Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[arian]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Thank you ZzYzx.

OK, so more are interested to hear and not just ZzYzx pulling my chain so I repeat myself (and oh how everyone here knows I repeat myself) Like Master Spade said, I have claimed this a few times before, but actually I have explained it many, many times before, only to have you (unbelievers) refer to our "Creator" right back to the limited pre-programmed, indoctrinated world view as some old gray-haired bearded Deity who divines from the supernatural realm to a point of ad nauseam.

So if you keep referring to our Creator as the, or one of the created gods, I will stop this debate. If you were a teacher/professor then I expect you to understand simple terms and their differences, and not make fun of my posts that I carefully, and most of the time go beyond my ability to express. I said many times that I had very little schooling, but as you can see I try my very best putting together a sensible post, and use many different examples to get my message across.

So note number one; If you cannot understand the difference between Creator and the created, or the difference, the enormous difference between Infinite and finite, then I cannot go on.

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle Wikipedia:

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study

... More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed if multiple Higgs bosons exist, because the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, but a 'Standard Model' has been predicted over 40 years ago, that would be in the 70's.
And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.
Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s
matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you, then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

[Divine Insight]

Arian, I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on your ideas,

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

I'll grant that by definition. The finite is not infinite. No problem there.

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

I'll agree to this too. But only to point out that there may very well me more than one kind of time. In fact, many physicists have suggested as much.

For one thing the "Entropic Time" that we experience within our physical universe is a property of what we believe to be a "fabric" that we call "spacetime". I call this type of time "Entropic Time" because its actually defined by the physical property of entropy which our physical universe exhibits.

I personally suspect that there also exists a potential "Non-Entropic Time", that does no define an arrow that we call "History". And "Non-Entropic Time" would indeed be "eternal" where eternity and the ever present moment are one in the same thing.

So, thus far I'm with you.

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

I don't see the importance of the term "religion" or "religious". I can accept your semantic meaning of the term 'religious' to simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully" if you like.

However, as soon as I hear the phrase "My God of the Bible" that clearly implies scriptures, doctrine, or even dogma. In other words, a highly defined God character, complete with a behavioral history as well as supposedly having make directives, commandments, and even curses, etc.

Also, I confess to having a problem with your use of the term "My" in "My God of the Bible". I would suggest that the Bible defines its own God and unless you are claiming to be an other of these doctrines then I don't understand what you even mean by "My".

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle Wikipedia:

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study

... More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed if multiple Higgs bosons exist, because the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, but a 'Standard Model' has been predicted over 40 years ago, that would be in the 70's.
And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.
Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s
matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you, then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

That dosen''t sounds like "true logical science" to me. Especially concerning your comment: "And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory."

I don't believe that any attempt was made to find something that wasn't there. Many physicists would be just as happy without a Higgs particles. Also the Big Bang theory is not dependent upon the Higgs particle. However, the Higgs particle does fit into the Standard Model of Particle Physics so I'm quite sure that many physicists are pleased to see it found.

I also don't understand how any of this is going to relate to evidence for THE Creator. What difference would it make whether the creator had used a Higgs field or not?

I would imagine you have an argument along those lines, but at the current time there's certainly no indication of how the Higgs (or the absence of the Higgs) is going to be evidence or not of a God.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

I have no problem leaving "religion" out of it, whatever that's suppose to mean. But you clearly stated, "My God of the Bible". So I don't see how we can possibly leave the biblical scriptures or dogma out of it.

Is this the "Specific God" that you are calling THE Creator?

You've already mentioned the Higgs boson. So you're going to work up from the Higgs Boson and show that the God of the Bible has to be true?

Personally I think you've got one whale of a job cut out for you.

But taking it one step at a time, I hope you're going to make a case for why there needs to be a Creator of any kind at all. And I imagine this is going to have something to do with the Higgs Boson, otherwise why bother to even mention the Higgs Boson?

So at this point I would turn the debate back over to you and ask you to explain further what you believe the Higgs Boson (or absence thereof) has to do with evidence for or against any Creator. Let's not even worry about trying to pin it down to the Biblical God at this stage. Unless, of course you feel that you need to use the Bible to make that connection.

