The creation of time and space? What!

[Cerebrum123]

I think that the Higgs Boson relates to the question of why particles have mass, if I remember correctly.

Ah ok. That doesn't really explain why they would refer to it as the "God particle" though. I had seemed to remember something about it supposedly being involved with the beginning of the universe, and the Big Bang, but I could easily be wrong.

[robertb]

Ah ok. That doesn't really explain why they would refer to it as the "God particle" though. I had seemed to remember something about it supposedly being involved with the beginning of the universe, and the Big Bang, but I could easily be wrong.

Nah, I do not think you are wrong. Mass would seem to be crucially important to the formation of the universe, as without it, matter would have no potential for gravity to actualize. ;)

[shunyadragon]

Ah ok. That doesn't really explain why they would refer to it as the "God particle" though. I had seemed to remember something about it supposedly being involved with the beginning of the universe, and the Big Bang, but I could easily be wrong.

The name "god particle" was an odd layman's label and nothing to with the science of the Higgs.

[shunyadragon]

If God exists in an eternal space time, then he didn't create space or time period, which would mean that he is no more of a God than space and time are.

Eternal space time would simply one of the attributes of the nature of God.

[JimL]

I do not see the problem with positing a God existing within an eternal space time, nor have I posited this God as the creator of said eternal spacetime, as I have said repeatedly in this thread.

That is why your response is a non-sequitur to my argument.

Nonsense rb, you said that God could exist in etenal space and time creating new universes of space and time like blowing bubbles. That is not creation, that is forming something new out of that which already exists, you know, like human beings do. Btw, the universe itself does this as well.

[JimL]

Eternal space time would simply one of the attributes of the nature of God.

You're going all pantheistic on me again shunya. Space and time are attributes of the universe. Is God the universe?

[JimL]

Don't some people believe that it might be the Higgs Boson particle that does that(don't they sometimes call it the "God particle"?)?

The Higgs particle, if it actually exists, as its name suggests, is like any other particle, a particle. It is called the Higgs ocean because, in theory, it is what gives other particles their particular mass as they move through the ocean of Higgs. Thats why they call it the God particle, not because it exists outside of the universe.

[Jedidiah]

Jim's argument in a nutshell: "If I can not understand it, it must be false."

[pancreasman]

Jim's argument in a nutshell: "If I can not understand it, it must be false."

I think that's not it at all and is a misrepresentation. I think his argument is about logical consistency, that we have a problem using temporal words (like 'before') when temporality does not exist. I don't think it's a killer argument for disproving God for various reasons, but it does illustrate that we need to be careful talking about the nature of God since most of the time we are talking through our hats and we will more likely say something silly than anything enlightening.

[robertb]

Nonsense rb, you said that God could exist in etenal space and time creating new universes of space and time like blowing bubbles. That is not creation, that is forming something new out of that which already exists, you know, like human beings do. Btw, the universe itself does this as well.

From nothing comes nothing JimL. You are adding an additional condition, creation ex nihilo, which I neither presume, nor argue. So, again, your objection is a non-sequitur.

[Sparko]

I think that's not it at all and is a misrepresentation. I think his argument is about logical consistency, that we have a problem using temporal words (like 'before') when temporality does not exist. I don't think it's a killer argument for disproving God for various reasons, but it does illustrate that we need to be careful talking about the nature of God since most of the time we are talking through our hats and we will more likely say something silly than anything enlightening.

what people use as indistinct terms, does not mean that is what they are talking about. If they say God existed before he created time, that sounds logically impossible, but that is not what they are actually saying. What they are saying is that God existed LOGICALLY PRIOR to creating the universe and time, not temporally prior.

[lilpixieofterror]

Really, and how long before the existence of time did this previous entity exist? Something existed before time came into existence for you as well, your mother! Would you conclude from that fact that your mother existed before time? Time has a beginning for everything that begins to exist, it has a beginning for our particular universe as well, time for our universe began some 13.7 billion years ago, but that time has a beginning for each finite thing that begins to exist doesn't mean that time itself didn't exist "before!" Do you think that because time has only existed for you personally for 14 years, that therefore time has only existed for 14 years?

It is called 'eternity' Jimmy. Why do you not understand this and again, many scientist agree that something has always existed and there are many theories out there that all include an always existing element for example: Steven Hawking argues this is time, others say it is matter, while yet others say it is God, but without anything to really show what existed before, nobody knows for sure, but I do not see anybody using your insane arguments and showing such a lack of understanding of basic concepts as you do. It is truly an amazing sight to watch.

Exactly my point pix, something certainly existed before our universe did, and that something existed in time.

Do you know what causes time Jimmy? If so, do call the researchers that are trying to discover what this element that causes 'time' is and how it operates. You could end up earning some serious scientific prizes for this.

And its not my fault that you don't understand the difference between the universe and time.

Ever hear of 'space-time' idiot? Nah, you're too busy making dumb arguments like this it appears. Many argue that space/time begin at the big bang and there are others that even argue that time is an illusion that doesn't really exist. Again, I would suggest you get yourself up to date on the latest scientific research and come back to try again.

[lilpixieofterror]

Don't some people believe that it might be the Higgs Boson particle that does that(don't they sometimes call it the "God particle"?)?

There's tons of theories out there, but nobody really knows for sure since much of the evidence from that time is well... non existent and is mostly theory.

[Cerebrum123]

The Higgs particle, if it actually exists, as its name suggests, is like any other particle, a particle. It is called the Higgs ocean because, in theory, it is what gives other particles their particular mass as they move through the ocean of Higgs. Thats why they call it the God particle, not because it exists outside of the universe.

I wasn't saying that the Higgs particle WAS God, but was asking if they do indeed call it the "God particle". I wasn't suggesting anything about it being outside of the universe.

[Jedidiah]

I think that's not it at all and is a misrepresentation. I think his argument is about logical consistency, that we have a problem using temporal words (like 'before') when temporality does not exist. I don't think it's a killer argument for disproving God for various reasons, but it does illustrate that we need to be careful talking about the nature of God since most of the time we are talking through our hats and we will more likely say something silly than anything enlightening.

I think, looking at his posts in other threads, that it goes well beyond a question of semantics. He can not conceive of an eternal creator, therefore it must be false. However, he has no problem conceiving of an eternal universe. Myself I can conceive of neither, so I was forced to seek evidence on which to base such a decision.