People sometimes choose to associate the Universe itself with God in the way Carl Sagan occasionally suggested (whether Mr. Sagan believes this entirely, I do not know) but I think at that point it's a question of naming. I call it Universe, someone else calls it God.
I'm not too solidly decided on faith myself, but if God created the universe, then you can't use the properties of that universe to disprove Him. It's like proving a theorem, finding it conflicts with some common axiom, and then saying you've disproved the axiom.
This is quite off-topic now, so if you want to reply, please send it to the address in my public profile. :)
IF the Higgs Boson exists, it interacts with the “usual” matter. The main part of the interaction is the (apparent) mass.
The Higgs field is not constant, we can think about the irregularities in the field are particles, this particles are the Higgs’ Bosons.
The experiments in the LHC are trying to measure how this Higgs’ Bosons bounce with the “usual” particles, how the Higgs’ Bosons are created from “usual” particles and how the Higgs’ Bosons splits in a few “usual” particles.
The experiments try to get an isolated Higgs Bosons for a very small time, because they are not stable (perhaps 10^-20 seconds?). It is impossible to see it during that small time, so the experiments analyze the particles that are created after the Higgs Boson splits.
All the process is very difficult and noisy, so the experiments have to run for a few years. The equipments is new and they have to tweak them. So for a few years, the will be no interesting new, like “Higgs Boson tot found above 180GeV.”. It is a good sign, it is what is expected to happen.
But in about four years, IF the Higgs Boson exists, they will find it, we only have to wait.
God is possible; that doesn't make it acceptable to accept with all your soul that he most certainly exists and is a good reason to allocate funding, make curriculum decisions, raise your children a certain way, etc. Whereas "agnostics" tend to say any religious belief/practice is acceptable.
Yes, scientists have theories, but these are tentative, with certainty increasing as warranted by evidence, and they're replaced (or expanded upon) when they break down. This is not at all the same thing as faith.
Up until 10-12 I was relatively religious I guess as that was how I'd been raised... sort of. Well, my mother and her side of the family were religious. My dad wasn't. When we drive 30+ miles on Sunday to go to church (before we moved when I was 9) my dad would sit in the car while the rest of us went in.
The first revelation (excuse the pun) I had was that these religious people around me (teachers, nuns, priests and so on) didn't had some direct line to God. They were flawed as any of the rest of us. This came at about age 10 largely due to being blamed for something I didn't do.
Of course the mantra is that "people are flawed", "God works in mysterious ways" and other such platitudes but in my case the foundations were already crumbling. I basically rejected organized religion by age 11-12 and never looked back.
At this time and for awhile afterwards I took the "sitting on the fence" approach and described myself as agnostic (as many do I think). Basically this is a cop out though. It's simply not taking a position. But I guess not everyone needs to take a position but agnostic is basically saying "I don't care (one way or the other)" (although some would phrase this more along the lines of simply not knowing).
But some time later I eventually gave this up and essentially became a hardline atheist. Personally, I find the notion of a divine being--any divine being--to be ridiculous and simply the byproduct of the human fallacy to see patterns in randomness ("I prayed for rain today and it rained therefore there is a God. Last month I prayed for rain and there was no rain so I guess God Has A Plan [tm].").
Not that I don't think religion is useful. It's really a form of community and moral enforcement. Some people need to be told what to do. Others simply need to fit in somewhere (we all do in different ways). Yet others find comfort in the idea that when you die you simply cease to exist (which is something we're not well-equipped to comprehend). I get all that.
Take that as you will.
My point was just that in a strict logical sense you can't prove that this belief is correct -- or put another way, I'm more militantly logical than I am militantly atheist.
I think it is reasonable to take everyday speech saying "does not exist" as meaning "appears not to exist, and if it does exist this is indistinguishable from not existing".
Come to think if it, I'm pretty sure I've never stated "invisible pink unicorns do not exist". On the other hand, I've never had to avoid saying it either; oddly enough, I've never felt any urge to comment on the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns until now.
But this is immaterial to the issue at hand, which is one of logical arguments, not mere validity of statements. I don't believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, but I would never state that I had logically proven that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.
The IPU is a poor analogy for disproving the existence of God because it gives up too much ground.
God is in the same category as a square circle. Something that is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist.
Your logic was faulty. A God which does not interact with the universe is indistinguishable from a lack of God. (cf. Higgs Boson)