Why I believe in God, and what God is. [Crazy Theory]

So let me start off by saying that I consider myself a Scientfic Christian, as in I believe in God but if science was to ever disprove anything in the Bible 100% I would most likely be hopping ship. This also translates, to me at least, that the Bible and Science work hand-in-hand i.e. Big Bang = God's creation of the Universe. And so on and so fourth.

But the reason I am like this is my reasoning:

Something can't be created from pure nothingness.
Before the Big Bang there was nothing.
^^This is why I believe in a "God"^^


One of my favorite things that Einstein said (Paraphrased):

So how can something be created out of nothing? Well the answer is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson, or the God particle.

But what if it is more than just a God "particle"? What if the Higgs Boson is God itself.

Arguably, God is above our Universe and could manifest himself into whatever he wanted to because he is "omnipotent" or all powerful.

So what if he manifested himself into our blank universe as an atom?
Would this not fufill Genesis 1:27?

I thought about this a few months ago with the tentative confirmation of the Higgs Boson and it has been in my mind ever since and I am wondering if any Religious Sythian could tell me why this would be bat-shit crazy or intelligent discussion about this.

 

Atheist all the way

 

I've never got Atheism.
You hold that atoms just appeared out of no where and eventually led to the big bang?

 

That safety blanket mentality won't really bode well for you in any situation...

True science doesn't really even seek to disprove the Bible (or anything related to religion for that matter). That is an undertaking for the cynics.

Both science and religion are, in their own way, a means of understanding reality. The beliefs and ideologies that some consider to be mysticism, others consider to be as real as the measurements taken in laboratories. The difference lies in the trust placed on our perception, our senses. Many religions (especially those in the East) have a strong distrust of the senses. Perception and logic are thought to be illusory. In most religions, the true nature of things lies beyond perception. Consequently, that ultimate reality can only be expereinced through non-perception (meditation, for example). However, that kind of idealogy isn't limited to just the East.

From John 20:29

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Peter 1:8

"Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy".


The conflicts between science and religion arise from the fact that science relies on empirical data in order to validate knowledge. It places great importance on the information gathered through the perception that religion so often distrusts.
The religious may have faith that "believing without seeing" will bring them closer to the true nature of things, but couldn't one also argue that the scientists must trust that their senses allow them to see what's actually there? As modern physics has shown, even everyday objects that appear to be solid and inanimate, are anything but.

 

Well, you've skipped a lot of your reasoning out considering that those premises alone are non-sequitur to the conclusion that God exists.

This cannot be, just look at a linguistic analysis. Your question is how can x process occur. Your answer is y noun. This is no different from asking someone how to pour a glass of water, with them responding 'a cup'. It does not teach them how to pour a glass of water, because pouring a glass of water is a process, the cup being a means which the process can use. How something can be created out of nothing is a question about a process, merely saying the Higgs Boson is not an answer. You may have identified the Higgs Boson as a means which fits into the process, but you have not shed light on the process itself at all.

Last I checked, the Higgs Boson was not omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

Sure, but what a hypothetical entity can or cannot does says nothing about its actual existence.

To me, your reasoning is incomplete. Perhaps you could argue it more comprehensively as prima facie I think your going down the wrong track.

 

Reasons for use to believe in God decrease by time. In the Middle Ages we believed in God because we couldn't explain lightning, now we believe in God because we can't explain the beginning of existence. The only thing it will take is time before science has advanced enough to come up with an explanation.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I consider anyone who isn't Atheist ignorant.

 

What about the animist religions that existed well over a thousand years before the Middle Ages? What were they trying to explain?

If you talk to any religious devotee, I'm willing to bet they can give you a dozen other reasons for why they believe in a God(s).

What makes you so sure of that?

Ouch

 

I believe in a god but not in the same way as Christians, Muslims or any other major religion I am a Deist. I believe in a creator but not one that interferes with humans.

No they always had existed the problem with non god beliefs is that these particles always have existed but they don't know why. It is true that subatomic particles do randomly spring into existence (Which is probably due to the multiverse and particles warping between universes) we don't know why, who what has created the universe(s) or causes the particles to appear.


The Big Bang is fact and we know what was there at the big bang pre big bang all we know is all the matter was compressed into a singularity we don't know why or how.



I believe in a creator causing the Big bang (I believe it was proceeded by a Big Crunch as well) & then causing abiogenesis on Earth for life forms to evolve. Then he leaves us alone at that.

 

Why? Any empirical evidence?

 

Just for the sake of accuracy, matter and atoms didn't form until a million years after the Big Bang. We do know why they formed, but what no one is really certain of is what happened before ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The energy and temperatures are beyond what physicists are currently capable of recreating in the particle accelerators. The closer we get to the instance of creation, the less we can discern about the conditions present at the time.

 

Because it makes sense to me and there is nothing against it. Science is agnostic not Atheist those who claim a god cannot exist do not follow science those who say he may or may not do.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


There is little evidence to support Cyclic Universe Theory compared to evidence of a creator yet some reason if I support the first I am called a man of science if if I support the latter I am considered science illiterate. Hell very little evidence backs up string theory atm yet its still a valid theory.

 

This is your standard of acceptance? You know, things that are unfalsifiable always satisfy the latter, and the former is merely subjective to the person. This seems to be a very weak epistemological standard.

Yes.

Science operates abreast logic. The laws of logic do not permit the typical conception of God (omnipotent, etc); although with regards to a deist God, it is not impossible for it to exist.

Yes, but absence of evidence means there is ZERO evidence in support of x. If you still believe in this, then surely you must have a logical reason, and surely it must amount to more than a 'it makes sense'.

This is all cultural. A lot of so called 'scientific theories' are tantamount to voodoo.

 

By this logic it would be equally reasonable for me to claim that the universe was made by a magical banana shaped unicorn with the number 5 pasted on its head, why? Because Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Rubbish.

 

Although there is no answer to this question yet that is not a reason to immediately assume the existence of a god, at this point in time the question is in a state of 'limbo' and until sufficient evidence is provided for a certain idea or hypothesis, there is much that we don't know yet about physics.

 

You know what's funny?
When the human race meets a species that is way more intelligent than them, i.e, an alien, I would like to ask them how they were created.
I'm sure they wouldn't say that God created them.

 

Taking the Devil's advocate role here;

Before I respond to this, can you meet me on the same level here?: Do you agree that the human mind/brain is limited and it has boundaries? That there are things we simply cannot know/perceive/etc.?

Given that that may be true, and given what OP had said about 'God' manifesting 'himself' as the Higgs Boson, would it make sense to say that 'God', 'somewhere else' (outside of our comprehension) had sparked the start of our universe by what OP had said?

 

not everything can be proven though

 

Why do you believe there was a beginning? Just because you're born and die, sleep and awake and the sun rises then falls. Doesn't mean that the mass complexities of the universe had to of had a beginning. You base the theory on human perception of things. There's an interesting theory for you.

 

I don't understand how nothing and god can exist? If nothing existed then god wouldn't exist.

 

I'm not really into the massive debt between science and God, but in my point of view there is a "God" just not a big tall man with a white beard sitting in the clouds, something had to of created this earth, and as much as I'd like to believe in the stereotype God it just seems so unlikely.. My whole family is Christian although not the type to go to church everyday, we just believe that if you're kind in life you'll be rewarded afterwards, whether you be sent to heaven or your soul goes elsewhere.