Scoop came across this article, which is well worth reading.
To get the most out of the article, the reader should (if necessary) familiarise himself with the following points.
- Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological arguments
- Copleston’s debate with Betrand Russel over the cosmological argument
- The distinction between analytic and synthetic claims
- The distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge
- The distinction between presuppositional concepts used to make sense of reality and data that passes through those concepts
- The distinction between realism and idealism (both metaphysical and epistemological)
- The ongoing debate over paradigm shifts (see Kuhn’s work)
- The distinction between cognitive and non-cognitive theories of meaning in language
All Along the Watchtower 
for in the last eleven years at the cost of over $13B, the sole accomplishment of the LHC has been the confirmation of the Higgs boson, the elusive particle thought to give rise to the property of mass in the universe.
What a nonsense statement. Reflective, though, of a ridiculous article in general. The LHC has also found weak neutral currents, W and Z bosons, light neutrinos, antimatter, charge parity violation.
Not that any of you are interested, but you can read more here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/11/five-years-after-the-higgs-what-else-has-the-lhc-found/#1ad4e87c552c
LikeLike
Your comment has nothing to do with the point of the article; which if you read the whole thing is looking to the scientific Holy Grail of explaining Creation without a Creator. They are simply at a point where their findings are simply more indications that they have no answers. The author states his position quite clearly. Confirming other subatomic particles has no bearing on the ultimate quest for the origin of creation itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Furthermore, empiricism is incapable of communicating what matter is in and of itself, because its words are always mediated by sense experience. While we can postulate the existence of mind independent matter, we cannot know it in a mind independent way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely true. And there is no way to prove or disprove that we are not a dream in the mind of Buddha or that we are God ourselves and are simply entertaining ourselves. That is why I issued the challenge for that fellow to simply tell me one thing that he believes in and I will simply ask him to prove it to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We must therefore exercise faith in order to hold to realism or believe in God if we are to preserve empiricism from the threat of solipsism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Last time I looked Christ was not recognized the educated few but was revealed to simple men. You don’t need to be a scientist to deduce that there is a God and that Christ is the second Person of God . . . he’s been available to least of us. Why is is that the apparition of most importance was entrusted to small uneducated children at Fatima? He did not single out the masonic scientism crowd . . . though they saw the miracle that many thousands saw and dismissed it? I’m afraid that the numbers are low for success in turning such people around in their lives and Christ spent little time doing it: he simply pointed out their hypocrisy and inconsistencies. I guess that is all we can do as well.
LikeLiked by 3 people
if i knew what any of those big words meant, i might be able to participate.
LikeLike
I was waiting for your comment, Bosco, and you didn’t disappoint!
LikeLike
”I Don’t Know” are the three most incredible and honest words in science.
I have never read or heard a proponent of religion better them.
LikeLike
Aye sister Arkenaten, how come you dont suggest anymore 8th grade rudimentary vids for me.
Ive figured out that you are female. Your tone and demeanor give it away. Not that there is anything wrong with being a female. I love females. I am currently single. So im always out for the make. You are free to put in an application. 8 to 80….blind cripple and crazy. That is my base requirement.
LikeLike