Collectively, New Scientist wonders whether God exists

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 2, 2016

Media, News, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Collectively, they are, um, dumb. After a while, one gets plumb tired of it.

From Graham Lawton at New Scientist:

IT COST more than $13 billion and took 14 years, but eventually, as expected, God showed up. The joy and relief were immense. That was in 2012, and the evidence has only become stronger. Disbelief is no longer an option. God is real. Not the God of course, but Her particle, aka the Higgs boson.

If only proving the existence of God were that simple. Gallons of ink and blood have been spilled over this question but have largely got us nowhere. Belief in a god or several gods is a leap of faith. So is disbelief. The only coherent and rational position is agnosticism.More.

Do you exist? Do I? If not, whose thoughts are these anyway? Why can we even communicate?

If there was not a designer of the universe, it must be some force that functions very much like that.

One gets uneasy when one realizes that these people actually take all this seriously. They can’t rest until they have completely deconstructed thinking in general.

See also: Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us NPR’s Adam Frank: I find the logic in Hoffman’s ideas both exciting and potentially appealing because of other philosophical biases I carry around in my head. (But he suspects the theory is ultimately wrong.)

and

The war on falsifiability in science continues

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

The title includes this, 'New Scientist' wonders whether God exists. As I read this I knew that several posters would arrive and bring some information that supposedly proves a God. My question is in no way trollish. Why would the faithful want a proof of God? If such hard physical evidence came to light pointing to the undeniable existance of God, I would be down on my knees begging forgiveness, for my past blindness. No such eveidence exists, and I'll wager highly, no such evidence will come to light. My question remains; 'Why would the faithful want hard physical proof of God?' If such came to light all humanity would believe and having faith would become moot. In what way is that trollish? It's directly linked to this post's topic.rvb8_{October 3, 2016
October
10
Oct
3
03
2016
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

@BA77 Thank you for the related material. Your knowledge of these subjects are amazing. The New Atlantis article is a real gem. thank you.Rennie_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

"But why on earth would the faithful wish to ‘prove’ God? Wouldn’t that destroy ‘faith’, the very foundation of religion?" Define faith rvb8. Maybe offer some verses to support your definition.bb_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

And I'm becoming more convinced that some of these posts are actually generated by a troll app. One way to tell is in the quality of the responses that it generates. Anyone who has tried to corner Eliza would understand. -QQuerius_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

HeKS, You just beat me to the punch! ;-) -QQuerius_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

rvb8, Once again, we are presented with a vase of vacuous views filled with the flatulent flora of feelings unfettered by the cruel chains of evidence and logic. The question that still remains unanswered concerns what ethical grounds, if any, would an atheist object to using the flesh of a fetus to feed the desperately hungry. Hmmm? The faithful read in the Bible that it's not praiseworthy for someone to believe in God---that even the devils believe, and they tremble. -QQuerius_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @6, It looks like you really are a troll after all. You might have just taken the record for 'most ridiculous comments in the least amount of space'. Every paragraph revolves around a completely absurd claim.HeKS_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

"The only coherent and rational position is agnosticism." This is probably true, but definately cowardly. I take the position that an entity, God, can not exist because that existance is an insult to the laws of science. I can not diprove God, nor do I want to. The proof of the Higgs' Boson existance, a particle that gives some qualities to other particles, and fills a gap in our understanding of the sub-atomic world, is wonderful. Its discovery, and the existance of God, are completely opposite. Two more questions for the faithful: I understand why atheists should wish to debunk the idea, 'God'! After 2000 years of relentless persecution, atheists see the Wesren world as a relatively safe place to finally be allowed to speak: It was a long and hard fight. But why on earth would the faithful wish to 'prove' God? Wouldn't that destroy 'faith', the very foundation of religion?rvb8_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

a few notes on Higgs:
Is the Higgs Boson (aka the God Particle) also finely tuned for life? So researchers think so! Rethinking the universe: - June 17, 2013 Excerpt: "It all has to do with one of the main theoretical puzzles in fundamental physics," explains (Stephen M.) Barr. "Why is the mass of the Higgs particle 17 orders of magnitude smaller than its 'natural' value?" Two explanations have been proposed, and both of them predict new phenomena that should be seen by the LHC. But so far, there is no hint of them. "That is why our radical proposal nearly 15 years ago is attracting increasing attention," he adds. Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an "unnaturally" small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-rethinking-universe-groundbreaking-theory-multiverse.html The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics - Jan. 14, 2016 Excerpt: Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field,,, there's something mysterious about the Higgs field that continues to perturb physicists like Cliff. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics — the two theories in physics that drive our understanding of the cosmos on incredibly large and extremely small scales — the Higgs field should be performing one of two tasks, says Cliff. Either it should be turned off, meaning it would have a strength value of zero and wouldn't be working to give particles mass, or it should be turned on, and, as the theory goes, this "on value" is "absolutely enormous," Cliff says. But neither of those two scenarios are what physicists observe. "In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on," says Cliff. "It's not zero, but it's ten-thousand-trillion times weaker than it's fully on value — a bit like a light switch that got stuck just before the 'off' position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe." Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding. Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there's one gigantic problem with their answer: "Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy," Cliff said. "This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it's impossible to get your head around ... this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it's a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a pretty bad prediction." On the bright side, we're lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html video - Particle physicist Harry Cliff works on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and he has some potentially bad news for people who seek answers to these questions. Despite the best efforts of scientists (and the help of the biggest machine on the planet), we may never be able to explain all the weird features of nature. Is this the end of physics? http://www.ted.com/talks/harry_cliff_have_we_reached_the_end_of_physics The Higgs Paradox: A Phenomenal Finding Leads To Many More Questions - June 23rd, 2014 | by Michael Keller Excerpt: Discovering the Higgs boson plugs a large hole in the standard model, the highly tested theory that shows all matter is made of a number of elementary particles that interact through four fundamental forces—strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Together, these comprise everything we currently understand about matter. "The standard model provides a consistent explanation of the subatomic world," said Jonathan Bagger,,, "The Higgs boson is at the center of the model. It’s the linchpin. But there’s plenty of the universe that the standard model doesn’t address." In fact, all of the stuff that the standard model explains represents only 4.9 percent of the universe. Dark matter, which physicists and astronomers can’t actually detect with their instruments, makes up 26.8 percent of the universe, and a whopping 68.3 percent is composed of dark energy, a hypothesized form of energy that is also currently undetectable.,,, (Moreover),The Higgs particle itself is outside the (standard) model. When its mass is plugged in, Bagger says, the picture goes wonky and the math says that quantum fluctuations over time should destroy the universe. “There are several options to fix the math, but none of them are within the standard model,” he says. http://txchnologist.com/post/89670815165/the-higgs-paradox-a-phenomenal-finding-leads-to-many
as to the standard model itself:
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature. These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed. ,,, Tweaking the Constants Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves. You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws
bornagain77_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

