Though in the broad scope (as I cannot speak for everyone here) the more we understand about the nature of the universe, the smaller the margins left over for religion.


Actually, just the reverse holds for me.



Will-Mun: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Will-Mun: Wow... This is pretty damn significant. Four years of smashing particles together at the speed of light, four years of searching for this one tiny speck. Considering the nature of this particle, I'm surprised we found it so soon. Cheers all around, and I await with bated breath what this means, exactly, for physics and science in general.

Your move, God.

croesius: This is a repeat from next week.

Old news is exciting!

Ha!

Would some genius please explain to me why this has some terrible implication for the existence or nonexistence of God? Seriously. I really don't see that it has any bearing one way or another.

Well in my case I was just kind of being snarky. I little joke not meant to mean anything, which is why it was an aside at the end of my post. Though in the broad scope (as I cannot speak for everyone here) the more we understand about the nature of the universe, the smaller the margins left over for religion. As I mentioned previously the Higgs Boson Particle is a big farking deal and, as other's have discussed, has the unfortunate moniker of the 'God-Particle' which has come to some contention from both the science and religiously minded. Science minded folks saying that the nick name is completely ridiculous, and religious minded saying it's bordering on blasphemous.

But in the end God can only exist where science had not explored, and this is a rather huge key in the department of scientific understanding of the universe. It means we can now (possibly) definitively answer why matter has mass, and it can no longer be left up to the observation that 'well maybe that's where God comes in'.

Again, though, in my case, I was just being an asshole.

DubyaHater: I believe research into the Higgs boson has caused the dramatic rise in Autism cases worldwide. What is Big Physics not telling us?



Apres vous, le deluge

miss diminutive: Truly a momentous day for science. That being said...

[img232.imageshack.us image 633x405]

Is he wearing an armband? Is this a NAZI research initiative!?!?!


ZOMG HARUHI IS A NAZI!!!1111!11!!
Also, isn't CERN in Switzerland?

Also also,
Science 1
Creationism 0

/note that I said "Creationism" and not "Religion"

MarkEC: Can one of you farking physics gurus explain something to me. Phil says a proton weighs 1GeV and a Higgs is 125 GeV. If a Higgs is a subatomic particle, how can in be 125 times more massive than a proton?

A proton is *also* a 'subatomic' particle -- 'subatomic' only means that it's more fundamental than an atom, not that it's smaller, or must be able to fit inside one, or is even ever constituent to (part of) any atom.

Subatomic particles that are constituent to atoms obviously must be smaller, as atoms are made of them. BUT: 1) atoms come in many sizes -- some are much bigger than others; and 2) this rule applies *only* to these constituent particles, and only *because* they're constituent particles.

No matter what happens, I just have one bit of advice for these scientist: If someone mentions something about a "Citidel", stay away for the next 50k years or so.

WhyteRaven74: MarkEC: Ok, so then I have to ask what subatomic particles actually make up protons, neutrons, and electrons?

Electrons are fundamental particles, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, more specifically three quarks each, the proton being two up quarks and a down quark, and a neutron being two down quarks and an up quark. And a down quark can turn into an up quark turning a neutron into a proton, and also releasing a couple particles and some energy in the process, this is what beta decay is. And you can go the other way, an up quark can turn into a down quark and a proton can turn into a neutron, though that takes adding in a fair bit of energy. And this is actually relevant to the issue at hand as it's the weak nuclear force that makes things like that possible and the weak nuclear force is mediated by particles known as the W and Z bosons, whose mass is created by the Higgs mechanism through the Higgs field whose existence is shown by the existence of the Higgs boson.

You are really good at explaining!!!

Lunaville: If graviton is discovered and, eventually, uinderstood; could that lead to the establishment of an habitable atmosphere on the Moon or Mars?

Doubtful, unless we found out that gravity has within it the means of being manipulated.

publikenemy: Aar1012: Grables'Daughter: Shouldn't the headline say :That's it. Religion is done. Time to pack up all this stuff and go home

No, they'll just say that this particle exists because of God.



Well, I asked it earlier. Who created the particle?....**crickets**

The answer is no one knows. Maybe no one created it. Maybe something always comes from something else. Isn't it fun to study, learn and think about it?

In the meantime, I choose to live and live.

Mein Führer, I can walk!

downstairs: Mr. Carpenter: uhhhhhh, understanding the conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang and then understanding the conditions immediately afterwards and the causes for those changes would be understanding "why it's all here." Your question is the type endemic is freshmen philosophy classes: pointless, flowery, and without any real meaning behind it. I doubt you're using any of those terms in a way that either a physicist or a philosopher would agree to using them.

You would seriously be satisfied that we know everything about how- and more importantly- why the universe exists by merely knowing the "conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang "?

We can keep going backwards asking "Ok, but what created that"... or "Ok, but how did that happen"... but only until a certain point.

Look, I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I have zero opinion.

I just believe that if we spent an infinite amount of time and resources trying to figure out the universe... we'll still be left with at least one question. "Ok, what created that"

Tthat's not what was said, nor what was asked. Go back and read the quote I responded to and my response. The quote is obviously trying to suffuse some deeper religious meaning into "why we are all here" even going so far as to say that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to understand our origins through scientific reasoning and observation. The post I respondent to claimed that the answer to why we are all here can never be understood even if we had infinite knowledge of the universe.

It is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have heard all day. Displaying a vast ignorance of what exactly "infinite means"

We understand and have recreated the biological origins of life on Earth by recreating the primordial conditions present during their genesis. We understand how planets and stars are formed and can create accurate models about their behaviors, characteristics and deaths.

If we "know every single thing about the Universe" as was claimed in the post I responded to, that set of knowledge would lead us to "why it's there in the first place." To say that the two are NOT connected and that there is some deeper supernatural(literally) reason for the existence of the universe is just a concern troll disguised under the auspices of reasonableness.

WhyteRaven74: Lunaville: If graviton is discovered and, eventually, uinderstood; could that lead to the establishment of an habitable atmosphere on the Moon or Mars?

Doubtful, unless we found out that gravity has within it the means of being manipulated.

Does that mean that it is not possible to establish an habitable atmosphere at places like the Moon and Mars? Or is there another route to accomplishing that task?

Abox: The Billdozer: Can someone let me know why I need to take down my crucifix off the wall?


Because it's tacky.

lol

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: INeedAName: Inn ideyot turms pleas? k, thx.

Everything in the universe is governed by a set of natural laws we call 'phyiscs'. We do not know how all of it works yet, but over the last couple centuries have built up a theory for how and why it all works, known as the Standard Model. You can think of that in terms of an engine, say, with certain parts fulfilling certain functions. The Standard Model includes a number of subatomic particles. ('Subatomic' here means that they are not atoms. Some of them are parts of atoms, others are precursors to those atomic parts, or have some other role that may or may not have much to do with atoms. Atoms are the basic building blocks of common matter.)

Each bit of the Standard Model has been ascertained by a very long and complicated history of discovery, but as the model has been built up, a hole appeared in it -- a missing part, which became known as the Higgs boson, after the scientist who first described what it should be like if it exists, and what its likely role is. The LHC was constructed for a number of reasons, but one of them was to look for this particle where it was thought to exist -- in a certain mass/energy range (around 125 GeV -- gigaelectronvolts; for comparison, a proton is about 1 GeV).

In the Standard Model, the Higgs is responsible for the 'Higgs field,' which imparts mass to other particles. Without it, those other particles would have no mass, and would behave as they do. So there was good reason to expect this thing to be there. The LHC experiment was meant to either confirm or disprove the hypothesis of the Higgs boson: If it was found where expected, then it fills the missing hole in the Standard Model, making that model much more confident. If it was not found, and evidence suggested it did not exist, then the entire Standard Model would have been up for reconsideration: If an engine works without a part that you're sure it must have, then your concept of how that engine works may require serious r ...

I usually favorite people for funniness, but you're going on the list for smartness. ;)

/particle physicist

cybernia:



You know how I know you're a jackass?

Know how I know you're clueless?

vudukungfu: WhyteRaven74: BTW we already know how to stop a star, iron.

Cocaine works, too.

lead too

Science has nothing to do with religion ... it has everything to do with explaining our physical world.

They cross-over when the religious start to make claims about the physical world (like it being 6000 years old) which tend to conflict with the evidence generated through science.

It is not science trying to disprove religion ... it is religion making claims that conflict with reality.

P.S. The Higgs Boson has nothing to do with religion (unless there are some religions out there making claims about quantum physics).

WhyteRaven74: Jument: Adding iron to a star would do nothing because it still has fuel that releases energy when fused.

If the star can't fuse iron it creates, it wouldn't fuse iron that was just introduced into it. And it doesn't take much iron to cause a star to blow. Once a star starts producing iron it's all over in very short order.

Where are you getting this information? Because it's just not true at all. Know how we know that? Because a huge amount of solid matter in the universe is made of iron: The earth is about 80% iron. So you're saying, if the Earth fell into the Sun, it would kill the sun? Do you really believe that? 'Cause solid stuff is falling into the sun all the time, and a lot of it is made of iron. And the sun hasn't stopped or blown up yet.

Yes, sure, if you gather enough iron to make, say, a star-sized ball of iron, and introduce it to a functioning star, that might well choke it. But iron isn't some kind of Ice Nine that stops stars dead. You're confused because iron is the last stage of fusion of a dying star: it's a product of star death, not a cause.

Hold on, gotta drop some LSD and come back to read this thread again in 40 mins or so

Khakimonkey: My thoughts as an English major is pfffffff so you claim to have found a subatomic particle, so what's the big deal?

Shut your piehole and gimme my damn fries already, Madame Bovary.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: WhyteRaven74: Jument: Adding iron to a star would do nothing because it still has fuel that releases energy when fused.

If the star can't fuse iron it creates, it wouldn't fuse iron that was just introduced into it. And it doesn't take much iron to cause a star to blow. Once a star starts producing iron it's all over in very short order.

Where are you getting this information? Because it's just not true at all. Know how we know that? Because a huge amount of solid matter in the universe is made of iron: The earth is about 80% iron. So you're saying, if the Earth fell into the Sun, it would kill the sun? Do you really believe that? 'Cause solid stuff is falling into the sun all the time, and a lot of it is made of iron. And the sun hasn't stopped or blown up yet.

Yes, sure, if you gather enough iron to make, say, a star-sized ball of iron, and introduce it to a functioning star, that might well choke it. But iron isn't some kind of Ice Nine that stops stars dead. You're confused because iron is the last stage of fusion of a dying star: it's a product of star death, not a cause.

So, what are our prospects for establishing gravity and/or habitable atmosphere on the Moon or Mars?

Grables'Daughter: Whole Wheat: Grables'Daughter: Science is hard.

And that is why I leave it to better minds....

Good point. I'll just stick to what I do.

You're trying to be the model for Science Is Hard Barbie aren't you. The one little girls aren't allowed to have but ThinkGeek sells out every week.

Gawdzila: yognomo40pf: Completely worthless until someone does something with it.

Ridiculous.
If a tool is created and then later used to create something magnificent, then the tool was NEVER worthless.


yognomo40pf: I guess we'll see what the future holds, but I'm guessing a lot of disappointment.

Lol. Yeah, because nothing useful was ever made by having a detailed knowledge of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, or relativity.

This. It requires a particularly profound kind of stupidity to go ONLINE and talk like those idiots above. It's like some guy yelling over a telephone line, "Electromagnetism? What's it good for? Bah!"

Sigh. Doesn't anyone else just know in their gut that this news has to be relevant to space travel or space colonies at some point in the future? I thought I would have gotten a really interesting, informative answer by now, but ...

AverageAmericanGuy: This makes me proud to be an American.

Why? It's a British discovery, but go ahead and take credit... Amurikans

bwilson27: cybernia:



You know how I know you're a jackass?

Know how I know you're clueless?

I asked a question and rather than answer it you insult me? Someone else helpfully answered it and as it turns out I did read what I thought I did but not about Higgs. I got it confused with the faster than light neutrino issue. Both the Higgs and neutrino tests are being done at CERN.

TeaCozy: Listen, nerds, I don't understand any of this, but I can kinda sorta imagine what it's about.

I'm an agnostic panentheist so I guess this discovery means that I can keep on believing that way?

Despite the nearly constant ignorant conflation by many people, science and religion, in strictly practical terms, really don't relate much to each other. The classic description of this dichotomy is, "Science asks HOW; religion asks WHY."

The only conflicts arise when religion attempts to prescribe natural laws, and then science comes along and debunks some assumption made by religion (which often has little to do with core tenets of faith anyway). For example, the Roman Catholic Church prescribed a geocentric model, even though Catholic faith really has little to do with where the earth is in relation to other things, because it just felt great to have the earth at the centre of everything. When Galileo proved that model wrong, they flipped out -- even though it really didn't matter to Catholic faith, as it clearly does not in our time.

In the same way, the few scientists who've arrogantly stepped out of their fields of expertise and boldly prescribed some thing about religion are out of line. This is a sometimes narrow space, but it's not that hard to recognise genuine transgression. Hawking has tried to make it clear that he does not disclaim a god, only that his understanding of how the universe works does not require one. (Or as his rap doppelgänger says, "I'm not saying that there is no God / That's not for me to say / I'm only saying that the earth was not made in a day.") But Richard Dawkins -- a man I deeply admire, by the way -- is out of line when he boldly declares the nonexistence of any gods. That's not a scientific hypothesis, as it can't be tested experimentally.

In short, what you believe personally should have little bearing on the logical sense you make of the world, or that made by others, so long as neither tries to tell the other what for. Faith and science are not inherently antogonistic -- it's certain expressions or interpretations of them that are.

This is me the second I actually understand all of this shiat.

But still it's cool. Carry on, everyone.
/hot like a headshot

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: TeaCozy: Listen, nerds, I don't understand any of this, but I can kinda sorta imagine what it's about.

I'm an agnostic panentheist so I guess this discovery means that I can keep on believing that way?

Despite the nearly constant ignorant conflation by many people, science and religion, in strictly practical terms, really don't relate much to each other. The classic description of this dichotomy is, "Science asks HOW; religion asks WHY."

The only conflicts arise when religion attempts to prescribe natural laws, and then science comes along and debunks some assumption made by religion (which often has little to do with core tenets of faith anyway). For example, the Roman Catholic Church prescribed a geocentric model, even though Catholic faith really has little to do with where the earth is in relation to other things, because it just felt great to have the earth at the centre of everything. When Galileo proved that model wrong, they flipped out -- even though it really didn't matter to Catholic faith, as it clearly does not in our time.

In the same way, the few scientists who've arrogantly stepped out of their fields of expertise and boldly prescribed some thing about religion are out of line. This is a sometimes narrow space, but it's not that hard to recognise genuine transgression. Hawking has tried to make it clear that he does not disclaim a god, only that his understanding of how the universe works does not require one. (Or as his rap doppelgänger says, "I'm not saying that there is no God / That's not for me to say / I'm only saying that the earth was not made in a day.") But Richard Dawkins -- a man I deeply admire, by the way -- is out of line when he boldly declares the nonexistence of any gods. That's not a scientific hypothesis, as it can't be tested experimentally.

In short, what you believe personally should have little bearing on the logical sense you make of the world, or that made by others, so long as neither tries to tell the other what for. ...

I have an etiquette question. I'm a married female. Do you think it would be inappropriate for me to love-stalk you?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: (E.g., suppose we figure out how to affect the Higgs field itself, based on this discovery. Einstein's math says that you can't go faster than light in normal space because mass increases with speed, and at lightspeed you reach infinite mass, which would require infinite energy to exceed. We know Einstein's math is right, because the nuclear devices we've tested are based on it and confirm it. But if you could somehow reduce your mass below that threshold, then it should be possible with less than infinite energy. Or: Since gravity is based on mass, if mass can be modified then maybe gravity can be also. The applied science implications are mindboggling, to say the least.)


I like the speculation at the end, and appreciate your enthusiasm. A fun topic to discuss. The changing the mass of things, has been brought up in other threads. I will play Debbie Downer and bet no on that - ever.

2 mains reasons off the top of my head -

1) That would violate 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and probably the 2nd as well (entropy can never decrease). Which have never been shown to be violated*. This would imply some really weird things like perpetual motion. Perpetual motion implies infinite energy, which implies infinite mass, which requires an infinite space in which to hold it (or an infinitely massive singularity, which I think may be a silly idea, since it would have infinite gravity, and thus collapse the universe). Even the most exotic weird things in the known universe, such as black holes do not violate the first two laws, as far as we know. The second law of thermodynamics, closely followed by the first, is considered by many physicists to be the least likely, of all physical laws and theories we have ever formalized on paper, to ever be violated.

2) We have known about other fundamental particles for quite some time, and there has never been any reason to think we could change the fundamental properties of how they interact with other particles. I don't see why the Higgs should be any different.


Then again there is Clarke's first law - "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." So there you go.


(*Except for individual quanta, and then only within expected Heisenberg uncertainty. Meaning that we can never actually observe the violation. Since observing the violation would, by definition, make the violation cease to exist, aka Hesienberg's cat. It can exist only theoretically, as in thought experiments. This is generally not considered a physical violation of the laws of thermodynamics.)

Nuclear Monk: dillengest: neomunk:
No need for Einstein hate though, the man did advance us immeasurably, he just didn't bat 1.000.

Just heard my boss describing what the CERN result means in these terms:

"They've proved that Einstein was wrong about E=mc^2. They've found these particles, the smallest particles ever discovered, and measured them going faster than light. This was thought impossible according to Einstein's theory so a lot of people believed the result must be incorrect. What they've found today is that the result was correct and the particles are travelling faster than light."

I think there's quite a bit of confusion going around.

I also heard the Higgs Boson discovery overturns the individual mandate.

That may yet wait on a SCOTUS ruling, depending. Specifically, if the gradient between the kinetic flow of morons (and more precisely their cumulative energy) exceeds the maximum stasis inertia of peons, then we might see a change in some law. But as peons are constituent to bureaucratium,* I don't see that happening, due to its incredible overall inertia. Even huge numbers of morons don't seem to be able to budge it: it just absorbs them most of the time.

* Heaviest element known, by far, and the only one with no protons. Rather, it has a chief executive neutron, a vice neutron, two or three deputy neutrons, several junior executive neutrons, and many assistant and junior assistant neutrons, for a total atomic weight generally exceeding over 270. However, this represents only a starting mass, as it also has the very peculiar property of negative half-life: the longer it hangs around, the bigger it gets, and thus the greater its total inertia. Oddly too, its overall stability increases inversely to both its internal and external activity: It impedes most reactions, by absorbing the constituent elements thereof, and when it's absorbed the majority of them everything just kind of stops until more comes along to react to. Common isotopes include administratium and governmentium; specific properties vary, but they're all more or less the same. Very weird stuff. It's also surprisingly expensive, given that it's not very useful.

did you say HARDON???

Stavr0: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 448x354]
"Wait. There are no more questions left to answer... Oohh."

Beat me to it....

This is me the second I actually understand all of this shiat

There was this guy about 50 years ago who thought "hey, maybe mass is caused by subatomic particles interacting with a universal field. If so, there should be these little boson-thingies with a specific mass, and if we find those boson-thingies that indicates the field exists".

About 50 years later (that is, today), CERN announced "hey, we found some little boson-thingies pretty much exactly like that guy (whose name is Higgs) said they'd be, so we're 99.9999'ish percent certain that we found what he's talking about, thus we're pretty sure he was right about the field too. Eureka and shiat!"

/excerpted from "Babies First Coloring Book of Quantum Physics"

cchris_39: As a believer, I still don't see how this "proves" God's existence. What exactly is the thinking there?

/maybe a couple serious replies mixed in with the snarks please?

It doesn't. It neither proves nor disproves anything whatsoever about anything divine. It's a silly joke, that's all. It has nothing to do with religion.

Here's the story, more or less:

Leon Lederman, a real physicist with a very good sense of humour, wrote a book titled 'The God Particle,' about the Higgs boson. He claims it was not his idea to call it that, but that he'd actually thought of it as the "goddamned" particle, because it's been pretty frustrating for a lot of physicists -- both as a critical 'missing' piece in the Standard Model, and for the great difficulty in proving its existence. But he also concedes that it's extremely important to that model, because it's necessary to explain a great deal of it. And it's also important generally, because its believed properties are critical to the vast majority of other physics. The official story is that the publisher came up with it, or pressured him into calling it that. Most physicists are pretty irritated about it, including Higgs himself. Lederman just laughs it off, but he's a very good egg and means no harm or disrespect to anyone.

This is all good and dandy, but the one question that plague's humans more than anything out there is what happens when I die. For some it's nothing, it's just an end and that's all. .if that is the case, then none of this matters at all. So why are we even wasting time? To improve a meaningless life of our grandchildren's children? Is there a point since those mere existence are short and meaningless. I think there may eventually be some benefit to this discovery, but proving that man can accomplish more than God... I doubt that will be the outcome.

Let me help the Weeners to this:

"your stupid and an idiot and quit shoving your beliefs in my face you spaghetti believing moron"

there ya go.. enjoy the 4th..because there is no point..right?

GW_Diesel: This is all good and dandy, but the one question that plague's humans more than anything out there is what happens when I die. For some it's nothing, it's just an end and that's all. .if that is the case, then none of this matters at all. So why are we even wasting time? To improve a meaningless life of our grandchildren's children? Is there a point since those mere existence are short and meaningless. I think there may eventually be some benefit to this discovery, but proving that man can accomplish more than God... I doubt that will be the outcome.

Let me help the Weeners to this:

"your stupid and an idiot and quit shoving your beliefs in my face you spaghetti believing moron"

there ya go.. enjoy the 4th..because there is no point..right?

help the weeners??? where did that come from? LOL

ThrobblefootSpectre: This is barely scratching the surface. Don't let the hype over the Higgs fool you. The standard model, though now confirmed once again, is very incomplete. It doesn't model gravity, for instance. We are still in the very early stages of getting a fuzzy picture of "what's going on." Think of this day as confirming that rubbing two sticks together can make fire.

This is how I think of it. Maybe it's because I'm the daughter of a geologist and an historian, but I tend to think of things in the very long term more than the immediate term. I think most people's vision, though, is blurred by the myopia of their individual perspective. We are more advanced than every previous generation, but each one of them was literally the most advanced ever in their own time. We think of the ancient Sumerians as primitive, but in their own time they were the most advanced civilisation the world had ever seen, just as we are now; and a thousand years from now, we'll be seen as inconceivably primitive, too. Since the start of human civilisation some ten thousand years ago, many, many generations since have to some degree seen themselves as the apex, as being at or very near the top of what was knowable and achievable. But in the grand view, we are still very much infants in the universe, only just starting to figure it out. We've got a very long way to go yet. We should never expect to know everything, but we can keep knowing more than we do, and we should relish the journey of discovery rather than bemoan the fact that we may never reach the end of it.

One giant step closer to:

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: This is how I think of it. Maybe it's because I'm the daughter of a geologist and an historian, but I tend to think of things in the very long term more than the immediate term. I think most people's vision, though, is blurred by the myopia of their individual perspective. We are more advanced than every previous generation, but each one of them was literally the most advanced ever in their own time. We think of the ancient Sumerians as primitive, but in their own time they were the most advanced civilisation the world had ever seen, just as we are now; and a thousand years from now, we'll be seen as inconceivably primitive, too. Since the start of human civilisation some ten thousand years ago, many, many generations since have to some degree seen themselves as the apex, as being at or very near the top of what was knowable and achievable. But in the grand view, we are still very much infants in the universe, only just starting to figure it out. We've got a very long way to go yet. We should never expect to know everything, but we can keep knowing more than we do, and we should relish the journey of discovery rather than bemoan the fact that we may never reach the end of it.


Beautiful. I agree to the very extent that I might have written that myself.*

_{*except for being the daughter of a geologist and an historian, which i wouldn't write}

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vrax: Waiting for the outcry from clueless religious nutters.

To match and counterpoint the outcry from clueless atheists?

Sure. Whatever makes you feel better.

cybernia: bwilson27: cybernia: Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused

You know how I know you watch fox news?

You know how I know you're a jackass?

You know how I know you're a zero?

GW_Diesel: but proving that man can accomplish more than God

This is an incredibly stupid statement.

I seriously doubt anyone who believes in god(s) is actually trying to out-do it/him/them. And the rest of us couldn't give two shiats what you think your god has accomplished.

This is science ... your invisible friend is not. They are not related.