Is There A "God Particle"?

They had it on the news last night that scientists have indeed discovered a "God particle" that pervades the Universe and is somehow a "universal link to all of us". If this is true or anything remotely like it - could we then infer that scientists have at last quantified God? If this is true than that means my prized theology is wrong. Just to review that I believed that God was both transcendent and iminent, but he was not Omnipresent. That is to say, I did NOT believe that God could be "found" in this Universe. God does not look to "find" us and we cannot "find" him. Whatever God is aware of, he is aware of all the time and is not surprised or swayed by anything new. "My" god is unchanging and to get theological, he is 'Immutable". Whether God is omnipotent or all powerful is a matter of parsing words. I will say there is one thing "My" God cannot do is to change either his mind or his prior edicts concerning our Universe. "My" God is omnicient, which is "all knowing". But he is not omnipresent. People like Wayne Dyre have always stated that God was omnipresent - -that he somehow pervades the Universe. So one under Wayne Dyre reasoning could somehow "search his own soul" and find that "spark of divinity" within us all. But now you don't even need to search your own soul, you can let scientists do it in a laboritory and he will find it for you. I have always stated that I am big on Atomic physics, but pretty darn ignorant of subatomic particle physics. They say they have isolated the graviton. I'm not sure how Einstein would feel about that but Captain Kirk and Sephrin Cockrin would be delighted. If gravity is a thing we can somehow "strain out" of matter, like putting a water filter on your tap, then inferencially, all sorts of things would now be Possible that previously even Einstein would regard as impossible. We are told by one source that this graviton is a circle or hoop shape whereas everything else is strings that are "anchored" to something. Of course to even with subatomic particles you have to have your deductive and inferencial skills honed to a tee. Some of the TNG stuff would say that "space" itself is even different on this micro level scale. I mean the kind of space that matter normally occupies. Often we hear things stated as fact that turn out to be phantom illusions. Cold hydrogen fusion or "instant energy" is one of these. Another is this notion of a positron, which if it existed would be a component of anti matter (another Startrek idiom) we won't venture into the impossibility of now. We are told and that Mike guy who used to be here agrees with me that "the nature of space is defined by the matter that it's around" and leave it at that. This positron they tell us can be produced, at least temporarily by the "splitting" of a proton and the oppositely charged particles fly off in opposite directions - - in a matter that makes me wonder if it's only some illusion to begin with. I'll trust that it isn't. Bruce was saying something I had assumed but hadn't heard explicitly before that photon particle energy of light increases directly proportional to the number of light waves per second. So blue light would have twice as many as red. But that the photon itself has a fixed "mass" or whatever- - - so when it's split what happens to this mass? And Einstein teaches says that it would have no mass at all if it weren't moving- - so might we infer that said electron and positron is moving twice as fast after a parent proton split and as such each "child" is thus restored to the mass value of its progenitor? It's a valid inference, I'd say. But it raises the question- - and that is just what kind of "Space" does the God particle occupy. We are told in the micro dimensions we are dealing with, even the nature of space as we know it is altered, but I can't begin to guess how. Is it ordenary space we can all relate to I'm referring to, obviously and not "outer space". Or all the God particles somehow mystically connected with each other in a way that affects all of us, if we only knew about it? And what even gives this "God" particle the quality that enables it to be called something so pretentious? Sometimes we hear a story and years and years pass and we never hear of it again. Is this one of those cases? Or are we somehow entering upon some new scientific threhhold of awareness?

You may remember that discussion I had with Dr. Levy in the car on the way back from the bank where I felt the necessity to clarify my take on this whole "Objectivist" thing. I have stated that I am a Determinist Deist. Right off some people who regard themselves as True deists may say I don't qualify as one because I deny one of their sacred tennants, which is Self Determination, which some may say "is the whole point of being a Deist to begin with". Well, it's not MY whole point in being one. My beliefs about God stem more from science rather than reading some Philosophical writing by a 18th century deist. In terms of being an objectivist, I am that. But I also stated that there are certain things I believe in that can't be proved. For instance I believe that Time exists in an objective sense. I do not believe, as Einstein seems to, that Time is but an illusion created and determined by physical processes alone. I also believe in Morality. I believe in karma and the laws of karma. Three of my own "dimensions" relate to karmic law. These may be metaphorical- - but the Bible itself relates countless instances of karma catching up to people. So I'm kind of into the whole "paying back the Universe" scene. I also believe in Math and numbers, which they were just talking about on a game show. Of course we know scientific laws are real but are the laws themselves a "Thing"? And I believe also in a God which by my own description of him cannot be scientifically proved. If Wayne Dyre has other ideas perhaps I should listen to his lectures more often. I pure empericist, as I told Dr. Levy would not believe in these things. But all an Objivist need believe is that the Object of his beliefs DO in fact have an Object existance apart from himself, and therefore not dependent on the Believer for said existance. I this matter I part company with countless Christian evangelists. Allow me now to point out an Inconsistency I laid on you a couple weeks ago. I did a quotation of Belief or Faith being the opposite of Certainty. This is wrong, of course. I have criticized Fred Price for saying just this thing and then I go on and say it myself. I thought the quotation was cute and had a point to it so I used it. Obviously Faith is the opposite of Doubt and Certainty is the opposite of Uncertainty. The two words are different. But at the same time one certainly Believes and has Faith in things he is Certain about. To Fred Price - - Belief and Certainty (of "proved fact") are not compatable. In Fred's world - - Belief is to one degree or another a slave to the Subjective, and somehow not as real as the Objective or proven, at least in my world. But Fred Price is a man of religion and not science, and therefore a scientists might use Fred Price's own words to discredit religion as a whole and to extol Science. In terms of Logic I said that "Most of the time - - Logic was the prudent course". I did not say ALL the time. Because when Logic butts up against certain Moral issues, morality trumps Logic every time. It's like putting brass nuggets on one side of the scale and a brick on the other" like Charlton Heston did with Emperor Seti. So I guess if you're going to build an Android, it's best to install an Ethics program in along with it so that certain "problems" don't come up.

In terms of other political news - - just keep reading through the next two blogs, which were also written today December 14th at points earlier in the day. Actually much of this day I've had various hassles to deal with I hope work out satisfactorily, but right now I can't be sure.