That's hard to answer since there is no proof. Life is a mystery.
Answer me this atheists.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Higgs boson
Composition: Elementary particle
Family: Boson
Status: Hypothetical
Theorized: F. Englert, R. Brout, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble 1964
Spin: 0
The Higgs boson (nicknamed the God particle) is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.
OP...seriously. Asking atheists to answer a question about a particle that doesn't in any way exist and there is no proof that is exist is not only asking for a flame war, but is idiotic too.
It's a theorized particle. If Stephen Hawking can figure out the secret behind gravity (I won't go into detail for what, it's complicated) he can prove that not only God didn't exist, but that the big bang as well as evolution can be proved by science.
So, answer me this OP, what's the difference between a intelligent man's theory that he can prove our existence, the universe, and that it makes sense, and a theorized particle that doesn't exist and has no proof of it existing?
Stephen Hawking cannot prove God doesn't exist, and never tried. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything related to God. Finally, there is a distinction between "existence" and "proof of existence." If you have no birth certificate or social security number, you cannot prove your own existence; do you not exist?Higgs boson
Composition: Elementary particle
Family: Boson
Status: Hypothetical
Theorized: F. Englert, R. Brout, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble 1964
Spin: 0The Higgs boson (nicknamed the God particle) is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.
OP...seriously. Asking atheists to answer a question about a particle that doesn't in any way exist and there is no proof that is exist is not only asking for a flame war, but is idiotic too.
It's a theorized particle. If Stephen Hawking can figure out the secret behind gravity (I won't go into detail for what, it's complicated) he can prove that not only God didn't exist, but that the big bang as well as evolution can be proved by science.
So, answer me this OP, what's the difference between a intelligent man's theory that he can prove our existence, the universe, and that it makes sense, and a theorized particle that doesn't exist and has no proof of it existing?
_EvidencE_
[QUOTE="_EvidencE_"]Stephen Hawking cannot prove God doesn't exist, and never tried. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything related to God. Finally, there is a distinction between "existence" and "proof of existence." If you have no birth certificate or social security number, you cannot prove your own existence; do you not exist?Higgs boson
Composition: Elementary particle
Family: Boson
Status: Hypothetical
Theorized: F. Englert, R. Brout, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble 1964
Spin: 0The Higgs boson (nicknamed the God particle) is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.
OP...seriously. Asking atheists to answer a question about a particle that doesn't in any way exist and there is no proof that is exist is not only asking for a flame war, but is idiotic too.
It's a theorized particle. If Stephen Hawking can figure out the secret behind gravity (I won't go into detail for what, it's complicated) he can prove that not only God didn't exist, but that the big bang as well as evolution can be proved by science.
So, answer me this OP, what's the difference between a intelligent man's theory that he can prove our existence, the universe, and that it makes sense, and a theorized particle that doesn't exist and has no proof of it existing?
-_Rain_-
Do some research, once he proves why gravity cause an inbalance-he can prove the big bang by science which therefor would leave no room for God. In a way, he is proving that God doesn't exist. Science solves the loop holes that religion forgot. Science just makes more sense, it can and does disprove God.
As for your little analogy, your contredicting yourself. A birth cirtificate, a SSN, does not prove existence. A card is a card. Now think-it might seem absurd but everything we see is really just a holographic image, we are but energy and we only see energy. No one really exists in a definable way-by SSN or otherwise. I probably contradicted myself somewhere in there but the point gets accross.
So if this is the God particle, does it mean that God (should one exist) is present inside everything at any given time?
In which case there are many gods? Countless figures of them?mlisen
sorta like that... the only thing that's keeping humans a live is the sun and our earth (kinda like having two Gods)
God is probably not he or she but an it.
So if this is the God particle, does it mean that God (should one exist) is present inside everything at any given time?
In which case there are many gods? Countless figures of them?mlisen
I remember reading The God Theory by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, in which he explained his view that God lives in all of us, and creation constantly goes on through quantum mechanics, etc. It was interesting. Actually, quantum physics in general seem interesting.
Stephen Hawking cannot prove God doesn't exist, and never tried. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything related to God. Finally, there is a distinction between "existence" and "proof of existence." If you have no birth certificate or social security number, you cannot prove your own existence; do you not exist?[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"][QUOTE="_EvidencE_"]
Higgs boson
Composition: Elementary particle
Family: Boson
Status: Hypothetical
Theorized: F. Englert, R. Brout, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble 1964
Spin: 0The Higgs boson (nicknamed the God particle) is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.
OP...seriously. Asking atheists to answer a question about a particle that doesn't in any way exist and there is no proof that is exist is not only asking for a flame war, but is idiotic too.
It's a theorized particle. If Stephen Hawking can figure out the secret behind gravity (I won't go into detail for what, it's complicated) he can prove that not only God didn't exist, but that the big bang as well as evolution can be proved by science.
So, answer me this OP, what's the difference between a intelligent man's theory that he can prove our existence, the universe, and that it makes sense, and a theorized particle that doesn't exist and has no proof of it existing?
_EvidencE_
Do some research, once he proves why gravity cause an inbalance-he can prove the big bang by science which therefor would leave no room for God. In a way, he is proving that God doesn't exist. Science solves the loop holes that religion forgot. Science just makes more sense, it can and does disprove God.
As for your little analogy, your contredicting yourself. A birth cirtificate, a SSN, does not prove existence. A card is a card. Now think-it might seem absurd but everything we see is really just a holographic image, we are but energy and we only see energy. No one really exists in a definable way-by SSN or otherwise. I probably contradicted myself somewhere in there but the point gets accross.
Science. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. God. People can say God caused the Big Bang if they want. Science doesn't touch religion. Do some research. Even Stephen Hawking himself knows this. Yes, you contradicted yourself severely.Something to ponder... Why in the world do people say "Do some research" when they disagree with someone?
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Do some research and you'll find out.I'm blind, dumb and deaf. I type with my psychic abilities.Something to ponder... Why in the world do people say "Do some research" when they disagree with someone?
-_Rain_-
[QUOTE="_EvidencE_"][QUOTE="-_Rain_-"] Stephen Hawking cannot prove God doesn't exist, and never tried. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything related to God. Finally, there is a distinction between "existence" and "proof of existence." If you have no birth certificate or social security number, you cannot prove your own existence; do you not exist?-_Rain_-
Do some research, once he proves why gravity cause an inbalance-he can prove the big bang by science which therefor would leave no room for God. In a way, he is proving that God doesn't exist. Science solves the loop holes that religion forgot. Science just makes more sense, it can and does disprove God.
As for your little analogy, your contredicting yourself. A birth cirtificate, a SSN, does not prove existence. A card is a card. Now think-it might seem absurd but everything we see is really just a holographic image, we are but energy and we only see energy. No one really exists in a definable way-by SSN or otherwise. I probably contradicted myself somewhere in there but the point gets accross.
Science. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. God. People can say God caused the Big Bang if they want. Science doesn't touch religion. Do some research. Even Stephen Hawking himself knows this. Yes, you contradicted yourself severely.Science in itself is not there to disapprove God. It is there to fill the loopholes and make things work, which un-voluntarily shuts down religion.
However, as far as I know I didn't contradict myself, atleast not severely. I said God doesn't exist and science proved that. You said What defines existence or proof of existences and I said we don't actually exists, nothing exists we are but energy. Nothing contradictory there.
Science. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. God. People can say God caused the Big Bang if they want. Science doesn't touch religion. Do some research. Even Stephen Hawking himself knows this. Yes, you contradicted yourself severely.[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"][QUOTE="_EvidencE_"]
Do some research, once he proves why gravity cause an inbalance-he can prove the big bang by science which therefor would leave no room for God. In a way, he is proving that God doesn't exist. Science solves the loop holes that religion forgot. Science just makes more sense, it can and does disprove God.
As for your little analogy, your contredicting yourself. A birth cirtificate, a SSN, does not prove existence. A card is a card. Now think-it might seem absurd but everything we see is really just a holographic image, we are but energy and we only see energy. No one really exists in a definable way-by SSN or otherwise. I probably contradicted myself somewhere in there but the point gets accross.
_EvidencE_
Science in itself is not there to disapprove God. It is there to fill the loopholes and make things work, which un-voluntarily shuts down religion.
However, as far as I know I didn't contradict myself, atleast not severely. I said God doesn't exist and science proved that. You said What defines existence or proof of existences and I said we don't actually exists, nothing exists we are but energy. Nothing contradictory there.
Science cannot touch religion, philosophy, morality, the concept of the aforementioned or anything remotely metaphysical, whether directly or indirectly. Science deals with the natural; what is and how it functions. That's it. In this sense religion has no "loopholes" and science can't "shut down" religion. If nature is viewed as part of a religious creation then science becomes part of religion; then what? Science has not and can not prove that God does not exist. If none of us exist, then God could exist in the same way we do; because if I don't exist, and if God doesn't exist, then that doesn't rule out God's existence as I apparently do exist.
Science cannot touch religion, philosophy, morality, the concept of the aforementioned or anything remotely metaphysical, whether directly or indirectly. Science deals with the natural; what is and how it functions. That's it. In this sense religion has no "loopholes" and science can't "shut down" religion. If nature is viewed as part of a religious creation then science becomes part of religion; then what? Science has not and can not prove that God does not exist. If none of us exist, then God could exist in the same way we do; because if I don't exist, and if God doesn't exist, then that doesn't rule out God's existence as I apparently do exist.-_Rain_-
Metaphysics are not of this universe, they are merely conceptual abstractions.
Plus, morality and philosophy can exist without religion and the supernatural.
[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"]Science cannot touch religion, philosophy, morality, the concept of the aforementioned or anything remotely metaphysical, whether directly or indirectly. Science deals with the natural; what is and how it functions. That's it. In this sense religion has no "loopholes" and science can't "shut down" religion. If nature is viewed as part of a religious creation then science becomes part of religion; then what? Science has not and can not prove that God does not exist. If none of us exist, then God could exist in the same way we do; because if I don't exist, and if God doesn't exist, then that doesn't rule out God's existence as I apparently do exist.foxhound_fox
Metaphysics are not of this universe, they are merely conceptual abstractions.
Plus, morality and philosophy can exist without religion and the supernatural. And science doesn't do anything with conceptual abstractions. Like a bachelor. I never said otherwise. I said science cannot touch anything in those categories.
And science doesn't do anything with conceptual abstractions. Like a bachelor. I never said otherwise. I said science cannot touch anything in those categories.-_Rain_-
But anything that isn't in the realm of science is not observable, testable or objectively verifiable.
[QUOTE="-_Rain_-"]And science doesn't do anything with conceptual abstractions. Like a bachelor. I never said otherwise. I said science cannot touch anything in those categories.foxhound_fox
But anything that isn't in the realm of science is not observable, testable or provable. Logic and philosophy never got us anywhere.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment