God Particle is Really God's Particle

Physicists say they may have found the so-called God Particle that they claim made stars, planets, and eventually humans. The Higgs Boson particle and field is named for British physicist Peter Higgs “who predicted their existence 50 years ago.”

Here’s my question: “What is the source of the Higgs Boson particle and field?” More fundamental is this question: “Where did the necessary organized information come from that guided the evolution of everything evolutionists claim evolved from it?”

It’s not enough to have matter and space; you’ve got to have intelligent matter to make it work. Not only is the alphabet necessary, but there needs to be an intelligence to organize the letters to make words and sentences that communicate something. Not even a trillion God Particles typing for 13.7 billion years on a million cosmic typewriters will ever get us the works of Shakespeare.

Start with nothing  . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world came into being.

Even the discovery of the Higgs Boson God Particle can’t save the evolutionary theorists since it’s something rather than nothing. How did the Particle get here? Why does it act the way it does?

In 2010, the darling of everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking, argued that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from nothing. In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking states:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

The first thing a budding scientist learns is that spontaneous generation does not happen. That’s like third-grade science stuff.

Hawking is theorizing. But because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit what atheists want and need to believe in order to make their theoretical worldview work, many people are willing to believe him over against what they know to be true in everyday life. “Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.”

The religious component is evident when you listen carefully to the high priests of the system. Stanley Fish observed something remarkable in the way Richard Dawkins explained how scientists do science:

“[W]hen we accept the conclusions of scientific investigation we necessarily do so on trust (how many of us have done or could replicate the experiments?) and are thus not so different from religious believers, Dawkins and [Steven] Pinker[1] asserted that the trust we place in scientific researchers, as opposed to religious pronouncements, has been earned by their record of achievement and by the public rigor of their procedures. In short, our trust is justified, theirs is blind.”

It was at this point that Dawkins said something that’s not often admitted publicly. “[I]n the arena of science you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, ‘you can actually cite chapter and verse.’”[2]

An odd choice of words: “chapter and verse.” Scientism is a religion with its own inspired books and scientific authorities.

It doesn’t matter if there isn’t any empirical science behind anything what Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.”

Even some liberals aren’t buying what Stephen is hawking:

“In saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a (speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the universe created itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an answer. When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe “out of nothing” is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology — of the negative kind typical of atheists.[3]

Higgs Boson isn’t “The God Particle”; it’s God’s particle that can’t do anything on its own.








Notes:
  1. author of The Better Angels of Our Nature and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature []
  2. Stanley Fish, “Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?, The New York Times (March 26, 2012). []
  3. Ervin Laszlo writing for the Huffington Post. []

Comments

comments

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles.

Posted in Atheism, Christianity, Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/adrian.vance1 Adrian Vance

    This a badly named building block of nature, but then we live in a world where a trace gas is said to control the atmosphere with a concept that died in a test tube in 1832!

    Come see us at The Two Minute Conservative, http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  • Gary Johnson

    Gary DeMar continues to PROVE he IS PSYCHOTIC!!!

    • axmickl

      It is so easy to cast aspersions on the great minds of science but don’t dare be critical of the old Jews who wrote a book of myths called the bible. Actually, you will have to figure which version you believe because there are so many. Where do you suppose all the religious annointed ones in history got the guidance and inspiration to sacrifice and slaughter people in the name of their gods? Please o wise religious nuts spare us your convoluted version of where we came from and stop saying thr dinosaurs lived among men 6000 years ago at the beginning of it all.

      • Jonathon von Tischner

        youtube “ultimate proof of creation” Also why is it wrong to slaughter people and make up crap? I don’t believe we are and God says not to kill but why would that be wrong in a world where moral relativism reigns?

  • Paul Yaekel

    Evolving something out of nothing in the beginning is only one of thousands of mathematical and physical impossibilities. The non-sequitor experiment that produced amino acids to demonstrate that man can ‘create’ life only served to point to the vast information gulf that exists between life and non-life. Your article is spot-on with Stephen’s ‘hawking’ of his personal philosophy that has no scientific support. Thank you for commenting on this momentous but misunderstood scientific achievement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/long.island.tzor Christopher Beattie

    The media love to comment on the name of the “God” particle. I remember talking to a particle physicist a few years ago. He pointed out that the original nickname for the particle was actually a two word name. It is important to note how impossibly difficult it is to find this exceptionally rare event in the lab. Thus one of the scientists called it the God-(BLANK) particle and the reporters dropped out the second word.

    Jumping from science to philosophy is so easy, even a genius can do it. Throughout history, many have done so, from Galileo to Einstein. But Einstein’s speculation on physics and God is no more no more less valid than Hawking’s.

    I still remember when Hawking tried to argue that the close space time universe (which he simply said “is”) was somehow a proof of the non existence of God. I, thought it was quite logical that a universe that simply “is” was made by a God who called himself the one who “am.” The leap from scientific statement to philosophical statement is not always as foolproof as people might first imagine. It’s not always intuitively obvious to the casual scientific philosopher.

  • John Spencer

    Yes, by all means, let’s explain the inexplicable by substituting something even less explicable and justify it by saying “Only those with faith can know the truth.” (sarcasm)
    Also, unless he has changed his mind recently, I seem to remember that Hawking, although believing that you can explain the universe without God, still believes in some superpower.
    As for those who say “It can’t be done that way,” there’s one heck of a lot of things we do today that were supposedly impossible not that long ago. As a Computer Science professor back in the 80′s and 90′s, I was supposed to teach “Scientists say that we can never have a CPU faster than 100MHz (because transistors can never be made small enough.)” I used to add “But I’m sure we’ll find a way around that.” Today we are running laptops 40 or 50 times faster and it increases every year. Imagine trying to explain to Lister or Pasteur how today we are genetically modifying crops to increase their disease resistance or how we are cloning animals. They would say “Impossible, you should be in a straight jacket!”
    The world is mysterious enough without inventing beings with superpowers that are even more mysterious.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mlsncma Mark Smith

    Science is of man. Religion is of GOD!

    • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

      Science is of God too. Jesus Christ and his Father are top scientists, because even they need to know how things work before they can make them.

    • http://twitter.com/razzyraz Erasmo Hernandez

      God created science. The laws of the universe came from God.

  • Steven

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will
    create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is
    something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” – Stephen W. Hawking

    What is his explanation for WHY there is a law of gravity. The fact there ARE laws of physics is itself evidence of an underlying intelligence. That intelligence, in whatever form, is the very definition of god.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

      Stephen Hawking needs to go back to school and get an Electrical Engineer’s degree. There is a Force out there that is billions of times more powerful than simple gravity.

  • kljohnson77

    Well, I believe in the Big Bang Theory! If it’s been said already, I apologize…God said it and BANG it happened!

    • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

      The big bang never happened in a physical sense. There’s too much evidence — electrical evidence — against it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.waynee Robert Waynee

    To God be the glory

    • Daisysue

      Great things He has done

  • dugiewugie

    Maybe nothing is something.

  • David S. McQueen

    Believe whatever. It’s still a free country (no matter what Bloomberg and Obama think). Until there’s absolute proof that a deity exists (or doesn’t exist), we’ll continue the debate. For my 2 cents: the secret of the universe is contained in quantum mechanics. Understand that and you’ll understand the universe.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-E-Hofford/1449993769 Daniel E Hofford

    “; you’ve got to have intelligent matter to make it work.”
    First false claim.

    “Not only is the alphabet necessary, but there needs to be an intelligence to organize the letters to make words and sentences that communicate something”
    Second false claim.

    “Even the discovery of the Higgs Boson God Particle can’t save the evolutionary theorists since it’s something rather than nothing.”
    Third false claim. The evolutionary theorist doesn’t need saving.

    “The first thing a budding scientist learns is that spontaneous generation does not happen.”
    Fourth false claim. Read Krauss’ book on virtual particles, A Universe from Nothing.

    And so it goes. I suggest that Mr. DeMar stick with theology where the most bizarre, inane and ridiculous things can be postulated without fear of contradiction since it’s all pie in the sky fantasy work.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

      Daniel, there are two kinds of matter in the universe. Element and Intelligence. Intelligence are things that act, Element is acted upon. Element is spent energy, while Intelligence vibrates at a higher frequency than pure energy (light). All things have a little bit of Intelligence inside them, there for a being with Higher Intelligence can rearrange and change their frequencies in order to become something else.

      All things vibrate at a certain frequency. all things have their own frequency. From you to those little chocolates you give your wife. You vibrate at a high enough frequency that you can alter the frequencies around you to fit your vision. Since you can do this, you can do anything, have anything, and be anything. So, does that not define you as a god?

  • inspokane

    God is Science…Science is trying to figure out what God did. Hawking know there is a God. He just can’t admit it. Won’t…so he keeps on with rediculous theriores Anyway…there is so much one man can understand. Don’t make Hawking you God. He really know little…They keep discovering what Chritians have always know. We be so much farther ahead of the tech. that we have if they just admit and quit putting all their energies trying to say….SEEEEEE THERE IS NO GOD….instead admit there is intelegent design…and move on. Please…move on…we would of solve energy crisis by now…GB

  • inspokane

    OOPS there is no energy crisis…its all faked…greed keeps us where we are…read article below.

  • Arnold Wolf

    Science says that there reality is nothing more than condensed energy. Whatever is energy in the first place. There are no absolutes as Dawkin’s was asked an interesting question at one of his large lectures. A student in the audience asked, “what is thought, consciousness and awareness”? Dawkin’s answer was that all thought, intellect, wisdom, experiences cognition and awareness are nothing more than matter. So matter thinks? I sit on a chair and in front of my table. We have a great discussion about the finite mind of man coming to an absolute truth. Al Gore said is absolute that if you walk too far, you will fall of the end of the planet. When one dies and the brain goes back to the dust from which it came, where exactly does matter thunk?