[Zzyzx]

.

OK, so more are interested to hear and not just ZzYzx pulling my chain

Zzyzx can only pull chains if they are left dangling. Well secured chains or debate arguments do not leave loose ends.

so I repeat myself (and oh how everyone here knows I repeat myself) Like Master Spade said, I have claimed this a few times before, but actually I have explained it many, many times before, only to have you (unbelievers) refer to our "Creator" right back to the limited pre-programmed, indoctrinated world view as some old gray-haired bearded Deity who divines from the supernatural realm to a point of ad nauseam.

So if you keep referring to our Creator as the, or one of the created gods, I will stop this debate.

Threats (or promises) to stop a debate do not constitute a sound argument for anything.

None of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been demonstrated to be "the creator." Many believing that their favorite "god" created the universe does NOT make it true.

None of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been demonstrated to be something other than a creation of human imagination. If you think otherwise, feel free to demonstrate which "god" created what and how that can be determined.

If you were a teacher/professor then I expect you to understand simple terms and their differences,

I credit fellow debaters and readers with ability to understand terms and differences (even beyond simple or simplistic) regardless of their profession.

and not make fun of my posts that I carefully, and most of the time go beyond my ability to express.

I do not intend to "make fun of" anyone's posts but I DO intend to challenge ideas presented that do not make sense or cannot be substantiated / verified.

I said many times that I had very little schooling, but as you can see I try my very best putting together a sensible post, and use many different examples to get my message across.

Schooling and education are not synonymous and neither is a guarantee of the other.

So note number one; If you cannot understand the difference between Creator and the created, or the difference, the enormous difference between Infinite and finite, then I cannot go on.

If one wishes to maintain in debate that they have knowledge of a "creator" they will be asked to verify that claim.

If one maintains that their favorite "god" cannot be a creation of human imagination that also will be challenged.

If one can only "debate" with those who agree to accept their preconceptions, they are demanding special privilege (which may be available in church or in Holy Huddle, but not in C&A debates)

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

Is my position regarding finite and infinite required for you to present your ideas? If those are not matters of concern to me, are you unable to proceed?

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

Is my position regarding time and eternity required for you to present your ideas? If those are not matters of concern to me, are you unable to proceed?

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

I recognize that the term "religious" can have various meanings – including 1) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity, 2) of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances, or 3) scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle

Snip

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed

Snip

they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.

Snip

Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

Snip

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you,

I take NO position regarding any of the above (and never have). Do you demand that I take a position in order to present your ideas about a creator?

then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

I am not easily impressed or convinced by arguments beyond a person's understanding / ability / knowledge

It might be prudent to present ideas as though readers were interested.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

What ground rules would you suggest?

[Clownboat]

.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Any truth can be denied.

Why post this? What is your point in pointing to something we all know already?

But that doesn't make it not true.

Who claimed it did? Perhaps you are lost and posting in the wrong thread?

The fact that there is a creation is probable cause for a "Creator" of some sort. (AKA "THE Creator")

Please show us this creation and then point to the fact that it was created. Thanks.

There is no excuse for a person who cannot accept that. (Rom:1:20:)

This OP is not about discrediting the Bible. I may agree with you, but no need to take the thread off topic by such a demonstration.

[Divine Insight]

There is no excuse for a person who cannot accept that. (Rom:1:20:)

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Just because Paul was naive and extremely poor at logic, does not mean that his opinions should be accepted without question.

Moreover, Paul was without the knowledge of the modern scientific discovery and the understanding of evolution and how it works.

We now know that things were not "made" as Paul proclaims, but rather that they evolved due to natural processes that are fully understood in terms of DNA and genetics. They are not only understood, but they are even observed to be occurring right before our very eyes.

So Paul's opinions are without merit in today's world. In today's world there is not only valid "excuses" for not believing that natural things were "made". But there is even profoundly convincing scientific evidence and reasoning for why they clearly weren't "made" but instead have obviously evolved through natural processes.

Paul's superstitious opinions were based on ignorance. Paul is simply wrong to proclaim that no one that jumps to the same conclusions he jumped to is "without excuse".

Paul is wrong. Period.

His view may have been valid back in the time when he lived and there was no reason to believe that things could evolve. But that's simply no longer true today.

So why point to Paul's opinions today when Paul has no clue what evidence actually exists today? Paul was speaking from an age where ignorance of the natural world was profound.

To point to Paul's ancient writings today and ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for the natural processes of evolution is nothing short of ludicrous.

Paul is wrong in today's world. There's not only valid "excuses" for not believing like Paul, but there actually exists far more compelling and rational reasons to reject Paul's ill-informed and out-dated conclusions.

Quoting Romans 1:20 today like anyone should believe it is truly absurd in the face of the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural processes.

[1213]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Hmm… if the Creator is real, then we should see things that he created. Allegedly he created Earth, animals and humans for example. If someone would see those things, then we would have some evidence, but apparently no one sees those so maybe we don’t have any evidence.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 16 by 1213]

So we agree? All living things were created by Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl, right?

[OnceConvinced]

There is no excuse for a person who cannot accept that. (Rom:1:20:)

This is one of the many bible lies. It really depends on what sort of person you are, ie, your personality type and how you see the world. We all see it differently so one cannot apply this scripture to everyone and any God who created us would know that himself as he created us all differently. One can be applied to one person cannot be applied to everyone.

Some of us look at the universe and we see God. Others of us look at the universe and we see Evolution. Myself, I look at the world and I see overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution and overwhelming evidence against creation.

So the verse tells one lie: It's not obvious to everyone

It also tells another lie. "They are without excuse." The fact is many people have very good and valid REASONS for not believing in God.

Romans 1:20 is clearly Paul's opinion, a man who was often guilty of painting everyone with the same brush and expected everyone to see things as he does.

[Divine Insight]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

Hmm… if the Creator is real, then we should see things that he created. Allegedly he created Earth, animals and humans for example. If someone would see those things, then we would have some evidence, but apparently no one sees those so maybe we don’t have any evidence.

Yes, if they were as uneducated at Paul was. Paul thought that all of these things were "made" by a creator.

But today we understand how they all evolved. We understand how the earth evolved, not only as part of this solar system, but we even understand that the cloud of debris that formed our solar system had previously been a star that went nova. Otherwise the Earth wouldn't have any of the heavier elements.

So we know how the earth evolved and that it wasn't "made" by a designing creator.

We even understand how animals evolved on Earth and that Humans are just animals like all the other animals on Earth. Again none of this implies that any creator "made" these things.

If you are falling for Paul's arguments then you either aren't paying attention to modern knowledge, or for some strange reason you aren't understanding why modern knowledge is valid.

I can't believe that any modern day people are using Paul's ancient ignorant argument to support Christian mythology. Paul's argument actually demonstrates that Paul had no clue what he was talking about.

[arian]

Arian, I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on your ideas,

Well thank you DI, thank you for your respectful reply, I will try to do the same and limit my emotion and stick with the OP. I like how this is going already and I depend on your wisdom that will direct me to present to you and the rest of our readers my God, the God of the Bible in the clearest and simplest way possible.

SO, .. do you understand and agree with me that finite, no mater how many, or no matter how fast it is accumulating/expanding, it could NEVER, ever, ever reach 'Infinite'?

I'll grant that by definition. The finite is not infinite. No problem there.

Excellent, so you understand and agree that when I say that my God the 'Creator' who is revealed scientifically in nature itself as we observe the world/universe around us, whether you believe the universe was created/evolved/poofed/hatched, that it is finite, and does not contain my God I am revealing to you who is Infinite, .. right?
So my Infinite God, the God who is also revealed in the Bible is NOT part of the finite created/evolved/poofed/hatched physical universe, .. agreed? So unless you can prove that I am revealing some finite, part of this universe physical god, or some created entities like angels or demons, He is not finite, .. agreed?

Note #2: Time, no matter how far you go back, or how far you go forwards could Never reach Eternity, or become eternal? Another words time does not in any way describe Eternity, or Eternal. That time has a beginning and an end, and has nothing to do with the actual Eternity which has no beginning nor end, .. do we agree?

I'll agree to this too. But only to point out that there may very well me more than one kind of time. In fact, many physicists have suggested as much.

For one thing the "Entropic Time" that we experience within our physical universe is a property of what we believe to be a "fabric" that we call "spacetime". I call this type of time "Entropic Time" because its actually defined by the physical property of entropy which our physical universe exhibits.

I personally suspect that there also exists a potential "Non-Entropic Time", that does no define an arrow that we call "History". And "Non-Entropic Time" would indeed be "eternal" where eternity and the ever present moment are one in the same thing.

So, thus far I'm with you.

Great, and I also agree that there is other definitions of 'time'. I understand this entropic time only relates to decay from something that was originally perfect and built to last throughout IN eternity. It could never be part of your 'evolving universe (Big Bang) theory since it effects the most quantum particles which observably have a very short lifespan. The universe had to be created without entropy time because even after only 6,000 years of its introduction, the universe with everything in it, stars, planets biological life is dying, falling apart, burning out.

Note #3: God, my God of the Bible does NOT mean religion. Another words, do you agree that someone could be very religious, (as I have said many times before like if I play tennis every morning at exactly 6 AM for exactly an hour, and try never to miss one day, yet believe in absolutely no god or gods, I could still be religious) yet have nothing to do with god or any worship of god or gods?

I don't see the importance of the term "religion" or "religious". I can accept your semantic meaning of the term 'religious' to simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully" if you like.

Exactly, .. so 'religion' does not automatically mean God/gods, agreed? Another words as you said; 'religious' can simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully", but somehow God/gods were erroneously introduced to mean 'religion', like homosexuality was tagged to 'gay'. Agreed?
Again, in another words I could say: "I feel very gay today" which today with these confusing terms could mean two things, either that I am happy, or that I feel like a homosexual to day, .. right? But the true meaning of being gay is happy. Another words if I was dying of AIDS and said; "I feel like a homosexual today!" would not necessarily be understood that I was happy/gay.

However, as soon as I hear the phrase "My God of the Bible" that clearly implies scriptures, doctrine, or even dogma. In other words, a highly defined God character, complete with a behavioral history as well as supposedly having make directives, commandments, and even curses, etc.

Which doesn't have to mean 'religion', correct?
It doesn't mean when someone says;
* "My God of the Bible" to mean = "religion".
* Scriptures doesn't mean; Scriptures = Religion
* A highly defined God character, complete with a behavioral history as well as supposedly having make directives, commandments, and even curses, as you said doesn't mean = religion. I could study scripture and not believe in any god or gods, agreed?

Again, I am here to reveal scientifically and philosophically "My God of the Bible" NOT that I am here to reveal Bible-God. There are literally tens of thousands of churches dedicated to that, and they each define the God of the Bible within their own religious doctrines. God is real, the Creator of all that is visible and invisible. Both powers, principalities AND the universe/world we observe through science, and it is This God that I am revealing. I am not debating religion here, or whether or not my God is more real than the other gods in other religions.
No religion, please.

Also, I confess to having a problem with your use of the term "My" in "My God of the Bible". I would suggest that the Bible defines its own God and unless you are claiming to be an author (my correction for other) of these doctrines then I don't understand what you even mean by "My".

I am here to reveal to you God, the Creator of all things. I read this Book called the Bible, and by George it is the very God I imagined. Only this God whom I imagined as the Creator seems to have sent messages through some people which they recorded in there. The message must be from My God as I have imagined Him, because everything that I understand in there makes perfect sense. The history with all those nations coming and going makes sense, the perfect creation makes sense, the fall and the introduction of entropy/decay and death makes sense, man created from dust and back to dust he goes makes sense, .. so I am convinced by all that verifiable evidence in the Bible that the God of the Bible is God, the Creator of all things.

Now about another possible creator god, the Higgs boson particle Wikipedia:

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study

... More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

OK, if this makes sense to you that despite being present everywhere, more data is needed if multiple Higgs bosons exist, because the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, but a 'Standard Model' has been predicted over 40 years ago, that would be in the 70's.
And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory.
Just like The first true measurement of light-speed in 1676 at around 180,000 m/p/s
matched the 300 years later measurements, still at about 180,000 m/p/s.

.. if this sounds like true logical science to you, then you should have ABSOLUTELY no problem understanding my simple explanation of our Creator who created both the Universe and everything in it, including us man in His image. Only I promise not to use religious indoctrinations like I just shown you above regarding the Higgs boson.

That dosen''t sounds like "true logical science" to me. Especially concerning your comment: "And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory."

So my quote from Wikipedia about the Higgs boson doesn't sound like 'true logical science to you'?

My comment was regarding something they never observed through science, but just imagined by God knows what, yet 40 years later they claim they found it, and it is everywhere, only they still don't know if 'multiple Higgs boson's' exist or not? I agree, it doesn't sound very scientific at all.

I don't believe that any attempt was made to find something that wasn't there. Many physicists would be just as happy without a Higgs particles. Also the Big Bang theory is not dependent upon the Higgs particle. However, the Higgs particle does fit into the Standard Model of Particle Physics so I'm quite sure that many physicists are pleased to see it found.

That's right, if I was to take science and become a Physicist, and proved that the Higgs boson is a fairytale like 'special relativity is', it would not change or effect the Big-bang Evolution theory, which was also invented hundreds of years ago by a religious Priest/Monk.
Why?
Because it was invented and created by religion, by religious people believing in their own versions of god/gods. These are all inventions to distract people from the actual Creator, you know, .. in case Catholism failed or something. And as we all know by now, that religions that are involved in gods do not vanish or change easily because of all the diversions they create to defend their religion, .. Like the Trinity Doctrine for example.

I also don't understand how any of this is going to relate to evidence for THE Creator. What difference would it make whether the creator had used a Higgs field or not?

I agree absolutely. God could have created the Universe with a Big-bang, using a Higgs boson, or a quantum string, or hatched an egg, or , .. whatever, but I have read as much as I could, and our Creator God is somehow not part of these religions like the big-bang theory, Evolution theory. And if you listen to the Priest/prophets of these theories like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking for instance, they are actually very clear against any Creator-God concept. One even calls it a delusion.

Also, the Bible doesn't mention any chaotic purposeless accidental creation of the universe, but quite the opposite, it reveals a planned, designed creation with intent and purpose.
So we have Bible History, and stories made up from observing dried bones, bird watchers, and different fossils with some details thrown in there from 'cave-paintings'.
Again, I am not here to debate religions and their gods, or creation stories, but to reveal our Creator God to you.

I would imagine you have an argument along those lines, but at the current time there's certainly no indication of how the Higgs (or the absence of the Higgs) is going to be evidence or not of a God.

I was setting the stage, to differentiate between the reality I am proposing verses creation/creators created by religions outside of actual scientific observation.

So lets agree on some basic rational and logical ground rules and leave religion out of it, agreed?

I have no problem leaving "religion" out of it, whatever that's suppose to mean. But you clearly stated, "My God of the Bible". So I don't see how we can possibly leave the biblical scriptures or dogma out of it.

The Bible does not = religion. It reveals religious practices, laws, doctrines, and how religion can never reveal God to a person.
Also, .. people can create a religion out of a piece of carved wood, right? Or a tennis ball and racquet as I have shown. I am still hoping to set ground rules, not by hearsay, or what's popular today like gay meaning homosexuality, but a fresh logical start eliminating thousands and thousands of years of religious doctrines and their destructive influence on the truth.

I need your imagination DI, I really love your powerful imagination. But let's not have religious doctrine whether science fiction, or gods, to fog what we are aiming at, the absolute truth. Let's start with a clean sheet, using everything we have learned so far using proper meanings instead of what is popular now.

Is this the "Specific God" that you are calling THE Creator?

Yes sir, I am talking about the 'Creator', but we have to agree on certain things first, like that the brain does not create the mind. That it is the mind that controls the brain, and reads the info the brain is sending, and then analyzes it and responds accordingly.

For example, the mind creates an electrical impulse to the brain to lift the persons hand, right? The brain responds. But we can do the same to another person, surgically remove his scull-cap and administer a small charge to that part of the brain and he lifts his arms, .. correct?

You see, the brain does not create that charge, the mind does. Or another person. The brain just reacts to the minds instruction, and other times the mind receives and reads the brains activity like sensory perception. "Ooh, that's smooth', or 'Ouch, that's sharp!'

You've already mentioned the Higgs boson. So you're going to work up from the Higgs Boson and show that the God of the Bible has to be true?
Personally I think you've got one whale of a job cut out for you.

Just as you couldn't build an entire car from a single bolt, you could never create an entire complex universe from a speck of quantum string, from a gravitational wave, or a Higgs boson. I was pointing out how ridiculous 'Creators' religions could create, before they even see a hint of evidence of their creator. Religion can take an entire universe and take one real or imaginary speck from it like this Higgs boson and say; "Here is the Creator of the universe! It created all this we observe through science by no will or plan, but created itself the very space it supposedly expands into. Oh yea, it only created the space it will need to create galaxies and everything else we observe in the universe today within itself. Where this universe is expanding is almost never talked about. The best answer so far; "It is not expanding into anything", and this has sufficed since the invention of the Big-bang theory, since everyone seems to be suffering from religious-phobia; "ask not, question not!" Or suffering from 'heavy indoctrination'.

But taking it one step at a time, I hope you're going to make a case for why there needs to be a Creator of any kind at all. And I imagine this is going to have something to do with the Higgs Boson, otherwise why bother to even mention the Higgs Boson?

Why the need for a Creator? Well it just seems that all we humans ever do is contemplate, plan, design, create. I mean I know enough about computers to know the work that goes into even the simplest apps on our phones, and some are truly amazing. I also worked as a CNC Machinist, and just to machine an impeller, it takes dozens of engineers, programmers, brilliant machinists to set up and make those programs work creating some truly amazing parts for the Jet Engine. So I don't know, but just maybe observing ourselves always dreaming up concepts, then watching ourselves creating all the time may have been the cause for the idea of a 'Creator'. We humans create, then who created us and the things we didn't, you see what I mean?
I don't see animals worry about things like that, it seems to be a human problem only; "Hmm, .. I just have this deep-gut feeling someone like us created us and everything we didn't?" I mean come on DI, you never get this feeling? If not, can you explain why not?

So at this point I would turn the debate back over to you and ask you to explain further what you believe the Higgs Boson (or absence thereof) has to do with evidence for or against any Creator. Let's not even worry about trying to pin it down to the Biblical God at this stage. Unless, of course you feel that you need to use the Bible to make that connection.

The Bible mentions this guy named Abraham, who didn't have the Bible, yet as he observed nature, the best answer he came up for the universes, the earths and natures existence was an all powerful Creator God. So I guess I am not alone on this crazy idea that since we man create, there must be a Creator who created everything we didn't. And this deep rooted feeling seems to be mutual with both the learned (literate) and the unlearned (illiterate) from the deserts, to the deepest jungles, they all seem to look up towards Heaven and give thanks to some imagined form of God or gods.

Those that make themselves believe they are wise, create another form of Creator, they imagine some idea, and they get together every day, for hundreds of years and build on these ideas so religiously, until they finally convince themselves that this whatever like the Higgs boson for instance, that it created the universe. That IT is the Creator. Now of course, this takes a lot of faith based on faith alone. Like you guys told me many times; "Even if the BB theory is false, Evolution happened."

If it wasn't a quantum string that created the universe, then it may have been a quantum gravitational wave, or a Higgs boson, but what you guys are absolutely sure of is that a Creator God, in whose image we may have been created could in no way have created the universe. Or that a Creator is not necessary, since you believe, for some unknown and unobserved reason that things just happen, and in time get better and better, more and more complex through chaos and entropy which is against logic. Against everything we have ever observed through science.

But a Higgs boson, without any outside influence, actually without even a concept of 'outside' since you guys say there is no-thing outside, can evolve into our universe. This is why I ask that we leave senseless religions out of this debate.