Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jul 3, '12, 2:24 pm
CutlerB's Avatar
CutlerB CutlerB is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2012
Posts: 1,551
Religion: Catholic
Default The "God Particle"

Hi there,

I've just come across a report about the Higgs-Boson, saying that the physicists from the LHC in Geneva were announcing something on Wednesday concerning their research on the particle. I know it's commonly called the "God Particle" as it gives matter its mass, at least that's what the theory says. Due to this name, I have a question.

Does this pose any difficulties for Christianity, or does it rather provide some scientific "proof" of the existence of God? Some of you have probably guessed it: I've seen "Angels and Demons" and obviously it influenced my concern about the matter. Maybe some scientists here can explain.
  #2  
Old Jul 3, '12, 2:49 pm
DavidFilmer's Avatar
DavidFilmer DavidFilmer is online now
Regular Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2004
Posts: 5,887
Religion: Catholic (Latin Rite)
Default Re: The "God Particle"

I find the Big Bang theory very compatible with the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation.

In other religions, gods created the universe from a pre-existing primordial matter. We are rather unique in saying that God created the universe from nothing.

The Big Bang says the universe was created from nothing (a zero-dimensional singularity, which is "nothing" as far as we are concerned). Mathematically, it works only if the matter of the universe began without mass. At some point that matter acquired mass. How that happened is not theologically relevant. The act of creation itself (the Bang) is what is really interesting.
__________________
Popes are designated "the Great" by popular acclaim. Please join me in always referring to Pope St. John Paul-2 as "St. John Paul the Great."

Hooray!
  #3  
Old Jul 3, '12, 3:47 pm
Iron Donkey's Avatar
Iron Donkey Iron Donkey is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Posts: 2,180
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CutlerB View Post
Hi there,

I've just come across a report about the Higgs-Boson, saying that the physicists from the LHC in Geneva were announcing something on Wednesday concerning their research on the particle. I know it's commonly called the "God Particle" as it gives matter its mass, at least that's what the theory says. Due to this name, I have a question.

Does this pose any difficulties for Christianity, or does it rather provide some scientific "proof" of the existence of God? Some of you have probably guessed it: I've seen "Angels and Demons" and obviously it influenced my concern about the matter. Maybe some scientists here can explain.
"The God Particle" is a name that annoys many scientists no end. The existence or lack of existence has no bearing on religion whatsoever. It's theorized to provide a mechanism by which stuff gets mass, but answers no metaphysical questions about the true origin of things (especially since mass is not really considered to be "stuffness," but just another sort of charge).

I'm not entirely sure what the film Angels and Demons has to do with anything, but given that it's based on a book by the same guy that wrote the DaVinci Code, I would not be terribly worried about anything it claims.
  #4  
Old Jul 3, '12, 11:45 pm
PrayHarder PrayHarder is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Posts: 761
Default Re: The "God Particle"

I think discoveries like the Higgs-Boson support the existence of God. It shows that there is an order and design to the universe that is so complex that it could only come from a higher intelligence.

As a little side note, Albert Einstein came to similar conclusions in his study of the sub-atomic world. The more he found that there were rules and laws that governed everything the more he came to believe there must be a god behind it all.
  #5  
Old Jul 3, '12, 11:56 pm
Marc Anthony's Avatar
Marc Anthony Marc Anthony is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2010
Posts: 3,013
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

I don't think it shows anything about the existence or non-existence of God; "God particle" is just a nickname.

It's just a fascinating scientific discovery, and we should probably just accept it as such. I find it very interesting, but I don't think it provides evidence for or against God.
__________________
"But he was undoubtedly a moron to begin with. Illiterate, superstitious, murderous....Look at him, and tell me if you see the progeny of a once-mighty civilization? What do you see?"

"The image of Christ," grated the monsignor, surprised at his own sudden anger. "What did you expect me to see?"
  #6  
Old Jul 4, '12, 12:21 am
CutlerB's Avatar
CutlerB CutlerB is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2012
Posts: 1,551
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Donkey View Post
I'm not entirely sure what the film Angels and Demons has to do with anything, but given that it's based on a book by the same guy that wrote the DaVinci Code, I would not be terribly worried about anything it claims.
It claims some of the common accusations: The Church is against science, she hunted down and killed scientists in history... You name it.
  #7  
Old Jul 4, '12, 1:04 am
OxygenMan's Avatar
OxygenMan OxygenMan is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2011
Posts: 671
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

My goodness, I loathe whatever idiot coined the term "God Particle". It has no relation to proving or disproving the existence of God. It's actual name is the Higgs-Boson particle. News stories started referring to it as the God Particle to make it sound far more interesting than it is, and apparently to antagonize the public into arguing with each other.
  #8  
Old Jul 4, '12, 7:20 am
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by OxygenMan View Post
My goodness, I loathe whatever idiot coined the term "God Particle". It has no relation to proving or disproving the existence of God. It's actual name is the Higgs-Boson particle. News stories started referring to it as the God Particle to make it sound far more interesting than it is, and apparently to antagonize the public into arguing with each other.
Actually, according to a PBS report, it originated as an advertising ploy to replace Higgs Boson with something catchier for the cover of the book about it. A particle by any other name is still a particle, eh?
  #9  
Old Jul 4, '12, 4:25 pm
jmvizanko jmvizanko is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2012
Posts: 203
Religion: Implicit Atheist
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrayHarder View Post
I think discoveries like the Higgs-Boson support the existence of God. It shows that there is an order and design to the universe that is so complex that it could only come from a higher intelligence.
Yes, a complex universe necessarily justifies the jump to a belief in a deity. Why exactly? If the universe were composed of completely different physical laws, and completely different organizations of matter and energy (or even something completely different than either), and life existed, would they also be justified in the same unnecessary conclusion? Who is to say that life can't exist in innumerable configurations of physical laws? Why does our existence necessitate the existence of a deity? Because it seems like an easy explanation? Appeal to ignorance anyone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrayHarder View Post
As a little side note, Albert Einstein came to similar conclusions in his study of the sub-atomic world. The more he found that there were rules and laws that governed everything the more he came to believe there must be a god behind it all.
Einstein was more of a pantheist than a theist, and I think your representation of him is inaccurate. He marveled at the order and disorder of the universe, but he never adhered to a personal god, or even a god that could be viewed as a being. Not that the ideas about god, that one man had, are really all that important, but get your facts right.
__________________
Religious faith is arbitrary. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods people believe in, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
  #10  
Old Jul 4, '12, 8:10 pm
Blue Horizon Blue Horizon is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2012
Posts: 1,890
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CutlerB View Post
Hi there,
... it's commonly called the "God Particle" as it gives matter its mass.
...does it rather provide some scientific "proof" of the existence of God?
No, I cannot see it providing any new material for proving the existence of God.

However, it does seem to provide possible material for re-affirming the principles of "classical Physics" (i.e. the First/Natural Philosophy of Aristotle as transformed by Aquinas and the Scholastic philosophers/theologians) which still strongly lies behind traditional Catholic theology.

This Church philosophy is no longer readily understandable to scientific "modern man" (that means all of us). Even if you wouldn't consider yourself the engineering/scientific type your assumptions about the world are still seriously influenced by Descartes and Newton who basically invented "Science" and its principles. In doing so they expressly rejected and repudiated Church philosophy (as well as ancient "Natural Philosophy" which was factually wrong in many areas) of their day re the world, its structure and causative principles (e.g. "hylomorphism" which is still used in theology today to explain the relationship of soul and body).

It is strange (or maybe not) that Newtonian science has been so successful that the very phrase "classical Physics" refers to Newton rather than Aristotle (things "classical" normally refer to Greek thinking). What is "modern Physics" you ask? Its Quantum mechanics etc of course - it has clearly superceded Newton who was close (but only half a cigar).

Descarte and Newton poo-poo-ed scholastic understanding of "matter" and "substance."
For scholastics "matter" did not exist in itself. Only "substances" existed in themselves.
And existing "substances" could be either corporeal (aether?, mineral, plant, animal, human) or immaterial (angel, God).

Descartes threw all this out and basically said that all corporeal substance is composed of self-existing matter which has extension (3 dimensions) and "mass" and various other qualities/properties (actually Newton invented "mass" but this is a minor point). He maintained there are no gaps between these material substances. Nature abhors such gaps ("vacuums") and exherts a force to stop this happening. He was later shown to be not quite right on this point I believe (Torecelli). Light and the forces of gravity/magentism travelled through very fine matter and thus effectively "poked" distant things as if by means of an ethereal "stick" (true mechanism).

Scholastics were horrified. For them "matter" (or more correctly "prime matter") was a component principle of corporeal substance (the other component was "form"). And these are not component parts, but component principles of existing things. (e.g. a statue of "David" ... matter cannot exist without a shape (form) - and shape (form) cannot be instantiated or even imagined without shaping something (matter)). Modern scholastics even maintain that the simplist of corporeal substances (aether) can "exist" without mass or extension.



Simple but deep. And totally rejected by classic science....until now?
Actually this does not seem to be quite true.

Since the time of Newton there have been difficulties explaining the transmission/influence of light and static magnetic/gravitational forces through what, mechanists cannot now deny, is apparantly space devoid of continuous matter.

Actually that is, again, maybe not quite true.
Post Newtonian theory did seem to resurrect this old scholastic philosophy by positing the "ether" to explain these problems. It is poopoo-ed today because of pragmatic success with Einstein's theories and calculations and his alternative model of curved-space time (which is probably just as hard to get ones head around as the nature of the ether). The ether's demise was further inevitable because it proved very difficult to experimentally prove its "existence" (despite an ingenious attempt in 1887 by Michelson-Morley).

Now I do not pretend to understand the Higgs Boson particle. However its existence apparantly also validates the existence of the "Higgs Field" that permeates the whole unvierse. Such a field seems to imply the existence of a very simple corporeal substance (without the properties of either mass/momentum or extension) ... which nevertheless enables other more complex mineral substances to possess mass and extension. Sounds like aether to me. Even "energy" has momentum (which is why I ignore "energy" in this discussion as it is is covered by the usual definition of "matter"). But aether is simpler still.

This sounds to me like Descarte's separation of existence and non-existence on the basis of materiality (i.e. having mass/extension) has been breached. We now have a "material" without extension/mass/momentum that nevertheless exists.

This doesn't seem to fit the mechanistic universe of Descarte/Netwon at all.
Even the matter/energy universe of "conventionally received Einstein" may be challenged by this a little also. (It is interesting that Einstein rejected the need for the "ether" when he first came up with his theory of relativity...yet later in life was convinced it (in a slightly different "form") was still necessary. His followers didn't take this path).

So the long and short of my long ramble is: because of the Higgs Field science may be coming back a little to a metaphysics of "matter" still held by Catholic Church philosophy but which was rejected by Science around the late 1600s.

Then again I may be completely mistaken in my science understanding above!

The following links may prove helpful (or not):
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/...in_ether-85497
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V08N3GRF.PDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
http://www.mu6.com/einstein.html

Last edited by Blue Horizon; Jul 4, '12 at 8:29 pm.
  #11  
Old Jul 4, '12, 11:01 pm
chadt1212 chadt1212 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 8
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmvizanko View Post
Yes, a complex universe necessarily justifies the jump to a belief in a deity. Why exactly? If the universe were composed of completely different physical laws, and completely different organizations of matter and energy (or even something completely different than either), and life existed, would they also be justified in the same unnecessary conclusion? Who is to say that life can't exist in innumerable configurations of physical laws? Why does our existence necessitate the existence of a deity? Because it seems like an easy explanation? Appeal to ignorance anyone?
The anthropic principle would strongly state life cant exist outside of our physical laws. (e.g. the formation of any element heavier than hydrogen is only possible within our own cosmological constants). As far life purely based on something like pure hydrogen - I would think impossible and anyone who subscribed to that belief would be subscribing to blind faith. I would suggest the book "New proofs for the existence of God" which does a very good job analyzing the anthropic nature of our universe (if you truly want to know).
  #12  
Old Jul 5, '12, 3:29 am
ett ett is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2012
Posts: 32
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CutlerB View Post
Hi there,

I've just come across a report about the Higgs-Boson, saying that the physicists from the LHC in Geneva were announcing something on Wednesday concerning their research on the particle. I know it's commonly called the "God Particle" as it gives matter its mass, at least that's what the theory says. Due to this name, I have a question.

Does this pose any difficulties for Christianity, or does it rather provide some scientific "proof" of the existence of God? Some of you have probably guessed it: I've seen "Angels and Demons" and obviously it influenced my concern about the matter. Maybe some scientists here can explain.
No matter how many discoveries we humans find or how many things we manipulate by applying measurements and temperature changes, pressure changes, etc. to, none of this ever explains what was there before we discovered it, or manipulated it. This is where God lies. Remember, we will n-e-v-e-r never reach God, because god is beyond us.
  #13  
Old Jul 5, '12, 12:50 pm
Credo ergo sum Credo ergo sum is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 18, 2011
Posts: 882
Religion: Considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Ok. A joke someone told me:

So an higgs boson walks into church. The priest gets angry and says: "get out of here, we can't have higgs bosons in church!"

"But..." says the higgs bosson "...without me you can't have mass!"

  #14  
Old Jul 5, '12, 1:45 pm
Jason Firestone Jason Firestone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2012
Posts: 109
Religion: Episcopalian
Default Re: The "God Particle"

So, the Higgs boson walks into church, and sits down. All the peeps turn and stare. Finally, Father comes down, and says "Higgsy, you really must leave".

The Higgs says "Sorry, Father, without me, you cannot have mass".

  #15  
Old Jul 5, '12, 4:46 pm
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: The "God Particle"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Firestone View Post
So, the Higgs boson walks into church, and sits down. All the peeps turn and stare. Finally, Father comes down, and says "Higgsy, you really must leave".

The Higgs says "Sorry, Father, without me, you cannot have mass".

Gotta love that. LOL!
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Tags
creation, god particle, higgs boson, science, universe

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8540Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5202CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
4434Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3870SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3841Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3403Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3301Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3231Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3152For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:39 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.