The Constraints of Design

That is, of course, also not true. The Higgs had to have certain properties to fit in the standard model.

I presume you’re saying examination of the perceived design by IDers tells them nothing as regards the questions I pose.However, I get the impression this is because there is a predisposition to believe the intelligent designer is ”unknowable’ rather than from any desire to actually ask the questions.

Hi Ned, If I mess this up please correct me.
In the Standard Model, the Higgs field consists of two neutral and two charged component fields. One of those netural fields is the Higgs boson. This particle is massive as the other three fields are massless. In this particle everything in the universe, what we see and what we do not see, was compacted unless Guth is correct that inflation is the perfect free lunch.This would be the same type of particle that Hawking Turok proposed with their instanton.Now if this particle was responsible for everything we see and do not see it had to be all powerful without any limits or constraints to produce what it did.Isn't that exactly what I said my creator did.Your creator seems to be just as elusive as mine does.No one has produced physical evidence of either one yet.That is if you rule out the testimony of those who saw Jesus and His miracles. Like the dead made to live again and His resurrection where He was seen for 40 days after His death burial and resurrection.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It's a very good O.P. dogrelata, but I don't think you'll get much joy, because I don't think we've really got any I.D. types around at the moment who are capable of attempting a reply. I particularly like this point, and your second question. It's an original angle, and I don't think you'll get a good answer. I've often asked why the designer has to design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility, which is maybe a similar question, and it gets avoided like the plague. Expect the same.

Hi dogrelata, Would you please point out where I said: “my god is great, it can do anything”Those words are in quotation marks and is attributed to Message 13.If that is what you thought I said say so. But don't put the words in my mouth. Make a correction please.Would you mind answering the question I asked in Message 13? You can call whatever 'it' was that brought the universe into being by any name you desire it does not change the fact that 'it' is the creator.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Firstly the limitations of evidence and observation apply to the Higgs boson and all other scientific theories. So to say that there are no constraints is obviously wrong. The Higgs field will eventually be abandoned if no empirical evidence is found for it. The LHC has been built to examine exactly this sort of question.If you want your God to be judged on the same standards of observation, testing and evidence then that is fine.......Somehow I doubt that you would like the results........

Hi Straggler, But he is tested and judged according to the evidence.An experiment is preformed 107 times per minute worldwide that proves whether God exists or not.The problem is that none of the participants in the experiment can report their findings.It is appointed unto man once to die after that the judgment.At that point all doubt is erased if God exists. If He does not no one will ever know the difference. Then be replaced by a different name as there must be a creator for the universe to come into being. Makes no difference what you call 'it'.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In that case there is only your assumption that the experiment actually exists and that there are any findings to report. Well whatever 'it' eventually is we can be sure that it will be tested and verified. Or if we don't have anything sufficiantly reliable to qualify as 'it' we will continue to admit we do not know and keep searching. Almost certainly contributing to and enhancing the sum total of human knowledge in the process.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You need to learn what constraints are. The hypothetical Higgs has constraints. Physics, with or without the Higgs, has strict constraints. It cannot produce 500 mile high mountains on this planet, or flying elephants with wings the size of a seagull. The constraints are actually very tight. The O.P. suggests that intelligent design is only necessary if there are constraints, so that if there is intelligent design in nature around us, it is not supernatural but natural.You don't need to design a watch if there are no constraints, just poof it into existence, and it doesn't need any designed machinery to tell the time, because the machinery would only be necessitated by physical restraints. It can be a blob that miraculously speaks the time into your head when you want to know it.If your God has no constraints on what he can do, then he does not fit the "designs" of this planet, as they are tightly restricted in a way that wouldn't be necessary for an unconstrained designer.This indicates that your unconstrained God is a figment of your imagination, so you don't need to get up next Sunday morning to go to church, and you can enjoy a good lie in instead. Sleep well.

Why do you spend so long quoting technical phrases... only to demonstrate that you don't understand a single word of what you have written? "all powerful"??? "without any limits or constraints!"??? What the fuck are you talking about ICANT? The Higgs field is no more responsible for "everything" than electrons, photons, quarks, glouns, etc.Why do you insist on spouting such gibberish?

Hi bluegenes, I said my creator (God) did not have any restraints on Him.I did not say that He did not place a lot of restraints on the universe. The universe requires constant attention. I think science calls it dark energy, dark matter and gravity.I have a verse of scripture that tells me, all things exist by the creator. He is the energy science is looking for.One day He is going to cause the universe to melt with fervent heat and then He will make a new heaven and a new earth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi cavediver, Just to make your day.Now you explained to me how everything came from a smaller than pea sized universe.I asked where did the pea sized universe came from. Your answer was "we don't know".I wasn't satisfied with that answer so I went looking for the answer.I found Hawking Turok instanton was described as a scalar field like the Higgs field.I then looked up the Higgs field, and I found this. HereNow if my understanding is so wrong. Would you please explain so that I can understand?Thanks in advance.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

As I’m sure you’re only too aware, I used the phrase you now object to in the context of what we might commonly expect to hear (hence the parenthesis) in the playground - it is the sentiment I am attributing to you, not the exact words. If you are now telling me that “my god is not so great, it can’t do anything”, I’ll be happy to retract the above and issue a full apology. Stop being so infantile. The “my creator is better than your creator” line may be acceptable in the creationist playground, but you’ve chosen to step out of that and take your place in the real world, so please try to behave in a manner befitting that choice.At no point have I made any claims on behalf of any process or processes, so I have no intention of trying to evaluate two misapprehensions held by you.

No, I’m not holding out too much hope either.In Message 24 you say:- I think this is such a big point - based on what we know of things that are universally accepted as being designed, are things that are not universally accepted as being designed a good fit for what we know about designed things? If they are, then it lends weight to the notion of an intelligent designer in nature, if not it weakens the argument.Some simple examples might be:-Was Paley’s watchmaker a human being who lived and died as part of the environment for which he created his designs? Or was he something else?Did Paley’s watchmaker specify materials and processes that were pre-existing within the environment for which he created his designs? Or did he need to ”create’ new materials and processes to achieve his design?I could go on, but I think the above will suffice to illustrate the point.

Your understanding is not so wrong. You don't have any understanding to begin with. You are just trying to sound clever by quoting names, theories, ideas, and decsriptions of very advanced topics way above graduate-level physics. You follow this with complete nonsense. I can't begin to correct your understanding, because there isn't any to work with."I found Hawking Turok instanton was described as a scalar field like the Higgs field."You don't have the first clue what these words even mean. Prove me wrong by explaining what instanton means - in your own words...