"Collectively, they are, um, dumb." This is not hyperbole. It is true, and I have been saying it for quite some time. "They can’t rest until they have completely deconstructed thinking in general." Another insightful truth. I am no longer shocked by the lunacy of strident atheists. Mildly entertained...but never shocked.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

As to the Higgs Boson, Dr. Craig used the example of Peter Higg’s mathematical prediction of the Higg’s boson itself, which Peter Higg’s had made decades before it was discovered by the LHC, as part of his philosophical proof for Theism from the applicability of mathematics:
Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – Dr. Craig – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
Of interest to theoretical mathematics that are fruitful to the progress of science, it is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians 'sense of beauty'. Higgs's work was itself described as 'beautiful':
How the hunt for the Higgs boson began – Nov. 2010 Excerpt: Higgs collected his papers and, step by step, took the audience through his theory. Dyson listened intently. He thought Higgs’s work was beautiful. http://io9.com/5682875/how-the-hunt-for-the-higgs-boson-began
Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:
Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty - video (28:12 minute mark - prediction of the 'anti-electron') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40
As the preceding video highlighted, Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to finding truth through math, even to the point of preferring beauty over empirical confirmation:
‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’ Paul Dirac
Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated:
'the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’ Albert Einstein
As well, In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said,
“This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
In regards to General Relativity, mathematical physicist Clifford Will said
“Fiddling with general relativity, he believes, would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony. “General relativity is so unbelievably beautiful and simple – it’s in some ways the most perfect gravitational theory that you could possibly imagine,” he says. All of the alternatives he’s seen so far are “horrendously ugly by comparison”.” https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/general-relativity-%E2%80%93-still-ahead-its-time
He is not alone
Einstein’s Masterpiece - Michael W. Begun – Fall 2015 Excerpt: General relativity has served as a paragon of a scientific theory, and generations of physicists have hailed its sublimity. Ernest Rutherford, for instance: “the theory of relativity by Einstein ... cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art.” Wolfgang Pauli: “it will always remain the pattern of a theory of consummate beauty of the mathematical structure.” Sean Carroll: “General relativity is the most beautiful physical theory ever invented.” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/einsteins-masterpiece
Alex Vilenkin, who mathematically proved that all hypothetical inflationary universes must have also have had a beginning, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,
"It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty" Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One: (page 201)
‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the discovery of the Amplituhedron:
The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty - 21:12 minute mark) - Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272
Moreover, it was found when mathematicians were shown equations such as Euler's identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:
Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014 Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown "ugly" and "beautiful" equations while in a brain scanner at University College London. The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by "beautiful" maths.,,, One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: "A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain - the medial orbito-frontal cortex - like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music." per bbc DOT com
What is astonishing, in this seemingly deep connection between math and beauty, is the fact that the ‘argument from beauty’ is a Theistic argument.
Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God: Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml
Of related note: But where this ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics seems to break down is with string theory, and m-theory:
The part of the book (‘The Trouble With Physics’) I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn’t put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.——— String theorists: We’ve got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn’t include gravity, and it doesn’t explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory. Nature: Here’s a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there’s only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out. String theorists: We’ll take it. String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won’t fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four. Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they’ll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem. String theorists: We’ll take one of those as well, please. Nature: Happy to help. String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one. Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set. String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now! Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly. String theorists: It does? Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests. String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory. ———- Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/
Verse and Music:
Psalm 27:4 One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple. Hillsong United - Lord of Lords - With Subtitles/Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkY5-Xp710
bornagain77_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

"Belief in a god or several gods is a leap of faith. So is disbelief. The only coherent and rational position is agnosticism." That there is no evidence for the existence of God goes to show it is categorically a matter of opinion, same as what is beautiful is a matter of opinion. There is a fundamental part of reality to which objectivity does not apply, which is agency of decisions. Therefore we have subjective terms like love, hate, good, evil, the human spirit, the soul and God to deal with the reality of agency of decisions.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 2, 2016
October
10
Oct
2
02
2016
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply