'God particle' is critical for universe

2012-01-23 14:50

Cape Town - Particle physics aims to explore the interactions of various atomic particles and the identification of the so-called "god particle" is central to understanding the universe.

"There are two big experiments - there's this thing called Atlas and CMS. They both have a hint of an effect. The hints are statistically insignificant, but they're at the same place so 'maybe' is the answer," Dr David Wolfe told News24.

Wolfe is an emeritus professor of the University of New Mexico, and a visiting lecturer at the UCT physics department where he is giving a summer school on the Large Hadron Collider and The Physics of Elementary Particles.

He said that when he worked at Cern, the experiments were more manageable than the complex ones today to detect the Higgs boson.

Mysterious particle

"It was little; I could run it myself. Now the Atlas experiment, which is the biggest experiment at Cern, is 7 000 tons, it has 3 000 physicists from 89 different countries. It costs I don't know how many billions; nobody understands it all. It's more a business than it is physics.

"But this is a complaint of the old - which is what I'm doing," said Wolfe.

Observing the mysterious particle which is said to give all other particles their mass would confirm theories of how the universe is put together and answer questions about particle interactions or forces in nature.

"What people keep looking for is what particle physicists like to call a Theory of Everything.

"That is so full of hubris that I'm surprised the old Greek gods don't come and strike people dead. You know, it's like Icarus flying so close to the sun and the wax is going to melt," said Wolfe, laughing.

In quantum physics, matter consists of fermions, which carry properties called charges. These fermions interact and result in forces that can be observed.

Electricity and magnetism were unified as electromagnetism and scientists have worked to unify strong and weak atomic forces.

Nobel Prize

For contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.

Physicists have tried to unify all observed forces to understand the universe and the Standard Model of physics comes close, but does not take into account the phenomenon of dark matter.

"The stuff seems to have to exist. We can count the number of stars in our galaxy, more or less, and there are about 100 billion give or take a billion or so.

"We're going around much faster than the stuff we can measure. There's not enough material out there to account for the speed at which the galaxy is rotating.

"What is this stuff? We can't see it; we can't measure it, it doesn't interact with anything, but it has mass and therefore gravity and that's what counts," Wolfe said.

- Follow Duncan on Twitter

  • E=MC2 - 2012-01-23 15:22

    but where did the "God particle" come from...? mmmmmmmmm.....

      Fredster - 2012-01-23 15:42

      Agree, there must be a Creator

      Ivan - 2012-01-23 15:47

      Evolution :-)

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 15:50

      So where did God come from? The argument of origin is a false one used by those who have absolutely no concept of infinitum. The "God Particle" exists because it is possible for it to exist in our dimension and therefor must self actualize. Please stop suggesting that you're smarter than these physicists. It just proves you have a "God" complex.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-23 16:07

      @clivecorbz - LOL! mmmmmaybe: God "exists because it is possible for Him to exist in our dimension and therefore must self actualize" Who's trying to be smarter now? chop

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 16:13

      That's great, but we're less than 12 months from proving or disproving it's existence... Abrahamic religions have been around for thousands of years and the belief in God is fading as the people of the world are educated and taught how to think for themselves. Yours sincerely, An ex-christian.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-23 16:26

      @clivecorbz - please see the article "'God particle' hopes fade". why they now all of a sudden think they have found something is beyond me. ppl like you have such a screwed up perception of Christianity no wonder you fell by the way side. Yours sincerely, A Christian for ever ...seriously!?! & good luck with that 12 month deadline... PLEASE be around in 12 months so i can tell you how dumb you are.

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 16:34

      Since time began to exist, time had a cause. Since time began to exist, whatever caused time is timeless (aka infinite or eternal). It is the linear time that we experience that makes cause and effect relationships possible: an effect follows a cause. Yet, since God exists outside of, or without, time, cause and effect relationships are impossible and thus God is the uncaused/uncausable first cause. It was God’s first action of creation that brought the space-time continuum into being and set cause and effect relationships into motion. Therefore, in God’s timeless realm there is no such question as “Who made God?” since this is a time space domain based question which simply does not apply. It is like asking “To whom is the bachelor married?”

      Paul - 2012-01-23 16:35

      God is critical for the universe.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 16:45

      That's 2 different journalist writing about the same thing, with different points of views. They are looking for the HIGGS BOSSON using a spectrum of power measured in GeV (giga-electron volts). Earlier hadron colliders looked in the lower ranges. And in the medium to high ranges were also studied. The LHC has gone from medium to high, and didn't find anything. They are now looking in the gap between the low and medium ranges. Why would I be dumb if they didn't find it? Wouldn't even make them dumb. They're following the scientific method, and if it gets found, they carry on, if it doesn't... -drum roll- They CARRY ON learning, testing, validating, disproving, and being general rock-stars of the human mind... The bible threatens hell to anyone who puts God to the test. Come on... Seriously? How convenient!

      Throw - 2012-01-23 17:01

      @Lourens Van Der Merwe - To claim that god exists outside of time and space and that's how it created the universe is a cleverly disguised circular argument. It has no base in evidence and can be rendered meaningless by then notion that the universe is perpetual. There is no beginning and no end. Hence Infinitum, a concept that when not understood leads to short sighted arguments about a "beginning". There has always been the universe, perpetuating itself through cycles and there always will be. If you have a hard time believing that then how on earth do you rationalise god? PS: Cause and effect is different to origin.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 17:03

      @clivecorbz ... damn man looking at your pic you look about 16 yrs old ... well I suppose its true what they say "hire a teenager while they KNOW EVERYTHING " you see the beauty about God is that it's impossible to prove his existance, don't you in all your wisdom think that if his existance could be confirmed ...EVERYONE WOULD BE BELIEVERS , if God wanted to he could show himself and make all humans believe and behave ...but then his greatest gift to us would be null and void ...FREEWILL!!! So use his gift ...choose not to believe if you want to, it's your God given right ...but don't make out if you have all the answers ...YOU DON"T ...NEITHER DO I ...but I don't pretend to KNOW IT ALL, even at 50 yrs old !!

      phillip.havenga - 2012-01-23 17:15

      People were called crazy for believing Aliens existed, but science is now confirming this, so I ask how can we call anything crazy until we know for a fact it's not real.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 17:15

      @Paul I'm 24, so don't go guessing ages here. Cause if I were to guess yours from your typing, I'd say... 7? I've never claimed to know it all. Which is why I push for science, so we can learn all that we don't know. Not sit back with one book and say "This has all I need to know". Knowing everything for certain is the stance of religions. What happens after you die? I don't know, but to the best of my knowledge, I'd say nothingness (another thing the mind has problems quantifying), like before I was born. A Christian would say that you go to Heaven or Hell. Because a book said so... Now you tell me who "knows everything"?

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 17:20

      @Throw - I would like to see your sources for a perpetual universe since nothing similar to the big bangs likeness has ever been observed, making your statement also one made in faith..

      Celtis - 2012-01-23 17:20

      When it is found and the Nobel honours have been handed out, what then? Are they going to turn the new knowledge into a weapon of mass destruction like they did the previous time they made a breakthrough in splitting atoms?

      Throw - 2012-01-23 17:44

      @Lourens Van Der Merwe - No, if the universe is cyclical then there wouldn't be any evidence. Everything would be made of recycled energy. So if you were looking for "evidence" of the perpetual cyclical universe then you wouldn't need to look past your nose. Not that the physical evidence would help you. I would like to know what you believe because my reasoning is this: The only thing less plausible than a once off temporal universe is the idea that it was created by someone with all the properties you would deny of that very same universe.

      lvdm86 - 2012-01-23 17:56

      @ Throw - So you basically believe in a system of events that is unobserved, unproven and for which there is no evidence..I understand your concept and please I hope this doesn't sound like I'm asking in any condescending way but is there any other support for this theory? I also want to hear more about this theory as it is quite new to me. But to me there seems to be a flaw.. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come But today has come Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning) But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe

      Throw - 2012-01-23 18:38

      @lvdm86 - HA! I was hoping you wouldn't pick that up but I'm really glad you did so in that manor. OK, the simplest way I can describe it is this: If we remove time from our perception, what we are left with is everything that is, was and will be. If time is infinite both before and after now then all things that are possible have/will at some stage existed. So rather than perceive the Universe as a single string of cause and effect, alone in all existence, we should rather see it as a colour wheel of all that is possible, separated only by time. So my theory is unobserved as it can not be directly observed, but it is one that is based on logic and isn't yet contrary to modern physics. Hope I answered your question here - essentially there isn't an infinite regression of moments, only a field of possibility. Another way to say it is that the big bang is the reset button on our universe.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 18:44

      @lvdm86 You make some sense, then you make an assumption and it all goes out the window... Part of something being infinite is that it has no beginning. Because what is a beginning, is the end of something else. But with infinity, there is no end, and therefor no beginning.

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 18:55

      @Throw - so all that you have to prove now is that time is not linear?

      Throw - 2012-01-23 19:05

      @lvdm86 - I don't have to, Einstein did already. Relativity states that time is relative not linear. But my theory still stands even if it was linear because my example excluded time so that it would be easier to understand.

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 19:06

      @clivecorbz - An actual infinite cannot exist An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 19:44

      @Throw - Time linearity in the sense of the entirety of the universe were to 'reset' itself. But I have just two questions; how would the time,space and matter seperate from each other in order not to form an infinite number of moments before now in order for this moment to happen? And the 'resetting' of the universe; since this would require an enormous energy input for the entirety of the universe to return to pre-big bang state, where would this energy come from? As we can observe the universe expanding, what would pull it back into itself? Avoiding the 2nd law of thermodynamics..

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 20:29

      @Throw - thanks for the chat and revealing this new (to me) theory. It is much appreciated! Through some further reading and investigation it seems to me from what I can gather from what you tried to explain to me, that 'your' theory and Hindu cosmology is pretty much identical.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 20:40

      @lvdm86 - Honestly I've never been sure about the big bang. And our own sun violates the laws of thermodynamics too. I think science as it stands today faces a tough test because its theories are again starting to wear at the seams and we are slowing moving into its next paradigm shift that will advance us even further. I for one can't wait for that day and only hope not to oppose it. Here's an awesome article that will end off this discussion on a light note.

      mystae - 2012-01-24 01:23

      No, sorry, you're all wrong. I made the god particle. ('god' is actually a misnomer). And just so you guys know, the concept of 'time' is a human invention. Just because you don't have the ability to perceive 'time' in any other way than a linear sequence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in any other form (don't worry, it's symptomatic of the human condition... "we're the most evolved species on this planet. ergo, what we think HAS to be right"). Now, please don't forget to make a donation when you're in church this Sunday. My rent is due at the end of the month.

      Paul - 2012-01-24 01:50

      @clivecorbz Glad you think you have all the answers, it must be great to be you. So you came from "nothingness" not a combination of your parents DNA, you are quite unique, a immaculate conception ... hmmm ... I think that has being done before! I agree my tying skills leave much to be desired, actually they quite VROT ... but then I'm not here posing as a scribe ... unlike you pretending to be a Stephan Hawkings wannabe!! You mention your knowledge , let me leave you with a quote from the bible for you to ponder on ..."KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM ARE NOT THE SAME THING"

      Fredster - 2012-01-24 07:37

      God said to Job: Why do you talk so much when you know so little...

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 08:22

      @clivecorbz - So how many "God particles" are there that there can be different articles relating to the same thing? You're the one pretending to know it all here dude... no one else. No one knows it all, not Steven Hawking, not the idiot scientists who have to spend billions of dollars trying to recreate soemthing that God simply spoke into being... & definately not you! Like i said, check back in with me in 12 months & ill be waiting... with a VERY big smile on my face :)

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 10:07

      Only idiots would quote the bible here. Damn the man.

      Greg - 2012-01-24 11:48

      @clivecorbs I agree with most of your views other than that the universe is infinate. There was a beginning (big bang) which we can still see clues to today. Also i dont believe it has no end. Do a little research on dark energy (not to be confused with dark matter) it seems that nearly every single galaxy is moving away from ours. this tells us that the universe is expanding (how can something infinate expand) also that the rate at which it is expanding is increasing. It is thought that the universe itself is being pushed apart by an unknown force, and it seems to be winning. I believe there is a time limit to the existence of our universe, which will eventually be destroyed by dark energy. Therefore infinate is not the correct word to discribe our universe. But its bigger than anyone can ever imagine.

      Joumaseperd - 2012-01-24 12:01

      People want to believe in a higher power so badly, to do what...give their lives some meaning? Just be as good a person as you can possibly be and stop pining for someone else to be your reason for living.

      Breinlekkasie - 2012-01-24 13:03

      The Kashmir effect heavily hints at the probability that a Creator does not exist!

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 14:14

      @Breinlekkasie - so you believe a 'hint'?

      Breinlekkasie - 2012-01-25 07:02

      @ E=MC2 - The Kashmir effect is one of the many phenomenon that point to the non existence of a Creator. Thus, particles can appear out of nowhere without the presence of a Creator. The discovery of this particle will give scientists an indication of the accuracy of the standard theory because it says nothing about the existence of Creator.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 10:31

      @Ben - ok how about taking a deep breath...RELAX. feeling better now? I could turn that whole argument around & say that you non-believers are always hi-jacking our "Christian beliefs" by trying to disprove us... thats what it is when you break it down. Science & religion actually go hand in hand; one cannot exist without the other. Its YOUR perception on the matter that makes the difference. Science has been proved wrong a hundred times over too, dont forget that. With one more on the way with finding the "God particle".

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 10:32

      oh, & F U?? grow up dude

      Chrono - 2012-01-25 12:23

      So many years after Einstein it is taking thousands of scientists in a multi billion dollar project to verify some of the details of his work. The brilliance of the man is underscored by the fact that he did very little if any experimental work. An by the way he believed in - let's say - a God, and therefore also in a beginning.

      Dakey - 2012-04-19 10:14

      @Clarve: Post 1: 'It just proves you have a "God" complex.' Post 2: 'Yours sincerely, An ex-christian.' Actually Clive, I think it is you who has a 'God complex'.

  • Spook - 2012-01-23 15:29

    If everthing started with a BANG, and science have already identified so many planets. Why did life only formed on earth. Why did it not start on the other planets. Just a thought.

      carlmhead - 2012-01-23 15:36

      No one ever said there wasn't live on those planets... We cannot see the planets, as they're too far away. We only know they're there due to the minor affects they have on their sun. On the contrary, many potential life harbouring planets have been found. Scientists estimate that there are more than 10 billion planets in this galaxy alone, we've identified 100's of billions of other galaxies... It's inconceivable to think that life isn't common place in our universe.

      Morne - 2012-01-23 15:38

      I often wonder why nature has allowed for specific life forms to evolve a brain if they are not going to use it.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 15:39

      The only form of intelligence in your comment is where you pointed out that it was "Just a thought". We've only looked on Mars so far, and we're still not done with Mars yet. So 0 down, an estimated 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to go.

      Lorenzo - 2012-01-23 15:43

      @Spook ... how do you know life didn’t start on other planets as well? I'll agree that we may never know where we came from or how we got here... BUT you mean to tell me that out of the billions of Solar Systems in the Milky Way (which is our Galaxy). And out of the billions of Galaxy's in the Universe, that there is no possibility of any of them supporting life? I think it's very short sighted. When you just think of the actual numbers involved in regard to the the size of the Universe the answer becomes clear about life on other planets.

      Cameronl - 2012-01-23 15:56

      that is small thinking..... As carlmhead has mentioned the good stuff already to think we are the only planet to have life on it is simply retarded, to say that other planets have OR had life on them is completely plausible! do you honestly think all life in this galaxy needs needs air to breath???? think about that one...

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 16:22

      Abiogenesis is an extremely complex field of study. And the hurdles to even create a living cell in a lab are immense. We have an idea of how simple a cell can be to live(in which we took the simplest known cell and taking out various things we saw it didn't need to survive, barely but still survive). But the closest we've got to recreating "early earth" conditions only yielded various amino acids. I have read through science papers that calculated the probability of a simple cell spontaneously coming into existence in perfect lab conditions to be 1 in 10^58000. But like other people said on here there are a many galaxies with many planets, maybe improving those chances. But then again, it's not like playing the lottery...nobody has to win..and nobody is playing..

      Jason - 2012-01-23 16:25

      All the answers are there go read some science books..

      Juan - 2012-01-23 16:26

      It works like this.. Simple life forms like bacteria are very common in the universe. Life forms have been found on Mars and even one of Jupiter's moons. The more advanced the life form the more rare it is. Advanced life forms like us could quite possibly exsist elsewhere but are rare in the universe.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 17:17

      @Lourens Van Der Merwe (again. Sorry, not attacking you but definitely disagree) - Single cell life forms have had in the region of about 3.5 billion years to evolve and change from their early states. It isn't likely that we will ever find early cells simply BECAUSE of evolution. The first multi-cellular life was a type of simple fractal organism. It thrived for around 30 million years and completely vanished because more complex organisms took over. We only know about it because of rare fossils and we don't have (useful) fossils of single cell organisms. Also it is only our best assumption that life began as cell like organisms. Also there is far more scientific weight behind the idea that life was seeded here than the idea that we were created out of magic clay.

      barry.mcbride - 2012-01-23 17:27

      “Simple life forms like bacteria are very common in the universe. Life forms have been found on Mars and even one of Jupiter's moons.” @Juan: LMFAO, I don’t know what to say but please explain your extraordinary affirmation.

      lvdm86 - 2012-01-23 17:45

      @ Throw - The only way we could possibly understand abiogenesis is to "reverse engineer" a living cell, throwing millions of years into the equation doesn't change the possible origins since we know where it had to live first of all. I agree with you that cell like organisms is our best assumption but since it is the only one we have observed it is the only assumption that could be considered science. Postulating that life began on another planet does not solve the evolutionists’ problem of just how non-living chemicals could have turned into a living cell — it merely transfers it to another place.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 18:52

      @lvdm86 - Yes, extraterrestrial genesis doesn't solve the origin problem but it might solve the complexity one. For if life on this planet was engineered into existence by LIFE AS WE DON'T KNOW IT then we are stuck in the mud when it comes to looking for the origin of life as we do know it. I still think that life as we know it could have formed on it's own without having been engineered. About reverse engineering - we are trying to make a cell as simple as it can get without dying or loosing the ability to replicate. But if early life that eventually formed cells wasn't alive as we define it then reversing cells doesn't help. For instance, a virus isn't strictly a living thing yet it holds many properties of a living thing. It's like stripping down a jet engine trying to figure out how we learned to fly, never having known about the propeller.

      goyougoodthing - 2012-01-23 19:03

      Juan I am all for evolution and big bangs and bigger rips but what you say is not true. Scientists at best have described complex sugars, the building blocks of life, but not life. If you're going to bat for the science team, put your science cap on.

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 19:26

      @Throw - Life's complexity even in its simplest form is extremely complex. Especially when our understanding of how semi-permeable membranes could have formed we are still stumped. Your explanation for its complexity again also just transfers to somewhere else. Something of the likes that has not yet been observed. And that is unfortunately sciences limitation. While your theory is plausible it is also unprovable, much like the string theory..and viruses always need a host to replicate do they not?

      carlmhead - 2012-01-23 19:32

      @lvdm86 I have to agree with you in saying that we have NOT discovered the all too crucial step for turning complex sugars and amino acids into life. I do however feel that it is a bit arrogant to think that in the short few years we've been studying such things we'd already know how to create life. Also, just because we haven't come to this understanding as yet, it seems ridiculous to simply decide that it's not possible though science and believe in groundless superstition instead. There is a scientific method that will spark life; that conclusion is unequivocal. Every process that happens in this universe is borne from this universe and subject to the laws of physics in this universe. Just because we do not have a comprehensive understanding of these things does not mean that they are unexplainable. If we thought in this vain, we'd still be living in caves. Our intellect and intelligence are our greatest gifts, and we'd be remiss to not use them to feverously grasp a better understanding of the universe around us. If I were religious; I'd be all to interested in scientific understanding. If this universe were programmed into existence by some external being, I'd damn well want to be able to read the source code!

      Lourens Van Der Merwe - 2012-01-23 19:59

      @carlmhead - For me to say that it would never be possible would require me to have future knowledge of events, which I do not have. However, we do know the conditions as well as the simplest form of existence, but even if we knew how to get there and what we need, how could we expect it to happen by itself? The chances are mathematically impossible. Like I said in a previous's not like playing the lottery...nobody has to win...and nobody is playing..

      sachasea - 2012-01-23 21:57

      Look up 'Drake Equation' on Google.

      Juan - 2012-01-24 03:07

      @goyougoodthing I were answering spook's question. There are life elsewhere. Look I am no scientist I am merely quoting that clever guy, Hawkins in the wheelchair. Somehow it makes sense to me.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 08:25

      @clivecorbz - so scientists have another 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to be proved wrong... AWESOME :)!

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 13:53

      @BMcB . Google is your friend , stop making a ar$e out of yourself.

  • Hans - 2012-01-23 15:33

    Chalk up another one for science!

      Godfrey - 2012-01-24 04:17

      Yes. There is lots of the usual expected religious stupidity here by people who obviously know nothing about science and do not want to know anything about science. Religious individuals shouldn’t waste people’s time pointing out that science doesn’t have all the answers, unlike religion it answers something. No gods are observed or required in those answers. Reading the comments about science by the sky daddy believers is like listening to children talk about sex: They know it exists, they have strong opinions about what it might mean, but they don’t have a clue what it’s actually about.

      Dirk - 2012-01-24 05:47

      Is your second name Delusional?

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 10:09

      @dirk is your second name poepall ? Damn the man.

      Dirk - 2012-01-24 20:01

      No, its Jody, but you are 99.99% correct

  • Paul - 2012-01-23 15:35

    I'm no particle physicist but wouldn't the discovery of the "God particle" prove the Big Bang theory right and hence that the Universe had a beginning? And one of the basic laws of science is the law of conservation of ennergy/mass. This states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed within our system. So if the Universe began with a Big Bang but things can't create themselves ... then ummmm ... I guess there must be a Creator, right?

      carlmhead - 2012-01-23 15:48

      Not at all; I'd recommend going to read some articles on particle physics and the big bang. Wikipedia may be a good start. Science proves / disproves only the provable; it never makes assumptions based on exclusion only. M theory elegantly ties up the happenings prior to the big bang and happenings post big bang in a sound mathematical thesis. Again, it's based on some "subjective" mathematics; but this is how even the most basic theories start.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 15:49

      The one way to understand it, but it messes with our preconceived notion of time that is hardwired into our mentality. There is no time, or space, but instead space-time. One single entity. So when you have the whole universe condensed into a single point, there is no before. Only what came afterwards as space-time expanded. Space-time is what allowed for the Russian Cosmonaut to travel 1/50th of a second into the future by spending more than 2 years in space on various trips.

      Hamrammr - 2012-01-23 15:53

      Paul if everything must have a creator who created your so called 'Creator'? Please explain that to me?!

      Paul - 2012-01-23 16:10

      Hamrammr, I said nothing in our "system" can be created or destroyed. That is in our space-time dimension/universe. If the Universe had a beginning cause or Creator, that Creator must then be outside of time and space. Therefore this Creator would not be subject to the laws of science which He created to govern the creation in this time-space dimension. Make sense? But you can ask Him that question yourself when you meet your Maker one day ;-)

      Phoenix - 2012-01-23 16:19

      Yes just because we dont understand YET how the universe works there must be a creator??? Conservation of energy is a theory which has not been proven to be incorrect... It does not mean it cant be proved incorrect in future once we understand physics during and before the big bang.

      Hamrammr - 2012-01-23 16:23

      @ Paul I'll be sure to ask Wotan what the Volva told him at the roots of Yggdrasil...

      Jason - 2012-01-23 16:26

      The problem is that would guess..

      Paul - 2012-01-23 21:27

      @William The "logic" you refer to which tells you right from wrong is known as your "conscience". Your conscience is like a moral compass within you. Do you think that evolved? Come on William, your sense of morality must have come from a moral source, right? Regarding your comments on a life of sin equating to going to hell, well of course if you use your God-given free will to choose not to be in relationship with Him, then you will receive your wish of eternal separation from God. That's what hell is, eternal separation from the presence of God. "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power" (2Th 1:9).

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 10:14

      @Paul. "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." , Martin Luther. An awesome quote from a religious nut. the Bible is a lie. Damn the man.

      Celtis - 2012-01-25 11:22

      I have a question. Fermat claimed he had proved for his so-called last therom but he died with the answer. It took 300 years to prove it again. The thing is that what is proven mathematically does not make sense three-dimensional i.e. we cannot reconstruct a model of it. Can we trust maths?

      Hotkop - 2012-01-25 21:02

      What's the address of MC Entrepreneurs? I would like to go visit William to do further discussions.

  • Jan - 2012-01-23 15:44

    It is all recorded in the Bible. Genesis 1 tells how it all happened.

      Hans - 2012-01-23 15:51


      Hamrammr - 2012-01-23 16:01

      And you trust a book written by men?! I could just as well say that Middle Earth must exist because JRR. Tolkien wrote a book about this land! To be honest his novels make for better reading that your Bible and it is not fiction sold as the truth!

      Lorenzo - 2012-01-23 16:04

      @ Jan .. I can think of another book that you may be interested in. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 16:09

      Hmmm... Genesis is boring. What about the parts with the she-bear mauling 42 youths for calling one of God's followers bald! Where would you recommend I look for information on keeping a slave?? I know God says I can't beat him to death on the spot, but I can beat him so that he dies several days later. But I'm looking more for something regarding selling my daughter into slavery...

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 16:09

      Wait, never mind :) Found it! When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

      Paul - 2012-01-23 16:14

      Hamrammr, did you know that Tolkien was actually a Christian who believed the Bible to be God's Word! So now you know why his writings are so inspired.

      carlmhead - 2012-01-23 16:20

      So was Hitler Paul... I don't see your point?

