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 ((author of The Better Angels of Our Nature and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature)) 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.’” ((Stanley Fish, “Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?, The New York Times (March 26, 2012). ))

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. ((Ervin Laszlo writing for the Huffington Post.))

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