actually consider the proofs presented to them.
As a general statement, the new atheists today tend to be arrogant, stubborn and unwilling to use logical, rational thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.