      J-Man - 2012-01-23 16:22

      *double facepalm.

      Hamrammr - 2012-01-23 16:28

      OK Paul I'll take your word for it! A series of Novels written by a Christian based on old Germanic Heathen lore. Rings, Dwarves, Elves, hobbits and the list just goes on! Now Christianity get the credit- righty then...

      Jason - 2012-01-23 16:29

      LMAO, yes 2 naked people and a talking snake in a garden with a fruit tree that they couldn't eat from.. yes thats the answer, its soo believable!

      Paul - 2012-01-23 16:33

      carlmhead, Hitler may have made some statements aligning himself with the church in Germany for his own political agenda, but I seriously doubt whether Hitler was a follower of the teachings of Jesus. I hope you can tell the difference between a hypocritical religious person and someone who genuinely follows Jesus. Whether or not you believe in Jesus or God, there is a big difference between the genuine article and the fake. You know ... like Mother Theresa (help people) and Hitler (hurt people).

      Paul - 2012-01-23 16:47

      clivecorbz, that slavery comment was a cheap shot. Whenever slavery was practiced by people in the Bible, it was against God's will. Apostle Paul wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28). Read the book of Philemon, you will see that the Bible is opposed to slavery. If you do some research you will see that Christians like William Wilberforce brought about the abolition of slavery.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 16:54

      William, regarding your comment about creationists being cups that are already full, I would like to challenge that. I think there is a misconception that all Christians are narrow minded. Sure there are enough narrow minded religious people, but please don't put us all in a pigeon hole. I am open to reading or watching anything that might lead me to truth (time permitting). Are you? If your mind is still open to the possibility of there being a Creator God, I challenge you to read or watch Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". It uses scientific evidence to show that there must be an intelligent and benevolent designer. What do you say bud?

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 17:29

      When you quote the bible and a Christian calls it a "cheap shot"... If this were 5 years ago, I'd call you a sinner and condemn you to hell for calling God's word a cheap shot. But today, I'll just sit back, smile, and let you think about what you've said :)

      Paul - 2012-01-23 17:54

      @William, I am all for scientific investigation. In fact, I'm a budding, amateur astronomer in my spare time. God's creation blows my mind. As for sin, whether you call it "sin" or by any other name, people do bad things right? That bad stuff is called sin because it is not in God's plan for how we should live. The reason being that sin hurts people and harms our relationship with God. But call it what you will "sin" exists- just look at the murders, wars, rape, theft, etc going on around us. This indicates that good/evil/morality are part of our reality. To me, this morality points to a moral Creator God.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 18:56

      *TRIPLE FACEPALM!!! (how is that even possible?)

      Paul - 2012-01-23 19:07

      @clivecorbz As I explained slavery was never God's will for people, however it was a norm in ancient civilisations. The Hebrew word which the NLT Bible translates as "slave" is "'a^ma^h" which actually means "maidservant". Slave is a poor translation. This was a custom of the day, but not the same as slavery. Maidservants were well looked after.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 08:43

      @clivecorbz - to quote you, "If this were 5 years ago, I'd call you a sinner and condemn you to hell for calling God's word a cheap shot." NO WONDER YOU ARENT A CHRISTIAN ANYMORE... ever heard the verse, "there is now therefore NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus" ROYAL chop you are! Get your facts straight man

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 10:27

      @Paul , so its ok to quot the bible as long as its helpful for your casue. clivecorbz missed a few wonderful quotes. And are you part of this group ? the bible was never designed to undergo deep criticism and has built in "sin's" that allow the church to murder , rape and dismember anyone curios or against the bible. Damn the man.

      Skeptical - 2012-01-24 21:30

      Yea. The bible has all the answers, but only if you do not take all the words in context. Imagine reading a science book and mot taking words in context or any book for that matter. The real word that should be taken out of context is you Jan

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 08:13

      I did not quite understand the Bible where it says that we should not cast the pearls( Gods Word) before the swine/pigs (non-believers) because it will be trampled on. I now understand it fully.Also Romans 1:22"Professing to be wise, they became fools" is a lot clearer. Thank you so much for a practical illustration.

      Hotkop - 2012-01-25 20:59

      Don't worry Jan, the world is filled with extreme liberal atheist idiots that go out of their way to destroy christianity. You find them everywhere. Just ignore them. They all have small winky syndrome anyway.

  • - 2012-01-23 16:11

    The "God" particle was originally coined the "Goddamn" particle because physicists were getting frustrated by NOT finding it. A book was going to be published with its title as being "The Goddamn Particle" and the publisher convinced the author (Leon Lederman) to use "The God Particle" instead, for sales purposes.

  • Ben - 2012-01-23 16:15

    We know a little of what this planet is all about. If we should try to find out what exists in the Universe, one has to keep in mind that there are other galaxies 500 million light years away and still more beyond those, according to scientists. Whatever exist in the Universe will never be known by man, let alone what does not exist.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 10:30

      So you've never seen images from hubble deep field. Its awesome and you don't need a scientist to explain much. Damn the man.

      Ben - 2012-01-24 20:31

      Yes, but that is not all I have seen. I visited Sutherland and what I learned there of the size of the Universe convinced me that we know less than 1 percent of what lies beyond what we will ever be able to see. If your end remark was intended for me, damn yourself.

  • Andre - 2012-01-23 16:31

    Know God first is the answer.

      J-Man - 2012-01-24 08:28

      My thoughts exactly William.... I will accept that its possible that a God might exist, if you accept the possibility that he/she might not.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 08:19

      Which one? I think the Living One would be an obvious and wise choice. But then, wisdom is not around in abundance, clearly shown here.In fact, almost non- existent.

      J-Man - 2012-01-25 10:32

      Dirk - you are talking about wisdom and a "living God" in one sentence. What hypocrites you lot are.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 19:28

      Funny that you should mention help. I did. For 30 yrs, I "thought" just like you and at 03:00 on 22 July 1999, help came in a miraculous way.

      Hotkop - 2012-01-25 21:01

      William, you are a BOX. Are you getting a hardon cause other idiots gives you thumbs up?

      Merven - 2012-01-26 07:45

      No Dirk, no one is going to ask what happened at 03:00 on 22 July 1999. Nice try though.

  • Gideon Greaves - 2012-01-23 16:33

    I was excited to read comments about the God particle but instead I read a childrens argument about religion.. #entertainment

      ivan.coetzee2 - 2012-01-23 20:27


  • berni.venter - 2012-01-23 16:43

    And how this is going to make the world we live in better? Here's a radical idea... put the 3 000 brilliant minds together with an unlimited budget (apparently) to find a cure for cancer/hiv/diabetes/hypertension et al

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-01-24 11:44

      It will expand human knowledge and give us a better understanding of how the universe works... THAT is how it will make the world we live in a better place... not every "brilliant mind" has an interest in medical science and/or biology... why should they try and find a cure for cancer... besides, why advance one science and completely ignore others

  • piet.strydom - 2012-01-23 16:47

    @E=MC2 - The way you work with people do not agree with your claim to be a Christian....

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 08:31

      because i call a spade a spade? I dont sugar coat stuff Piet. if someones being dumb, i call them dumb. Would you rather be fake?

      Clive.D.Buckley - 2012-01-24 11:47

      E=MC2... that must be the most ironic statement I have ever read

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 11:53

      in what way exactly...

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:13

      Piet, calling Piet, are you going to bother backing up your accusation? or you just one of those chirp n run types?

      Merven - 2012-01-26 07:48

      Correct Piet, as Ghandi said: I like your Christ, but I don't like you christians, they are so unlike their Christ.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-26 15:07

      A quote used for Christian purposes taken from a non-Christian... NICE :) up to you hey... i'd prefur not to be 2 faced like the majority of Christians out there... God forgive me if im wrong.

  • Adino - 2012-01-23 16:51

    I'll probably be shot for this - but i think that this whole desire to "understand" the universe & "everything" is such a total waste of time. We're ALL living on a planet with an expiration date. Whether divine or natural - you decide for yourself - point is, the earth is going to be around for long enough for all these so called brilliant scientist theories/theologists theories to be proved or disproved. At the rate we're depleting ALL natural resources, do you honestly belive that in 200 years there's going to much left for us to argue over? I think that this "far-out" science/theology talk is just a distraction keeping us from facing the inevitable - we're already extinct - we just dont know it yet!

      Adino - 2012-01-23 16:55

      ...meant to say "the earth is NOT going to be around long enough.."

      Adino - 2012-01-23 17:18

      William, i wouldn't wanna save more than half the people i actually do know, imagine what i think of the rest that i dont know - ROFL :)

      Merven - 2012-01-26 07:50

      Adino, and that is why it is so important to explore space and science and find answers, no 'god' is going to pure the earth from polution etc.

  • Cynergy - 2012-01-23 17:00

    the universe has to be the size it is to make life possible on earth. without the various planets and gasses it would not produce the right carbon content which makes life possible here... the universe is in perfect ratio to earth, earth to you and a single cell to your body.

      david.flewellen - 2012-01-23 17:25

      1) If this universe wasn't suitable for the formation of life, we wouldn't be here discussing the nature of the universe. 2) You might want to check your maths. Those ratios you cite are nonsensical.

      Merven - 2012-01-26 07:50

      And every time a sun goes super nova a tree die on earth?

  • Bokfan - 2012-01-23 17:04

    What is a Higgs boson in Pedi?

  • Paul - 2012-01-23 17:23

    I don't know why people immediately think that Science and Religion are at loggerheads. Consider this list of great scientific thinkers: Sir Robert Boyd, Max Plank, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Pascal, Descartes, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus(see Do you know what they all had in common besides being great scientists? They were all Christians! It is possible to believe in science and God. The way I see it, science is man's way of understanding God's creation, whilst the Bible is God's way of revealing Himself to man. It is not a scientific manual, it is a spiritual book. The reason science and religion don't always agree is because of man's limited understanding. Scientists make mistakes in their theories (which are works in progress), and religious people make mistakes in their interpretation of the Bible. eg. Genesis 1's creation account is a Hebrew poem making the basic point that a good God made everything. But theologians take it literally, and others try to read it like a scientific textbook. If we open our minds and drop our presuppositions, I believe we will find harmony between science and religion. So the "God particle" seems very apt to me.

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 17:34

      Was Galileo not imprisoned by the church for his now factual scientific theories?

      carlmhead - 2012-01-23 17:51

      @ Paul "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin You'll find that indoctrinated religion and science are at loggerheads on a fundamental level. That being said; I've for a long time stated that the biblical account of creation sounds very very much like a synopsis of the big bang.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 17:54

      @ Paul The bible and science are totally incompatible. So are the notion that a so-called Hebrew poem can be a foundation for religious concepts and beliefs. There are TWO conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis, please note it. MANY Christians will vehemently disagree with your interpretation. The habitual excuse that the bible is not a science textbook is plain silly. Relaying truth and reality does NOT require a so-called SCIENCE TEXTBOOK. Just a simple reliable text. It is a cop-out argument that the bible is not a science text book.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 17:58 This sums it up but my argument has always been: Belief of religion is based on faith. Faith is the belief in something of which there is no evidence of. Science is entirely based on evidence. Science and religion are not compatible.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 18:06

      clivecorbz. Yes, I think either he or Copernicus may have been. That just proves my point. He was a believer and a scientist that found a harmonised scientific/religious discovery, but the church made a mistake based on a poor interpretation of Scripture. The church later changed their tune regarding his view, which goes to show that theologians also get it wrong. If a scientific theory is proved wrong, you don't give up on science do you? Likewise, sometimes theologians interpret the Bible poorly, and then improve their understanding with other supporting knowledge.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 18:13

      @carlmhead I appreciate your sensible comments. Sadly you are probably right in saying that indoctrinated science and religion are at loggerheads at a fundamental level. But that's my point. It's because of opposing presuppositions that man drives science and religion into contradictory positions. If we were to carry out scientific investigations into the Universe and spiritually search for God, both without presuppositions of what we might find, I think we would ultimately reach consensus on the reality and truth of our beginnings and surroundings.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 18:24

      @Cracker If you don't believe me that Genesis 1 is a piece of Hebrew poetry, watch Rob Bell's "Everything is Spiritual". He explains it really well. You're probably right that most Christians would disagree with my take on Genesis 1. As I said, people interpret parts of the Bible poorly at times, although they may have good intentions. So please tell me what are the 2 contradictions in Genesis 1? Of course the Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a religious book.

      Trevor Lovell - 2012-01-23 19:21

      @throw Surely, the scientists had to believe in the existence of the Higgs in order to spend the money they have in trying to prove it's existence? In the same way we believe that dark matter is there, we just can't prove it yet.

      Trevor Lovell - 2012-01-23 19:23

      @paul I could not agree more with your thoughts. You're just able to put it far for succinctly than I can. Thumbs up dude.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 19:24

      @ Paul Read and compare the so-called Hebrew poem in Gen 1 with the other account of the creation in Gen 2.5. They are mutually exclusive no matter what rationalizations or constructions one may wish to dream up. I am not in the mood to type out the contradictions here. So go to It is there set out compactly and clearly how insurmountable the differences in the conflicting accounts are. All the spinning in the world will not obliterate the facts. But now, how about explaining the following. If the first creation account is no more than a Hebrew poem, as you allege and which should not be interpreted literally, according to you, why should it matter if it conflicts with any other account of creation, or more accurately, why it should accord with any other account of creation? You should now start to suspect that your interpretation and appreciation of the real nature of the first creation account – there ARE two versions – makes no sense. You can’t write it off as a Hebrew poem and simultaneously claim that it is literally true. It has to be literally true if you are to defend its validity against another account. Waiting to hear from you for some more spin. But seriously, readers should visit the address I give above for a down-to-earth (wordplay) exposition of the incompatibility of the creation accounts. Only THEREAFTER read the spin the religionists concoct. Who cares if it is Hebrew poetry? Only you?

      clivecorbz - 2012-01-23 19:25

      Atheism is not a pre-requisite for science. Especially when you're looking at times around the 18th century and before. Most of the people you listed were before the time when the church was seriously questioned. They initiated the doubt in the modern Western world. Charles Darwin is another Christian man who was a famous scientist, although he changed his views to agnosticism after a while. Progress takes time. But these days it would be very hard to find many Christians working as scientists. I've even seen some people trying to quote Einstein as being religious. But he was not. The basis of science is proof. And religion does not bring any real, solid, grown-up, not retarded proof. Heck, religion can't even prove the existence of an actual Jesus figure! The gospels were written +- 70 AD, by a man who was born after Jesus was said to have died. And just 5 minutes more of research points one towards all the other mythical "saviours" who lived lives like Jesus. Times of year, actions, birth scenarios, death scenarios, 3 day ressurections... Alles. If you don't doubt, and debate your beliefs with yourself, using real research, and not emotion (That serotonin stuff makes for an awesome party at church!), then you shall be left behind, frustrated, confused, and unenlightened to the real world.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 20:17

      @Cracker Thanks for that link on creation. I agree with the problems the article raises. That is exactly why it does not make sense to interpret the Genesis account literally. The Hebrew word used for "day" is "yom", which can mean "day", "period" or "season". It doesn't mean a 24 hour day. The problem is when people take it literally. As I have already said I believe Genesis 1 to be a form of Hebrew poetry (but God inspired Scripture non the less). Studying the passage reveals it to be poetry. It has a rhythm of God speaking, day and night, and it was good. Again, watch Rob Bell's "Everything is Spiritual" if you want to understand this. Although it is written figuratively, it is still has a literal meaning. If you have ever studied any poetry then you will appreciate that. Symbolic language which has a literal meaning. And the literal meaning is that there is one God who made everything out of nothing. This God is good, and His creation was good and orderly. This was revolutionary stuff compared to the beliefs of the Mesopotamians of the time. Just to clear up the 2 creation confusion, Gen 1 gives the broad brush strokes creation account, and then Gen 2 goes into more details of the same creation. Gen 2:1 states that the creation was finished, Gen 2:4 is the clue that the author is now giving another account of the same creation. I hope that helps clear things up for you.

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 18:16

    One might still be able to make out a case for religion and faith as valid and worthy of respect activities if the evidence for and against was ambiguous. BUT the evidence in the very source documents for religion and faith is not even ambiguous. The evidence is FLATLY AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE RELIGIONS BASED ON THE BIBLE, Old, New Testament or whatever version. The very source is unreliable and blatantly a concoction of lies and deceit. So bad that one must conclude it is BS. Not even considering the much worse consequences for humanity as a result because of all the infighting AMONG THE RELIGIOUS THEMSELVES and the terrible history humanity has had to endure as a result. Let people believe as they please but don't allow them to use it as a weapon or excuse to subjugate others and the freedoms of others and off course to take out their cruelties on others, humans and animals. If they do one will have to seriously consider restrictions on religion. That is just how it will eventually develop. Not now but in a few decades or so the thought of taking action against the con men in their religious robes and paraphernalia may start gathering momentum.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 18:53

      @Cracker What are you talking about? Do some research on this and you will find the OT and NT are incredibly reliable. Watch/read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ where he also investigates the reliability of the Bible. Strobel was an atheist journalist who went on a mission to disprove Christianity, but his findings changed his views. Or else read Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He gives a compelling case for the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. If you choose not to believe in God, well that is your choice. But you don't need to go around spreading false claims against Christianity.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 19:27

      @ Paul No they are not credible. Only some religionists think so and then they can't even decide on what is allegorical - you seem to fall back on it to escape the many difficulties presented by the bible, admitted by you that many Christians will disagree with you. Now how more relative can reality be than what you are actually proposing? And why don't you deal properly with the issues I raise? Typical!

      Paul - 2012-01-23 22:37

      @Cracker How can you say they are not credible without first watching/reading them? Open you mind. Check them out and then check out their sources and information to validate or refute their claims so you can come to an informed conclusion. Just dismissing them as not credible is a cop out, my friend.

      Sean - 2012-01-24 19:18

      @cracker - yaaaaaaaaaawn

  • carlmhead - 2012-01-23 18:43 I don't think anything more need be said.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 21:13

      I think that is the strongest argument against theism. But then Dr. William Lane Craig puts Sam Harris in his place here:

      Merven - 2012-01-26 08:00

      Any way, to which god do you guys refer to? Just as you believe that your god is the only true god, does the Muslim believes in his god. But this link gives a good answer to all gods.

  • Mark - 2012-01-23 18:45


      Paul - 2012-01-23 19:31

      @Mark Regarding the Big Bang, wikipedia says "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe... The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe." Come on Mark, it is a well tested, generally accepted, scientific theory. Just because it supports belief in a Creator God, you throw it out as religious. Follow the evidence where it leads you my friend. Drop your anti-God presuppositions.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 19:38

      @ Mark It doesn't really matter whether there was a big bang. That is not the issue. The issue is that alternatives so far advanced to explain things are not making sense and never have. The alternatives in the form of religion just continue to add to our misery. Based on what? Because others say so or have said so. Based on what? ALL living beings, who by the way have not asked to be here or to get involved in some alleged cosmic fight between some god or gods and their enemies - are caught up in the middle of what really seems to be nothing more than bullying self-satisfaction bu the religionists. Their particular versions or preference of what should pass for god.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 19:40

      @ Paul You hiding? Deal with the arguments. Don't evade them.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 20:22

      This article did mention stuff I though I didn't understand about the big bang. Found the red shift stuff very interesting

      Paul - 2012-01-23 20:36

      @Cracker What arguments do you think I am evading? I thought I had answered all of your points. I must say Dude, we are obviously not going to agree on the existence of God here. I believe, and you apparently don't. It is also impossible to either conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. Belief in God does take a step of faith. What I would like people to see though, is that it is not a blind leap of faith. It is faith based on good reason, or a reasonable faith. Can we agree to disagree on God's existence, and agree that it is reasonable to believe in God?

      Mark - 2012-01-23 20:38

      The point here is Big Bang bashing and gives another view on the theory of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory no matter how much the scientific community tries to prove it as actual science. Even if it is accepted by 90% of humanity, it does not make it actual. All these theories that you describe as well tested is made from a single point of the universe (our solar system), we have no idea what these theories would do from elsewhere in the unknown universe. It is a sad arrogant fact that we assume that we can describe a universe we can but view from a distance.

      ffaarg - 2012-01-23 21:33

      @Paul I think CS Lewis, "Mere Christianity" is still the best book for the average person who thinks about life. It is not a rigorous philosophical or theological book but it is very accessible. "The Abolition of Man" is another excellent book which aided my understanding of what it means to be human.

  • Andrew - 2012-01-23 19:43

    The 'Creation' debate has alot to be said for both sides. However, there is something that has always confused me. One of the main arguments for creation is the one of 'Fine Tuning' - that is that there are six critical laws of the universe such as gravity, speed of light etc, that if they were to differ by even a fraction of a millionth of a percentage, there would be no life. I don't agree that this is proof of a creator any more than a river's path exactly following the contours of a valley is miraculous, but lets assume for a second that it is the work of a creator. Obviously it would demonstrate the nature of the creator to be perfect beyond our comprehension, to show 'him / her' to have precision in its calculations and works of an immense scale. Now lets compare this creator to the Abrahamic god of the bible. a god whose idea of dealing with rape is that if she is raped inside a city, but does not shout loud enough for anyone to hear, she should be stoned to death? Seriously? A god who uses up valuable space in his all important holy book in the discussion of best practises for slavery? The list goes on and on... So can this be the creator and 'Fine Tuner' of the universe? I sometimes think that Christians should hope that the universe wasn't created, because it would mean they are worshiping the wrong god. just my opinion

      Paul - 2012-01-23 20:46

      @Andrew Thanks for bringing up the "fine tuning" of the Universe. That is a point worthy of further investigation and discussions. Surely the Universe being finely tuned to support life on earth indicates the existence of an intelligent designer.

      Andrew - 2012-01-23 21:11

      @paul not at all. Do some research on the subject. What it does demonstrate is a complete incompatibilty with the god of the bible whose own holy book is so vague and imprecise that even its own scolars can't agree on its meaning. Am currently reading some interesting stories from the Old Testament - there's no ways man.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 22:46

      @Andrew The way I see it fine-tuning helps with step 1: belief in a Creator God (theism). Finding exactly who that God is, is step 2. For me, based on the accuracy of the Bible, the fulfillment of prophecies against incredible odds, miraculous healings that I have witnessed, answered prayers and other personal experiences convince me that the God of the Bible is the one, true God.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-24 09:55

      Paul - turn the argument on it's head - the type of life we see if a direct result of the prevailing conditions on the planet.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 11:35

      @Paul. "For me, based on the accuracy of the Bible, the fulfillment of prophecies against incredible odds, miraculous healings that I have witnessed , answered prayers and other personal experiences convince me that the God of the Bible is the one, true God." Your statement is nonsensical. Why are there no miracles today , Angels coming down from heaven , God destroying cities , creating plagues or actually helping people in need. You might have experienced "miracles" but your only explanation is your belief in supernatural instead of the natural, "Positive thought". And please explain how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is accurate without quoting the Bible. Damn the man.

  • Pamela - 2012-01-23 19:45

    If I told you an empty casing of a watch just appeared on my arm and one by one all the intricate parts filled it. They just fell out of the sky and the watch began to work perfectly. Would you believe me?Ofcourse not. Therefore the incredible wonders of the universe must have a creator in the same way that a watch has a creator. Apart from that once someone actually "Knows God" which only happens through a divine revelation then one can never ever deny it. The "God particle" exists and so is the answer. "God said" Let there be light. He said it and it was done.It all revolves round "The Word" Everything he said does not return to him empty. To understand and accept this we must know God. Think about what people want to refer to as a fairy tale "The virgin birth"A Child can only be created one way. If a woman today decided she wanted a child but wanted to remain a virgin could it be done? Easy artificial insemnation.So then is God stupid and scientists clever? I dont believe this is the way the virgin birth took place i.e. Artificial insemination. It happened as the universe did by "The word of God"

      Paul - 2012-01-23 22:57

      @William How can you say there is nothing random about evolution? Evolution is based on random mutations and natural selection. So mutations occur randomly, and then natural selection works by survival of the fittest (or best suited). Isn't that how the theory goes?

      Paul - 2012-01-23 23:12

      Talking about evolution, please explain 2 things: how does irreducible complexity work? You know, how simple organsims can become far more complex organisms. How do they gain genetic information that works? Is that also meant to work by random mutations? And secondly, how did the eye evolve? The eye is such a complex organ- with all of its components in the actual eye ball (rods, cones, pupil, cornea, eye lid, etc.) and then there is the optical nerve to the brain. Now if one or two of these components of the eye were to "evolve" in a generation they wouldn't be of any use would they? So by natural selection they would just fall away. So the odds of actually getting all of these components evolving in a functional and ordered way (by random mutation) in one specimen seems ludicrous. But then to have this newly evolved eye continued to the next generation, you actually need two specimens undergoing this incredible development in the same generation, and in the same community to be able to reproduce it. It just sounds too far fetched for me.

      Paul - 2012-01-24 02:51

      @William If evolution is a fact, please explain the lack of transitional fossils? If evolution happened over billions of years,and the transitional phases over millions of years, how is it that we have 1000's of fossils of the end product but none of the transtional phases?

      mbossenger - 2012-01-24 09:58

      Paul - how did you conclude something is irreducibly complex? Also, look up gene duplication to see how genes can be "added" as a mutation.

      Paul - 2012-01-24 10:02

      @William As a man of science you say you believe in tangible things ... right ... so where are the tangible transitional fossils ??? @Clinton We can all supply websites to support our views and beliefs 1 And no there is not lots of examples , and the fossils at the cradle of humankind are not proven fact ,they are merely someones opinion. Heres on website , if you need more just ask.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-24 10:24

      Paul - then explain why tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil?

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 11:45

      @Paul not random mutations, mutations caused by the environment , be it predators , habitat or competition. Mutation that help them adapt and stand a better chance of survival. The problem Christians can't get around is the time that this takes. Hundreds of thousands of years , but that disproves the 6 day creation myth and Christians can't accept this. believing in God is a crutch for the weak , that need an explanation without any learning or hard-work, you just have to read , then believe and you will be rewarded with eternity in Heaven , even sinners just need repent each time they sin. Why else would the Bible add clauses that justify Murder ? (of Atheist , non-believers , witches , lying sons , rape victims , children etc) Read the whole bible and tell me you agree 100% with all of the scriptures , good , the bad and the ugly , and then we can talk. Damn the man.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 11:55

      @Paul Google is your friend. Before you make stupid claims google it first. Transitional Fossils. Damn the man

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 12:37

      you're thinking like a human, and the universe is not human. It doe not make rules according to human logic. for humans you need a creator for something to be created. this does not mean it's a universal LAW. anyway, the God Particle is named in the spirit of its meaning, and not actually as a proof of a god (yes, your's is not the only one apparently) it's called the god particle because it will bring meaning to one of the most important questions asked by man - what gives matter mass? It is called the god particle because it provides that answer

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 12:51

      @ paul man, I know you're scared of death, but that doesnt mean you have to believe in stories. you ask for transitional fossils, and I say that's a flawed argument. there will always be missing transitional records. what you're asking for is equivalent to the following situation: i show you a pic of me as a baby and say "that's me". you say to me "show me transitional photographs to prove it". so I show you a pic of when I was 13. you say "now show me transitional photo's between 13yr old you and adult you." so I show you one when I was 26. You ask the same thing, but now between the ages os 26 and 32. So I show you one from one when I was 29. you ask again. i show one when I was 29 and 6 months. you ask again, I show you one when I was 29, six months and 17 days. There is ALWAYS a transitional species, but fossils arent like million old photos. many, if not most, are lost. as for the eye. It wouldnt JUST appear. that's just retarded thinking like that. there were predecessing developments. maybe a cell developed a cell that responds to light and over time that evolved to what we have today. Plus, thinking that you need two animals with eyes to mate is small minded. the eye probably started developed when cells self replicated.

      Paul - 2012-01-24 16:24

      @ William Howcome we have 10 000's fossils all species , but no proven transitional fosils for any species ? So as you put it the odds of finding fossils for existing and exticnt species are good, but the odds fall when we are talking about transtional fossils. As for me "looking for answer" no bru I know 100% where I come from and who my creator is ... GOD ... no doudts what so ever !!! It's you who is still seeking ... in science !! @Clinton ...weak bru ...1992 was just the other day ... 1859 do you know what book was written in that year ..hmmmm .. Darwin's Fraud !!! As for Christian websites saying don't use transitional fossils to make our point ...fine ... I surgest you go check , you'll find many scietific websites that say evolution is a flawed theory because the fossil record does not support it , IE: no transitional fossils !!!! @ jody.beggs Before you make stupid statements read the Bible !!1 And when you google ...don't just read the articles that support your preconcieved beliefs ...READ THEM ALL !!! As for you keep saying "damn the man" you are damned ...MAN !!!

      Paul - 2012-01-24 16:38

      @rory.macrobert So you have all those photos, you can prove you are you ... right ? Ok , so howcome we have 1000's of dinosur fossils but more recent fossils, of modern day( species alive now) transitional fossils ..NIL ZIPPO NIKS ZERO ??? EXPLAIN PLEASE !!!!!

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 17:19

      @Paul really your telling me to read more , you want the answers and I must just give them to you. I'm not your paster wiping you ass , think for yourself , or is that the problem ? I read the articles that make sense and the stupid ones , like religion , I ignore. I have read the bible , that's why I'm against it. Just admit you believe so you won't go to hell , and that's it , its fear not love for Jeebus and God. In the bible , lier's are murdered and believing in a lie is just as bad.... So why get angry , where are your responses , to my questions on your faith ? Just admit your a sheeple and you love being told how it is because you can't see passed your nose. You my friend are damned . Or do you believe dinosaurs were on the boat with Noah ? Damn the man.

      Paul - 2012-01-25 00:39

      @William Lets just take a look back at where this all started. You made this statement : "Doll, you know way too little about physics and science, my opinion after reading your post. Fact is, there is absolutely nothing random about evolution, in fact it is precise and extremely selective." So I asked you this question : "If evolution is a fact, please explain the lack of transitional fossils?"You come back at me with a whole lot of drivel plus this : "I'm a man of science, I believe in tangible things." So I ask you again :"As a man of science you say you believe in tangible things ... right ... so where are the tangible transitional fossils ???" Your reply this plus more drivel : "Paul, do you know what the odds are at finding fossils? Why look for a fossil when we have living proof right here? Or is it just the way god made horses and donkeys different?"So I reply : "Howcome we have 10 000's fossils all species , but no proven transitional fosils for any species ? So as you put it the odds of finding fossils for existing and exticnt species are good, but the odds fall when we are talking about transtional fossils."

      Paul - 2012-01-25 01:06

      Continued : bare with me William ...I do have a point to make. Your reply ...MORE DRIVEL : Paul, there is something that you miss, let me spell it out for you, I DO NOT WANT OR HAVE TO CONVINCE YOU, AND I DO NOT WANT YOU TO DUMP YOUR RELIGION. See? Its all in capital letters for you. I have no desire to belief in your or any god, and for that matter please stop throwing arguments about. IT AIN'T WORKING BUD, and it never will. So go in peace with whatever you belief and use this experience as a learning curve that humans are different in many ways. OK Ok ... eventually here is my point: William , you have the cheek to tell Doll that she knows way too little about physics and sciencen AND that you William KNOW for a FACT that "there is absolutely nothing random about evolution, in fact it is precise and extremely selective." Yet you can't even give me a simple answer to my question except for the BS about horses and donkeys, WEAK BRU WEAK !! All you can do is belittle my nelief in GOD ,you can't even back up your belief in evolution and you think I'm stupid for believing in the message of Jesus Christ... if you are so sure that I'm delusional and a fool atleast try to show me the reasons why you are right and I am wrong ! I never insulted your beliefs , I simply had a few questions about your stated FACTS ...William where are the transitional fossils ???

      Paul - 2012-01-25 09:38

      No William , I have only asked you ONE question ... WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS? I'm STILL waiting for a answer ! If the best you can come up with is "The Skink and horses and donkeys" ...LOL ... and you say Doll knows way too little about physics and science and Fact is, there is absolutely nothing random about evolution, in fact it is precise and extremely selective ...why can't you supply me with a simple definative answers to my one and only question I have being asking you?? Come on wiseman, don't comeback with more DRIVEL ... it shows up your lack of knowledge ... I never professed to have all the answer ... I don't know "if animals can sin" the way what BS is that ... You say I'm obsesive, no I am not , all I ever wanted from you is to answer 1 single question but all you can do is avoid the only answer that there is ...THERE ARE NO TRANSTIONAL FOSSILS ... which leaves a BIG HOLE IN YOUR THEORY OF EVOLUTION !!! As for "my cup being full" yes it is ... your cup seems to have a hole in it thus it is empty or should I say FULL OF THE NOTHINGNESS OF YOUR ATHEISM !!!

      Mar - 2012-01-25 10:26

      @Paul, to help explain the evolution of the eye..... The mistake most people make with evolution and especially the eye, is that it happened gradually and at one stage we had half an eye, which always poses the question "what use is half an eye?" Even today we find creatures with all kinds of light sensitive organs, starting with patches of skin, then increasing in complexity right up to structures as sophisticated as the human eye. In 1994 Daniel Nilsson and Susanne Pelger used a computer to see what would happen to a mathematical model of a light sensing surface if it was allowed to change in small, random, biologically feasible ways, with only those changes that improved its sensitivity to light being retained. They found that within 400,000 generations (an evolutionary blink of the eye) that the flat surface gradually changed into a recognizable eye, complete with lens. At no stage was there ever "half an eye". There were just light sensing things that got better at sensing light. Hope this answers your question

      Paul - 2012-01-25 10:30

      Lol ... it seems that you gave up ... but still never answered the question! I got help , devine help ... it's you who needs help!

      Paul - 2012-01-25 15:51

      @William Sip those whiskeys a bit slower boet , Firstly I'm not the pastor, if you were a bit more observant ,you would have noticed there is 2 x Paul here !!! I'm the one that asked you ONE simple question , which you STILL have not being able to ANSWER!!! Except for your silly horses and donkey ...FACT ! WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ???? ... ANSWER PLEASE !!! This is getting a bit boring!! As for your vast intellectual capcity and you great understanding of evolution vs my bad typing skills and VROT english , I have this to say Sir William are a PRETENDER a pseudo-intellectual who reverts to insulting other peoples intelligence and rattling off a whole lot of hot air when you don't have the ANSWERS ... and you say :"for it is pointless to discuss anything on a level that you are not capable of." ... what a fool ...CHUMP !! But don't feel bad many leading paleontologists, Oxford professors inculded have also had to addmit that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FLAWED DUE TO THE LACK OF / GAP IN THE FOSSIL RECORD ... IE ...NO TRANSTIONAL FOSSILS!! So to end with I say this , you can comeback with all the INSULTS you have , that doesn't make you right and me wrong just shows you up as the DIMWIT YOU ARE !!! See we can all insult one another ... get back to your CNC machines I'm sure you good at it !!!

      Paul - 2012-01-25 17:50

      @William Ha Ha Ha ..PoePaul ... damn man that's a flash back , last time I heard that one was way back in Grade 2 43yrs ago ...just goes to show how childish you are!! As for answering a question still haven't answered MINE !! and I can't see any question of any value you asked me , just DRIVEL ... I told you ...I don't know if animals can sin , and no I didn't answer your other questions because they are all a load of BS !! I read your website , mostly drawings, a few fossils but are have they being verified and by who? I could list 100+ websites that dispute yours, so read the statement below ! Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote to a reader in 1979 the following passage: “ I fully agree with your commentary on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. ” It is claimed that Patterson asked the assemblage of paleontologists at a 1998 conference whether anyone knew of a genuine transitional form, receiving no answer but silence. William ... I'm not trying to convert you or convince you ... you basically called Doll stupid and said that you know evolution is a fact ... we can agree to disagree ...because we will never be able to prove one another wrong ! So wallow in your pseudo-intellectualism and atheisism

      Paul - 2012-01-30 16:47

      @ William Get lost you feeble weak little fool .... you delete all your STUPID COMMENTS ... so that people can't see that you are a weak debater ... no answers ...JUST DRIVEL and BS ... get back to your whiskey bottle... chump !!! The vast majority of poeple on this earth believe in a god in one form or another ... so if you want call us delusional ... thats fine with me ... you believe in your INTELLECT which if you had the Balls to leave your comments up here ...we all can see you are a DUMBWIT !!!

  • david.flewellen - 2012-01-23 20:16

    The comments on this article are *exactly* why the Higgs boson shouldn't be referred to as the god particle. That name is far more of a distraction than it's worth. Instead of focusing on the physics, this article has just turned into a sandbox for yet another pathetic religious debate which never goes anywhere.

      Throw - 2012-01-23 20:30

      Not really. Other people reading this learned stuff. Well, at least I hope so.

      carlmhead - 2012-01-23 22:10

      I think you're underestimating the power of ignorance Throw; I too wish people would learn something from all this, but that's unlikely.

      david.flewellen - 2012-01-23 22:15

      Yeah, I get the point of the casual non-participant reader perhaps learning something from the discussions here, and giving people something to think about is always a good thing. But when it gets buried amongst a pile of religious tripe, with sophistry and misleading analogies being the order of the day, how does the casual reader distinguish between scientific common sense and devious religious misinformation?

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 20:35

    And so the so-called believers are once again in full flight. They simply are unable to refute the arguments against their self-delusions.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 22:03

      You guys seem rather hostile toward Christianity. Why is that? If you were cut off in trafic by a BMW, you may be hacked off with that driver, but you wouldn't hate the makers of BMW would you? In the same way, if you have been hurt by a negative experience with a church or Christians, don't judge God based on that. And you know what, Christianity is not a crutch for weak personalities, as you suggested William. In Christianity you discover your real identity, value and purpose as a child of God. Evolution, on the other hand, says that you are the worthless result of a series of random mutations, without any purpose. I don't mean any offence, I'm just saying what evolution means.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 22:21

      @ Paul You make remarks here but you do not deal with the substantive arguments. Who cares if evolution has a meaning? Meaning is an idea between our ears. In the skull. It is what we think. Why don't you deal specifically with the arguments raised on this page. You are being very dishonest - typically the hallmark of a religionist.

      Paul - 2012-01-23 23:30

      William I appreciate your honest answer, and I will lay off if it upsets you. I would just like you to understand why Christians punt Christianity. It's because we do believe in a wonderful God and significant consequences to one's belief or disbelief in that God, in this life and the afterlife. So we do it out of love and concern for our fellow man. I mean if you saw someone walking blindfolded toward a cliff, wouldn't you try to wanr them? It's not like we earn any points at church or with God here, it's just wanting to help. It's like finding a cure for cancer or AIDS and wanting to share the good news. I realise you don't think you need any help, but just so you know we (mostly) have good intentions. Thanks for the lively discussion. Cracker, I'm afraid you are still in denial. We seem to have had a break down in communications somewhere, as you just aren't registering what I am saying, or I am missing something you are saying. As I have said before, if you would like to continue this by email, I am happy to do so. I'm off to bed, so over and out. God bless.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 12:01

      @Paul . "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." , Martin Luther. And for that reason alone religion should be stopped. Yes it has helped certain people, pedophiles(Catholic Priests) , get rich (Paster Ray Macauly , the Vatican) etc. Tell me what happens to the 10% of your salary every-month ? Obviously proof is not important to you , so what does that say about your character ? Damn the man.

      Dirk - 2012-01-24 20:13

      William- Of course the numbers will dwindle-"---for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first" 2 Thes. 2:3

      Paul - 2012-01-25 16:01

      @ William More insults ... form the pseudo-intellectual !!

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 16:30

      Masters in fools paradise

  • justin.schonegevel - 2012-01-23 21:12

    Did God start the evolution?? Why must we prove this God particle?? How much money is wasted on silly experiments that really not going to save much more than a scientists name! Lets face it we'll go extinct before we could successfully travel space. Not talking about a virgin galactic $20m flight but where we can live breath and populate. Lets close this projects and work out a solution to Rhino killings and food shortages!

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 21:15

    @ Paul Poetry by even the old Jews seems to determine your belief system. Fine, but don't expect others to be so gullible. Why should I or anyone else believe what you propose, even in the face of opposition by many other believers who claim to base their beliefs on the same source documents as you do? The contradictions re creation myths are glaringly obvious. Read the article I referred to and the quotations from it I have posted above. If anybody still maintains that the contradictions are non-existent, no reason to even argue with them. The religious mind - like for example the communist or overly nationalistic/patriotic mind - can be remarkably isolated from reality. But let people read the article for themselves and make up their own minds. You still do not deal with the arguments I raise. For example, if the creation version - the first one in Genesis - is actually poetry in action, why assume it is factually correct? Why did you in the first place raise it that it is poetry? Read your comments above. You actually assumed it was not literally accurate. What else? If it is not literally accurate, why bother about the contradictions or non-contradictions between the creation versions? It should not be an issue at all. If this earth and life on it is older than about maximum 10,000 (ten thousand) years the whole bible is automatically discredited. By the way, why did you not respond to my comment concerning the so-called non-scientific nature of the bible?

      Paul - 2012-01-23 22:23

      @Cracker I have resolved the apparent contradiction in the Genesis creation account above. When you correctly understand the passage then there is no contradiction. I don't know if you haven't read my explanation or you just can't understand it. That also does away with a young earth (e.g. 10000 years) belief. I can be honest to the Bible and still believe that the universe is 13,5 billion years old or older. Are you getting this? It sounds like you have received some narrow minded and inaccurate teaching on the Bible previously, my friend. If you would like to discuss this further, to genuinely gain a better understanding of the Bible, I would be happy to do so via email. I am not sure what you mean by the non-scientific nature of the Bible. You understand that the Bible is a religious book right? Christians believe it was inspired by God, as His revelation to man. So obviously since the source and central story is God's relationship to man, it is a religious book, not a scientific book. That's not to say that it is scientifically unsound. After all, science is man's attempt to understand creation. In effect God made science. But the focus of the Bible is not on science. Are you with me?

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 21:22

    If the article above that I referred to and quoted from does not reveal contradictions and inconsistencies in the creation versions in the bible the very concept of contradiction and inconsistency should be obliterated from language and our understanding of the meanings thereof.

      Pamela - 2012-01-23 22:08

      Believing is not religion. Religion binds us to all sorts of laws.God's laws were not given for His benefit but our benefit.To benefit our well being. Christianity brings freedom and one cannot understand it until one practises it.No Christian will ever be perfect.

      Pamela - 2012-01-23 22:15

      There is a verse in the bible that says"God sat on the CIRCLE of the earth before man knew the earth was round and not flat.

      TheTruth777 - 2012-01-23 22:31

      Your comments and insight into this topic is very well thought out and researched (I must say)..But while reading it, I feel a deep sense of sadness on your behalf..It seems like you have been hurt or ill-treated by people/someone who claimed to be a Christian. Which left you feeling anger towards Christians and God. This is what happens to many people (unfortunately), and they (like you), aim to disprove God's existence, and Christianity as a whole. I would just like to say that I was never always a christian, and had strong feelings against it, just like you. Many Christians which I looked up to were "hypocrites", who acted like saints in front of the public, but horribly ill-treated there families etc. I decided to commit my life to Jesus (but was still a bit skeptical) because I could see only destruction in my life, and was looking for a way out. Even though I saw many, so called Christian, hypocrites, I did however witness radical changes in other peoples lives, hence why I decided to become a christian. During my walk as a christian, there are a few things that I've noticed, 1) No-one can ever be perfect, people always mess up. Some people get caught up in religious practices and try to earn there way to Heaven, when Christianity is all about having a relationship with God. Those people are quick to judge and point fingers, and are partly responsible for turning unbelievers away. 2) God's word is perfect! You need to realize that the Bible cannot be fully understood

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 23:58

      @ The Truth777 Don't talk rubbish. And don't try your hypocritical BS on me.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 09:21

      hahaha Truth777 hit a nerve cracker?

      mbossenger - 2012-01-24 10:26

      Capetowndoll - a circle is flat, not a sphere. Besides, the ancient Greeks already knew that the earth was spherical.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 17:22

      TheTruth777. if "You need to realize that the Bible cannot be fully understood " then why have it at all , it it will never be understood and completely ambiguous. If it where from God everyone would understand, not just the people making a living off of it. You need to ask more questions about your faith instead of just believing. Damn the man.

      Skeptical - 2012-01-24 21:59

      @ CapeTownDoll. Sorry to burst your bubble. A circle is flat, the earth is a sphere. But your bible also says god breathes fire through his mouth and smoke through his nostrils. >

  • justin.schonegevel - 2012-01-23 21:26

    Maybe if the scientists asked God He'll reveal the God magic that is we live on an amazing piece of rock and that not many rocks around us are as lucky. Maybe the challenge for scientists is not the God particle it is the fact they know there will be a point where science can't prove the final answer and we will all have to trust one way or another that Something made earth and life start. So until you can prove it I will believe that The God particle is the actual doing of God Himself. Throughout history we have been going between religion and science yet can we agree that sometime science is true and sometimes the bible is true. We just need to understand how each other connects. Sometimes a message in the bible relates to a fact and sometimes it's a story meant to describe how one will be remembered when they dead. We are all flesh and will die in flesh. Yet the beauty of a Christian lives on and will forever be remembered by those that loved him/her as a saint.

      Pamela - 2012-01-23 21:44

      Lets face it a perfectly balanced earth created with the moon and sun playing their part. Then the rocket scientists send up satelites to circle the earth so that we can have TV,cell phones,internet and what have you. Global warming is then blamed on insignificant aerosal spray etc etc Nevertheless,progress ic commendable but I cant understand how a "Rocket scientist" cant figure that one(Global warming) out

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 21:46

      We will probably never in a million years find the answers. But in the meanwhile - actually forever, in the existence of intelligent (so-called) inference making - whatever - we do not have to fall back on BS. Why is it important that we don't? Our freedoms are far more important than all the religious and ideological nonsense that are being mustered against us. Making this up or exaggerating? I really don't think so. Let people simply be free to live their lives without the zealots' prescriptions. But be very prudent. Those innocent and tolerant looking religionists WILL destroy your freedoms if given the chance. The religious mind thinks it has a duty to satisfy its deity's wishes, which of course includes its deity's dignity. What do they resort to, to give effect to it?

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 22:30

    @ Paul Come Paul. You and Dom Jannie-Agterent must still point out which of the contradictions/inconsistencies I quoted above are NOT contradictions/inconsistencies. Not up to it?

      Paul - 2012-01-23 23:17

      @Cracker Again, I have already done so. Please read my comment higher up. There are no contradictions.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 12:05

      @Paul crap , where's your evidence ? Damn the man.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 16:14

      @jody.beggs - "damn the man" is getting rather old dont you think?

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 17:24

      @E=MC2 just like your pathetic comments right. Common where are your arguments , or have you just given up because you know you can't win. Damn E=MC2 to HELL!

      Dirk - 2012-01-24 20:18

      Jody- Have you just recently become a brain donor?

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:28

      @jody.beggs - its difficult to argue with child-like behaviour like that... damn me to hell? So you believe in heaven then?

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:34

      @jody.beggs - it all makes so much sense now... you're still in high school!! I tell you what Jody, go do your homework & let the grown-ups talk big people stuff here ok

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 22:40

    @ Paul No, you simply do not deal with the issues raised here. Anyway, you expect one to support and believe in YOUR PARTICULAR understanding and faith which is in direct conflict with the beliefs of so many others who base their belief system on the same source documents you profess to believe in. Don't you see the irony and the potential cause of conflict? Does history not teach you something? You still haven't dealt with the issues raised. Typical.

  • TheTruth777 - 2012-01-23 22:47

    when being read with a critical eye. When you become a christian, you receive the holy spirit into your life (a part of Gods being) which helps you understand Gods word and enables God himself to reveal things/messages to you..Now I know all this might sound like a load of BS to you, (I didn't understand it prior to becoming a christian too) but it is most certainly true, not only to me, but to millions of Christians all over the world (something which science alone cannot explain). 3) Without God's word, this entire earth with be in total crap (think about it for a second), god gave us a moral code, guidlines on how we should run our lives, institutions such as marriage etc..Without these things, we would be running around killing, raping and murdering each other. Man is evil my friend, if it was not for God's presence in peoples lives, the earth would have been in a very dark place. If everything is relative, and everyone makes up there own set of rule, then anyone could say that pedophilia is good and no-one can contest it because it is relative to that person (Do you see where I am getting at?).4) Most unbelievers choose not to believe in God because it is the easy way out. Once you believe in Jesus Christ you automatically know that there is a God who wants (for your own benefit) to live according to a set of rules, and if you don't, you will receive discipline (just like a loving Father disciplines his child). I mean, ok, so lets assume God is the bady here, he does

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 13:00

      no humans gave us a moral code, in the name of a god. and sorry to spoil your fun but the christian moral code is not exclusively theirs, PLUS there are tons of other moral codes out there. It just depends which divine punisher you want to believe in. anyway, just because your lot say something is good, doesnt mean it is. There is no good and bad, these are just human concepts. There is however, just winners and their opinions being forced on the losers. Religion has been winning so far, but as man gets smarter religion is under scrutiny and coming up short. on point 4) dont generalise to make yourself feel good about your convictions. it's taken me 32 years of perpetual contemplation and forcing myself to overcome other people's opinions to get to where I am today. having a mindset that challenges everything about your existence is not "an easy way out"

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 17:35

      @TheTruth777 by the way its , easier being a sheeple , not a individual thinking for themselves. In religion you are told how it is and you just believe , no thought or understanding , because God will kill you for asking the wrong questions. Your paster , priest answer's your questions from God's perspective and all you have to do is follow like the sheeple you are. An individual needs to sort through the crap , other religions , cults , society and everyday life on their own , making decisions that change there lives and you learn from your mistakes. I guess you think morals only comes from God , but remember there are thousands of God's out there , why should yours be so special ? Have you spoken to him today , not pray actually conversed , ever .... Or only through the church ? Without God's word there would be less hate , there would be less pedophilia because men would be robbed of there God Given power , there would be no sexism , babies will be born pure not evil and finally millions of sheeple will be free of they bonds to the tyranny of a HELL that doesn't exist. Damn the man.

      Dirk - 2012-01-24 20:27

      A "socalled moral code" without the foundation or endorsement of the Commandments, is nothing but a collective of opinions. I may disagree with murder, but the next person does not. Apart from an opinion, what makes me right? Absolutely nothing! So, we have relativity- no absolute right or wrong, no black or white- everything gray. And the result? Chaos and decay- as we see in the world today- a moral sewer!

  • brandon.cogan - 2012-01-23 22:48

    God created everything period !! See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ , Colossians 2:8 .

      david.flewellen - 2012-01-23 23:13

      So you think a big bang, which takes no intelligence whatsoever is impossible. But a sentient God, who magically has always been around, is perfectly plausible? That makes no sense whatsoever, and it is up to people like me to point this abysmal logic out to people like you.

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 13:02

      you brandon, are a fool. everyone know the spaghetti monster created everything. he is all powerful and he forces me to believe. "enter some quote from a book that has no proof, but supports my circular thinking" Meatballs, 25, 16

      Skeptical - 2012-01-24 22:05

      Yup he created good and evil according to the bible. So therefore he is fighting his own creation!!!

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 08:54

      Brandon- Let them be. They actually believe that NOTHING exploded and for the first and only time , it "created" all we see now, of course starting with feathers, moving to scales then to fur( or something like that) But nothing in transition. But for the last thousand or so yrs, all has been suspended, while "science groupies" are scurrelling around to seek evidence to support THEIR views. Can you imagine if they dont? They would have to acknowledge a Creator, and would that not present them with a challenge?

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 16:37

      And if they die before they do, then, they are really in trouble

  • Cracker - 2012-01-23 22:54

    Maybe we can get an answer to the following question: Why is it that the so-called word of the supreme one requires so many research/interpretations/special pleadings and different opinions? Or is god really playing games with us? We did not even ask to be here and take part in the silly battle of deities and good vs evil? I was certainly not asked if I would like to voluntarily join the fight. I in fact know of nobody else who agreed.

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 23:04

      If you think about it, why does god actually require us (YES US, MERE MORTALS) to DIVINE his word? And then we apparently get it so wrong that we start killing each other and make laws to impose our own biased understandings of the meaning of the word on others. Now, think this through very carefully, what is the game god is playing? Why does the aforesaid question arise at all? Can we imagine a world different from the one we inhabit? No, obviously we can't. Can we however envisage a god with some more moral fiber than the one the religionists preach about? Definitely. Lies and deceit will always be to the detriment of others. Not because they are inherently evil but because they disadvantage the fools among us. God clearly did not think quite that far. Is it possible.....never mind.

  • TheTruth777 - 2012-01-23 23:01

    not want you to murder, steal or lie things that if done, could land you up in jail or killed)..What many non believers need to realise is that they are putting there faith in a belief system which requires more of it because they choose to use only science (a group of deceptive and unsound theories) as there foundation. Science does work WITH Christianity, but unfortunately, those scientists who argue against Christianity are the ones most publicized, and are the ones which we hear of every day. There are hundreds of scientists who are pro-God but will not get an opportunity to make 'front page news'because Christianity and moral living is definitely not in the Media's agenda. Christianity today, is the most persecuted faith out there, which makes you think, why is that so? Satan my friends, the one who is currently deceiving you, is the same one who is trying and has always been trying to eradicate Christianity and push more so many flawed theories into peoples minds. One thing I know, Christianity is here to stay (and I'll be praying for the critics).

      Cracker - 2012-01-23 23:14

      No. Get back to basics. You expect people to believe what even the believers fight over and had been doing for so long. The very source of your belief system is unreliable by any standards you may wish to apply. It is as simple as that. Believe what you like but leave the rest of us alone to continue with our lives and enjoy our freedoms. That's all we non-believers ask. We ask it not only of Christians (in their many varieties) but also of the other belief systems. And anyone with a smattering of brains will NEVER pretend to hold the answers to the unanswerables.

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-24 06:41

      Absolute bollocks. Your martyr mentality might seem humbling to you, but it impresses no one. Invariably the religious promotes their (very specific) agenda and attempts their age old theocratic encroachment on free and civil society. You have done this through many crusades, inquisitions, malificarums, and lets not forget the dark ages. Humanity has had enough of this tyranny.

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 13:32

      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah ahahahahhahahahahahah sighs with glee. I'm sorry, it must be hard being 6 years old in an adult's world

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 05:48

      I am certain that Cracker and Anti Thesis are older than six. Their pronouncements may indicate otherwise, but I know that they both are over 6. You owe them an apology, I think.

  • SpottedMarleydog - 2012-01-24 00:07

    god is make believe time for adults. religion is a scourge on humanity

      Cracker - 2012-01-24 00:26

      But why is it a scourge? One would have thought it should be a blessing. But it is the exact opposite. Where are the silly religionists now?

  • Andries - 2012-01-24 05:06

    I can’t believe how quickly this devolved into a religious debate thanks to the obtuse ravings of the faithful who immediately tried to hijack the 'god' particle as some sort of proof of their fictional god. Why bring god into this at all? I really don't understand why christians feel the need to spruik your myths at every inopportune moment. Do you think of god every time you switch on a light too? Stupid, insipid and puerile.

      Andries - 2012-01-24 05:08

      PS: Very happy to see the wave of scientific and secular counter arguments that swamped the religious few though. Make one think there’s hope yet.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 05:51

      Who is your controller? You clearly, are fictional

      Andries - 2012-01-25 15:37

      Brilliant schoolyard level comeback Dirk.

  • Peter - 2012-01-24 08:21

    Funny how man wants to reinvent the wheel, rather than use the one already provided.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 12:12

      Things are reinvent because they have problems. That's why the Bible was doctored and altered by the Roman Catholics. Before science there was only speculation and feeble attempts to understand natural events, now we understand and need to change our old ways. Damn the man.

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 13:25

      lame. what a waste of space your comment was

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:35

      jody.beggs - speaking about science, dont you have homework to do?

  • EttieneC - 2012-01-24 08:56

    And there go the Christians again trying to force their views on everyone in the comments, and all the athiests trying to convince the Christians they are wrong... How boring... Instead of commenting about the actual article, wich is scientific in nature and is all about something called "Antimatter" but noooo Lets make it a religious thing. Retards...

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 05:55

      Escaped from the lab, have you?

      sean.d.parker - 2012-01-25 10:49

      What else do you expect, its called the "God particle". Funny how there is no better name? Why not called it the "evolution particle" or the "big bang particle?"

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:37

      well Ettiene, call the cops about the guy that's holding the gun to your head making you read this boring article & save us the dull moaning... please.

  • Khomotso - 2012-01-24 09:03

    ...theory of everything he...!!!!

  • Khomotso - 2012-01-24 09:04

    ...wht th hll is ths dak matter

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 09:22

      you missing the a e i & r on your keyboard or what?

  • TheTruth777 - 2012-01-24 09:34

    What I find funny, is the amount of anger and hatred towards the 'Christians'in this thread by the those who do not believe in God. Firstly, it is our duty as children of God to speak up against these, sometimes blasphemous, comments. Just as so many of you viewed your opinion (as it is your free will to do so), we also have the right to speak up and view ours. But while reading many of these comments, I notice a strong feeling of frustration towards Christians, and if the non-believers agenda is based purely on facts and scientific data, there should not be this type of anger involved. All you non believers, ask yourself this question (and be honest), if you were to take the time one day to sit with a biblical scholar and apologetic, who could help give you answers to your questions, would you be open to becoming a Christian and committing your life to Jesus Christ or be just open to believing that there is a God? If not, you might want to rethink why you are really against Christianity..Is it that the scientific facts don't add up, or that if you do start believing, you are afraid you may have to change the way you live your life and realize that you are not living a good life and that there are consequences for your actions?..Even though you don't believe in God, He believes in you!

      barry.mcbride - 2012-01-24 10:09

      Atheists want proof but God wants a relationship built on trust, not proof. Yet even if God provided proof that was satisfactory to everyone, faith and trust would still be required to follow God. Therefore, an atheist's question would merely change from "Why doesn't God prove his existence?" to "Why doesn't God explain why he did this and not that?” Atheists themselves would become theists, but not all of them would become [born-again] Christians: one can believe God exists without believing he's worthy of worship, or that Christ's death atoned for our sins. God wants us to trust him, not just believe he exists. If our every demand for proof and explanation were satisfied, we'd only trust and follow God to the extent that he proved himself to us. We would be relying on the external evidence and our own judgment of it, not actually trusting God.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-24 10:15

      Simple - I'm very much open to the idea of god existing, but see no evidence to support this view.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 12:19

      There is more anger from Christianity on this topic than atheists. Quoting a fictional book as proof is just dumb , but using it as definate proof is pathetic. Believe what you want , but you can't use religion (mainly human relationship management ) as absolute truth without any solid evidence. Fine you talk to God , he answers your prayers , enriches your life through the Church and its members , but that'll never explain natural events or even come close to being truthful. The bible "might" make you a better person , but it is just wrong to say that only Christians have morals and everyone else is wrong , because the Bible says so.... If you can't see the childish mentality in the bible that could only have come from man , then shame on you.

      barry.mcbride - 2012-01-24 13:10

      @jody.beggs: Just for interests’ sake, where in the Bible does it say "only Christians have morals"? I believe that God loves all people because that’s his nature and part of his character, which he shows to everyone by extending his grace & mercy to those who have lived their lives in rebellion against him. He gives life & breath to everyone and satisfies all needs because he loves the whole world. However, the Bible also very clearly indicates God is especially committed to those who return his love and follow his ways.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 17:44

      @BMcB its not in the bible yet , but many followers here claim morals can only come from the Bible and God , not my words. Believe what you want its your life! Just don't try and convert or quote the bible as proof , because its not. Damn the man.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 06:05

      "Morals" without confirmation of the Ten Commandments/Godly instructions is nothing but a set of opinions which will differ from one person to the next. Oh, one may have "values" of rules which you may THINK is right or wrong. It leads to relativism- nothing absolutely right or wrong- no black or white, everything grey- Therefore no sin and no need for a Saviour. And the result? The chaos we see around us and the moral sewer this dying world has become.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:37

      jody.beggs - YOUR HOMEWORK IS WAITING

  • Brent - 2012-01-24 11:16

    lol i like it when comments like the above are made. here is one for you: 'how does a finite being understand the infinite?'

      barry.mcbride - 2012-01-24 11:50

      My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and FIND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. (Proverbs 2:1-5)

      Brent - 2012-01-24 12:51


  • aardvarkie - 2012-01-24 11:56

    Once they've found the God Particle they'll find something else even more interesting, but might run into naming issues... maybe the "Super God Particle" then they'll find something even more amazing and have to call it the "Mega Super God Particle", then the "Ultra Mega Super God Particle". After that I think they're screwed.

      aardvarkie - 2012-01-24 17:10

      The "Whoop Bang Boogie" Theory.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 06:10

      Clinton- At varsity, you say? Which one? I am often asked by young people and would like to point them in the opposite direction of the one you are at.

  • aardvarkie - 2012-01-24 11:58

    Hey whatsup with deleting my comment, I thought it was funny. Sigh.

      aardvarkie - 2012-01-24 12:03

      Oh there it is :-)

  • Breinlekkasie - 2012-01-24 13:02

    The Kashmir effect heavily hints at the possibility that a Creator does not exist!

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 06:12

      The reality effect heavily hints that you got your name from a personal experience

  • Nico - 2012-01-24 13:04

    @ Juan - No one has discovered life anywhere but on earth. Hawkins is talking about how probable it is for live to exist in abundance in the universe, and we have no proof yet of any alien life forms. Not even one single cell organism has ever been found.

      david.flewellen - 2012-01-24 17:38

      That's not a convincing argument, Nico. How many planets have we explored? "Hawkins" (presumably not the 90s singer Sophie B. Hawkins) talks about the probability. Given the size and nature of the universe, it's overwhelmingly likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe - but finding it (and visiting it) will prove to be the ultimate needle in the haystack, and is unlikely for at least the next ten thousand years.

  • rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 13:07

    Just for all you zealots out there, I think it's important to point out one thing: The God Particle will not be proof of "The God theory" and your god (whichever of the hundreds out there it is) it is called God Particle because, if found, it will provide "the answer". and to what? to the question "What gives matter mass?" nothing religious, nothing spiritual. it's actually quite a cute name actually. so far the god theory has no proof

      rory.macrobert - 2012-01-24 13:29

      It will be the ultimate answer. it will help explain mass, and from mass - gravity, physics, time. it is (for us right now) THE ANSWER. hence, the God Particle

  • Nico - 2012-01-24 13:10

    @JannieJammerGat You said :"I still cant understand why if things evolved their previous ancestors are still here?". It is because the ancestor population was split in two, and only the one group was subjected to external pressures(of which there are a few) which forced them to adapt, and eventually after a period of time, change.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 14:24

      so why hasnt anything changed in the last thousand or so years? I mean im under pressure at work! I could use another arm but nothings grown yet (hang on let me check..... nope nothing!!) DAMN EVOLUTION

      Endof - 2012-01-24 14:50

      @E=MC2 - Must be real pressure if you have time to blog! Oh, and if you are under pressure at work how come your God hasn't helped you out yet either?...Oh yes I forgot - he's still out playing hide and seek.

      Nico - 2012-01-24 15:02

      Hahaha! That is not how evolution works! I heard a very similar example from an 8 year old last year when I took him to the museum.

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-24 16:20

      oh lol! im being sarcastic about the work part, but my example stands. Evolution has come to a sort of stop hasnt it? & Endof - go play with your crayons please, the big people are talking grown up stuff.

      Endof - 2012-01-24 16:46

      E=MC2 - nerve strike! Clearly you don't understand the first thing about evolution...maybe I could draw you a picture with my crayons to explain it. ...and while I play with my crayons, maybe you can give some thought to the following then o wise one: why do you have a coccyx, an appendix and a single aperture in your throat to both breathe and eat through? Not very clever design by God in any of these now is there? Also, while you're trying to figure that one out, can you explain to me why we have both the Italian and Spanish languages but no more latin spoken and/or written? How is it that bacteria are able to become resistant to antiboitics? ...Need any clues or do you think you can handle this one on your own...?

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 06:16

      No, evolution has been put on hold for a while, while the "science groupies" seek evidence to support their preconceived lies.

      Endof - 2012-01-25 08:09

      Dirk, I note you can't provide any answers to my points or arguments to support your flimsy standpoint, but resort to feeble-minded ridicule instead. That is always the last resort of the defeated or the uneducated (pick either one or both if you like). And then Christians wonder why atheists treat them with contempt. For that you earn the idiot of the day award.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 08:39

      "Professing to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22 I think that explains your ignorance quite nicely.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-25 13:39

      Dirk - is lying for jesus considered a sin?

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 15:41

      @Endof - i see why the last 3 letters of your name you chose are dof... have i once said that i have the answers to everything?? like i said, go play wif your crayons...

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 16:42

      Nico- I know, it does not work at all

      Endof - 2012-01-26 08:48

      E=MC2 - (ironic name if ever there was one for a person with your views). The questions I asked were not very difficult at all and I was really hoping you'd be able to offer some kind of rational response. But alas (as I've come to expect from people like you, Sean and Dirk on this site), the only form of response is a side step of the points and/or arguments and a childish insult. I realise that you obviously can't comprehend the timescales over which macro-evolution works, hence your moronic comment "so why hasnt anything changed in the last thousand or so years?", so I gave you examples that happen over much shorter timelines (bacteria and latin) as well as a few that are still underway (coccyx and appendix) to make you think. I really wasn't expecting those to go that far over your head, so maybe I should've dumbed them down even more, but then, quite frankly my 8 year old understands these concepts, so I would have thought you would too. Clearly I was mistaken (but at least I now know where you got the crayon idea from). ...Cue the childish retort and sidestep...

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-26 15:19

      dof, & you say im being! kettle calling the pot black hey

      Endof - 2012-01-26 15:36

      ...right on cue. "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity"

  • Tanya - 2012-01-24 14:00

    When a painting is drawn we know a painter drew it, however when we go and view the painting, we do not see the painter but, we know there is a painter behind the drawing, so the true fact is there is a creater behind the universe and he is a master of all creation. There is definatly a painter, its just up to us to actually believe and search in our souls for that true meaning. x0x0

      Endof - 2012-01-24 15:28

      Wow Tanya-the old watchmaker argument - I can't believe there are still people out there who believe this horribly flawed logic! Clearly you have never read any arguments against this ridiculous position! Let me give you just 2 counters: 1. You can't confuse natural and artificial processes (which you have) 2. The argument implies that complex life requires a creator in order to create it, but then since the creator would have to be complex in order to create it, something would have had to create the creator! Now we all know that that can't be right can it? So you've unwittingly just argued against God...Ouch!

      mbossenger - 2012-01-24 15:35

      "its funny how people will argue til they're blue in the face to prove something that they cant actually prove" - like Tanya's infantile argument above?

      david.flewellen - 2012-01-24 17:33

      @Endof: Duuuuh, the creator's creator created the creator. Any more questions? ;)

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 17:55

      Its even more funny what crap people will believe, sky God here to save your soul from a hell he created in the first place. By the way if there was free will , why did the Church kill so many witches , atheist , pagan's and torture countless more in the name of God ? Bet you can't answer that one ? If you actually still believe that God is just and loving you really have the wool pulled over your eyes. Damn the man.

      Ben - 2012-01-24 21:09

      Jody, I note that you have had a lot to say on this topic. There is one aspect that was not discussed. If you believe I am a fool, no matter how much I try to convince you that I am not, you just might keep on believing. What I am trying to say is: you can argue facts and convince people with proof, but to argue about what people believe or not is a complete waste of time and if I partake in it any longer I might also be recognised as a fool. Damn the man.

      Endof - 2012-01-25 08:11

      Good one David! I forgot about the creator's creator creating the creator!!!!

  • Cracker - 2012-01-24 19:59

    God apparently saddled us human failures with the onus to find our way through all the contradictions and various mutually exclusive belief systems. If we fail, and many will due to circumstances and the absence of knowledge totally beyond their control, guess what? This applies to ALL religions.

      Cracker - 2012-01-24 20:07

      I omitted to add that morality must somehow also apply among the deities. If the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the paradise myth had any long term effect of note it must surely be that we as humans have acquired the ability to distinguish morality from its opposite which one would assume is evil. Anyway, just speculating. What is it that even humans are able to question the so-called supreme notion of what is good and what is evil as one assumes the mentioned concepts exist in a particular deity's composition? Something makes no sense whatsoever.

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 08:45

      "The fool has said in his heart- there is no God(Ps 14:1) The way of the fool is right in his own eyes((Prov12:15) But the folly of fools, is deceit(Prov14:8) I am always so grateful when I am shown examples to illustrate Scripture.

  • Cracker - 2012-01-24 21:38

    To emphasize, if you allow the god(s) (deities) of others to infiltrate and run your country (government, life) you give away all your freedoms. This ultimately is what all these arguments are about - well at least for some of us. We cannot just allow lies and fibs to be spread as per the religious mind's compulsions. Compulsions? Yes! We hear how for example information cannot be transferred without some intelligent deity in control of everything - exactly which one of the many out there who demand followings? - and that god is perfect and only creates perfection. Now how about the following news item, and know there are many other similar examples across all of nature. Explain the following: A UK woman who has two vaginas has apparently been offered R12 million to star in a porn movie, according to media reports. According to the UK Daily Mail Hazel Jones always wondered why she suffered from terrible cramps and heavy periods during puberty. But it wasn't until she turned 18 that she was given her astonishing diagnosis - she had two vaginas. The 27-year-old blond from High Wycombe has the million-in-one condition uterus didelphys, which means she has two separate uteruses and cervixes as well. WHY? The truth is that she is a product of blind and unfeeling forces (or whatever) at work. Why are there such strange forces? We don't know. We never will. But to pretend we do and to use our hallucinations of deities to make up for our ignorance is no excuse either.

      Sean - 2012-01-24 23:47

      @Cracker I must just tell you I feel so sorry, no I mean really sorry for you; you're trying so hard to convince who? Give it up mate and go where the evidence leads you! Stay away from Richard Dawkins he is a malicious and poisonous man, and I am not basing it on his bible bashing but his utter stupidity and stupid theories that are about as scientific as the bible. Let’s see why? Steady state theory was debunked..... So we moved onto the multiverse oops debunked too. Atheists have become so desperate that they now shout from the rooftops that they are the victims WTF????? you have a choice believe don’t believe no Christian I know is going to come bash you with a pitch fork or hang you, ok I admit they might kill you with kindness and yes that is unbearable to be kind to people something you’ve been unable to do in any posts so yes I get you…. Every single piece of trash you have ever posted is from some atheist site and every single one of those stupid comments has been explained. YES everyone! BTW you have to know this, when you die you will not burn in Hell, you will be eternally separated from God. You have clearly indicated before that you don’t like Him or Believe in Him so for you it’s no Loss, so what’s the fuss about?

      Andries - 2012-01-25 00:06

      Sean- you are talking through your a$$. It’s so pathetic when christians flail around trying to sound reasonable but still end up semi-hysteric. Can’t you understand that a sentence like ‘you will be eternally separated from God’ doesn’t mean ANYTHING when one has outgrown fairytales?

      Dirk - 2012-01-25 06:21

      Andries- Do you realise what you sound like?

      Endof - 2012-01-25 08:21

      Sean - delusion must be a real pain in the ass. Making statements like you did merely shows that you are an irrational, unreasoned buffoon of the highest order. You are shining example of why the religious (and Christians in particular) deserve ridicule and contempt. It really saddens me that the termites of religion have bored so deeply into someones mind that they can think like you do.

      Sean - 2012-01-25 08:32

      @Andries - Sjoe, where did I say I was a Christian? You don't know me but if you label me here is one for you! Who are you and what do you know? Who said that?

      Sean - 2012-01-25 08:34

      @Endof - Hehehehehehe surely you can come up with better tripe that you just spewed out. You Hipocrate!

      Endof - 2012-01-25 08:37

      @Sean - What's a "hipocrate"?...I think you just proved me right!

      Sean - 2012-01-25 08:54

      @Endof- So you reported my comment and it got deleted all fine, To prove you're a hypocrite... You just crucified me about a spelling mistake :)

      Sean - 2012-01-25 09:00

      @Andries - Brother you gotta read my post! You said "you will be eternally separated from God’ doesn’t mean ANYTHING when one has outgrown fairytales? I said "You have clearly indicated before that you don’t like Him or Believe in Him so for you it’s no Loss, so what’s the fuss about?" Now if I could say that through my a$$ it would be a miracle! Read and understand before you fly off your delusional pony, tjop!

      Endof - 2012-01-25 09:29

      @Sean - Not sure what you're on about there Seanie boy. I never reported any of your posts and I fail to see how I'm a hypocrite from the mere fact that you are stupid. If you can't spell the word, chances are good that you don't understand it either!

      Sean - 2012-01-25 09:36

      @Endof - Aaaah the you are stupid arguement. How about we have a general knowledge quiz one on one? no internet no google no wikipedia are you up to it in verifying my stupidness? Or would you decline such a challenge due to your total awesomeness?

      Endof - 2012-01-25 09:59

      @Sean...a General Knowledge quiz?! Are you serious?! What is this - grade 7? And since when does good general knowledge imply intelligence?! All it can possibly show is good memory skills, that's it. So you effectively someone who can't think, reason or spell, but you have a good memory! Wow, you sound like my laptop (except it can spell). By the way it's "stupidity" not "stupidness". You're more retarded than I gave you credit for and are not worth wasting any more time on.

      Andries - 2012-01-25 10:26

      Sean- So you are not a christian then? You most certainly sound like one. You use all piously tedious cliche’s the faithful always spew forth and to boot you clearly have only the frailest of grasps on the intricacies of this debate. ‘Chistians killing with kindness???!!!!” Sweet jebus, you gotta be kidding. BTW... I quoted you mate. That moist little ‘separated from God’ gag is yours not mine. Is your powers of retention so feeble that you don’t know what you wrote? Or maybe you just don’t bother thinking about what you type. Seems likely.

      Sean - 2012-01-25 10:31

      @ Endof Awww, I only wanted to make it easy enough for you to understand. Word of advice to you for the future, since your behaviour suggests you’re probably 18, don’t call people names, treat people with respect from the offset be humble in your approach and you will really be able to work miracles. Just on a side note, I said stupidness on purpose did you get it on the play of words? Thanks for calling me a retard though; it is still one up on being a “drol” Then again you are probably a really nice guy just totally misunderstood due to your intellectual prowess, maybe not? Last tim I'll say it I swear! Hypocrite!!!!!

      Sean - 2012-01-25 10:43

      @@Andries To understand something in its entirety you need to be able to see it from both sides do you agree with my statement? If not don’t bother reading if yes go ahead. Cracker constantly brings up the burn in Hell question (He’s done this at least 15 times that I have read him harp about it). Why do that if he does not believe in it? I only mentioned the separation piece because that is the argument from the other side not a burn in Hell like he is pointing out he is using the age old tactic of any *h1tty salesmen called FUDDING….. Oh! Wait! Now he’s going to quote the bible to prove it to us all but the moment anyone else does it to counter his argument from the same source he used it is not acceptable WTF is up with that?

      Andries - 2012-01-25 15:30

      Sean- A few points: Firstly, you didn’t answer my question. Do you believe or are you an atheist? Secondly, I can’t comment on Crackers motivation for bringing up the ‘burn in hell’ issue, as for myself I have often had that rather inane threat flung at me. So I suppose the same might have happened to him. And lastly, I suggest you take a little more time in formulating your ‘arguments’ , as is they come across as obtusely hysterical and tediously rambling. A little more care and more structure will help no end.

      Andries - 2012-01-25 15:33

      PS... My definition of 'fudding' differs considerably from yours. Not all a bad thing in my estimation.

      Sean - 2012-01-25 17:24

      @Andries- WoW thank you for the school lession tjop! If you can't say anything constructive try not to point out my faults, rather look at your own... as for your question is There a God or not I don't know I will go where the evidence leads me and sofar the evidence for design is in the lead....

      Andries - 2012-01-26 01:32

      Sean- You are welcome. Obviously you need some guidance. So you think there is a designer, eh? That goes a considerable way explain your muddled reasoning. You seem to be one of those who can flit about in such a nebulously vague form of faith that it really amounts to nothing but mysticism. Debating that branch of the faithful is even more tedious than arguing with a fundamentalist since the former never commit to anything. At least the latter have a clear –though deluded- standpoint.

      Andries - 2012-01-26 01:36

      PS: '...evidence for design...' Thanks you made my day with this little tidbit. You REALLY should share this 'evidence' with us. Does it include the fact that a banana is so obviously designed for us to grip it? Ppffffff.....

  • Roy - 2012-01-25 07:58

    I wish they wouldn't call it the 'God'-particle. Anything else but that three-letter word would do. Maybe something like the 'Grand Unification" Particle or something. Just not 'God'. Just don't think the word is appropriate in a place like the Large Hadron Collider or CERN or anywhere else where Scientific knowledge is being accumulated anew. It's one of the worst oxymorons anyone can think of.

      Lanfear - 2012-01-25 08:43

      I agree, the media should stop trying to sensationalise the whole thing by calling it the "god particle". Some of the scientists themselves are fed up with the media calling it that, see article: