Theoretical physics

[methylatedghosts]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

[Cathar1950]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

Maybe they would have to assume the existence of creation (some kind of reality) but not necessarily a creator. If you read the bible and other ancient writing God could be the creator or he could have just beat the crap out of something like chaos. Except by definition I don’t even know if God has to be the creator. It seems we just don’t want to think of anything that surpasses God and therefore as we stretch out imaginations and think of something large we automatically stretch God too. “That is the tallest man in the world”: “well God is taller, his head reaches all the way to the sky”.
It sounds like a poor apology or defense of creationism.
I think he should have said a creationist assumes a creator.

[methylatedghosts]

Yeah, this guy is a wee bit eccentric, but at the time he raised some valid points, I just can't remember what they were :S

[seventil]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

Could I have some clarification on the question? Do you mean that theorectical physics is needed to explain the existance of the Creator or that with theoretical physics we can explain/prove the existance of a Creator?

Thanks.

[methylatedghosts]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

Could I have some clarification on the question? Do you mean that theorectical physics is needed to explain the existance of the Creator or that with theoretical physics we can explain/prove the existance of a Creator?

Thanks.

Neither. The guy I was talking to said that theoretical physics needs to assume a creator in order to explain certain things

[Goat]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

Could I have some clarification on the question? Do you mean that theorectical physics is needed to explain the existance of the Creator or that with theoretical physics we can explain/prove the existance of a Creator?

Thanks.

Neither. The guy I was talking to said that theoretical physics needs to assume a creator in order to explain certain things

That guy was wrong, since 'assume a creator' doesn't answer any questions.

"I don't know" is different from "God did it". In science, you assume that there is a natural explaination, then go find it. "God did it" cuts out any attempt to look further.

[methylatedghosts]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

Could I have some clarification on the question? Do you mean that theorectical physics is needed to explain the existance of the Creator or that with theoretical physics we can explain/prove the existance of a Creator?

Thanks.

Neither. The guy I was talking to said that theoretical physics needs to assume a creator in order to explain certain things

That guy was wrong, since 'assume a creator' doesn't answer any questions.

"I don't know" is different from "God did it". In science, you assume that there is a natural explaination, then go find it. "God did it" cuts out any attempt to look further.

Yes I know, but he was saying that some things (I don't know what) need the existence of a creator to substantiate a theory. I'm trying to find out more about this, because it seems very interesting and I'm kinda skeptical but intrigued

[QED]

Perhaps it is the nickname for the much sought-after Higgs boson that's prompted this tale:

Physicists have observed 16 particles that make up all matter under the Standard Model of fundamental particles and interactions.

But the sums do not quite add up for the Standard Model to be true if these particles are considered alone. If only 16 particles existed, they would have no mass - contradicting what we know to be true in nature.

Another particle has to give them this mass. Enter the Higgs boson, first proposed by University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs and colleagues in the late 1960s.

Their theory was that all particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field, called the Higgs field, which is carried by the Higgs boson.

The Higgs' importance to the Standard Model has led some to dub it the "God particle".

Again we see certain ideas being described in poetic language through habit. Language is often much looser than the ideas behind it.

[methylatedghosts]

Perhaps it is the nickname for the much sought-after Higgs boson that's prompted this tale:

Physicists have observed 16 particles that make up all matter under the Standard Model of fundamental particles and interactions.

But the sums do not quite add up for the Standard Model to be true if these particles are considered alone. If only 16 particles existed, they would have no mass - contradicting what we know to be true in nature.

Another particle has to give them this mass. Enter the Higgs boson, first proposed by University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs and colleagues in the late 1960s.

Their theory was that all particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field, called the Higgs field, which is carried by the Higgs boson.

The Higgs' importance to the Standard Model has led some to dub it the "God particle".

Again we see certain ideas being described in poetic language through habit. Language is often much looser than the ideas behind it.

That seems very likely. So, this is a particle - but kinda not? It exists but - kinda doesn't? (Or, rather, they haven't found it yet?)

[QED]

That seems very likely. So, this is a particle - but kinda not? It exists but - kinda doesn't? (Or, rather, they haven't found it yet?)

They expect to find it much in the same way that we can expect to find a missing piece from a jigsaw puzzle. If the piece shows up, the picture so far assembled before us (the so-called standard model) is further validated. If not then there remains doubt over whether or not the partially completed scene before us is a bodge.

I expect that where God comes into this is simply one of those "gap" issues. As we see more explanations like this one coming forth, God recedes further into the background. In physics this usually comes down to how many of the essential numerical constants that define all of nature are left without explanation. I'm pretty sure it's a false dichotomy, but people will say that these numbers result either from some natural process or they are "written in" by a supernatural hand. As that hand is jolted further back so it loses more and more degrees of freedom. This is why I think it is so important for many people to reject evolution by natural selection, for while we can hypothesise that it could actually be God's own methodology, it also relinquishes him of all control over what kind of life can and cannot exist. That is a matter of great concern to those who believe humanity to be the inevitable pinnacle of the animal kingdom.