W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New







News 396

The Australian April 9, 2008


In The Australian, April 9, 2008, there is the heading, "Atom smasher in hunt for God."

A putative particle some physics professor has in mind to add to the list of fundamental units has been nicknamed, we are told, the "God particle."

While the degree to which that title is serious is under question, the heading of the article shows the way in which some at least take it. It is just like examining Shakespeare's writings using certain manuscripts (parallel to 'Nature') and asking the question, as you carefully check the way he writes his 's' or his 'n' or some reference symbols he uses repeatedly in certain cases, where is the 'Shakespeare particle.'

In vain to tell such people that Shakespeare's might and main is not in a written particle, material though it be, in a text scripted by him. To laugh is all but inadequate. It is the mind of Shakespeare which gives meaning to whatever he uses to express it. Matter makes implications available; mind draws the conclusions. But beyond the mind of the bard is the meaning of his mind. What did he intend to say ? Why did he particularise those particles into symbolic meaning transferrable into mental action in the minds of readers ?

To find this out, you need to examine the plays, overall, and to see basic thrusts of interpretation, such as shown in the little book, The Gospel in Shakespeare, which sees and lists various references to God and the Gospel to be found liberally in Shakespeare's plays, and shows the doctrines that are assumed, covered and utilised by that playwright. You need to see the type of place right and wrong has in those plays, or sonnets, and with this, refer to the doctrines and find out how he sees the progress of history as it illustrates right and wrong, truth and falsity, hope and hindrance, passion and purity, and the various themes in which Shakespeare majors.

In other words, to find the meaning of ordered systems, you need to look beyond their constitutents to their uses and what this fathers. To understand matter, you need mind; indeed, you need it not only to assess the significance of matter, but to refer to it at all, using definitions of the term, so that the validity of your mind is prior to the meaning of matter; for an invalid mental process cannot even be allowed to define. In short, unless mind has validity, there is no point in discussing matter, investigating it (with mind), pontificating on its fundamental nature (with mind) or determining its cause (with mind). For that matter, even if mind is deemed valid, if your spirit was irrational, irrelevant or defunct in realism, you would merely be deploying your mind for illicit, irrational or meaningless purposes, like a little boy trying to use his teeth to find an atom. You could try, but it would be irrelevant.

The failure to realise that even to discuss, you need minds first to be validated, is so common in the materialistic clime in which so many now work (debunked in Repent or Perish Ch. 7, and in SMR Chs. 1, 3 for example), that it becomes a vainglory of guilt for the culture that does it. It shudders with expectation (soundly based) of what the weather, the asteroids, the atomic radiation, the declining moisture and the surging violence in the hands of vile ideologies, will do. The volume,  Repent or Perish Ch. 7 commences with these words (some references added for our present purposes):

It is strange how logic is crucified, since the LOGOS is Christ. True, this word has far more meaning than mere logic; but not less. It involves the "word" and all that goes with that, logic and expression and meaning, and declaration and presentation and demonstration and application. Let us now consider the theme in a brief conspectus - much amplified elsewhere - with 3 EXTENSIONS, available at the end in order to prevent the pith from being diffused as you read the initial coverage.

1. It is crucified by the assumption that meaningless units in a meaningless universe can discern the meaning of it: viz. That it is meaningless (cf. SMR Ch. 3).

2. It is crucified by the assumption that without absolute truth so much as existing, views on the topic of truth can be made, are meaningful, and not nonsensical. In fact, of course, for anyone to have access to absolute truth, it first must exist, for what is not absolute cannot create what is, any more than what is relative can create what is not. Fairy talk is useful at bed-time for children, at times, but for adults at noon (cf. Barbs... 6    -7)..

3. It is crucified by the concept that series constitute a) reality and b) a way to know it and c) a substance or stand which is beyond occurrence, which assesses occurrence, for what it really is (cf. SMR Ch. 3).

4. It is crucified by the concept that what keeps laws makes them, that what observes commands, issues them: that matter is mind and will, despite its refusal to yield evidence of such powers. Materialism is dependent on the prior concept of mental validity, which is not material, to exist (cf. TMR Ch. 5, Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable ... esp. Chs. 2, 5, 6), History, Review and Overview ... Ch. 5, Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer Ch. 2 B).

5. It is crucified by the idea that what is descriptive, is prescriptive, as if there were some logical mandate for preferring some one thing among the multitude of events, and hence having any form of intellectual or vital morality: or having any valid view on anything mental or other, at the moral level, such as the rights and wrongs of teaching this and that, this way or that. See News 19.

6. It is crucified by any concept of beauty as the artless derivative of meaningless series. Beauty then becomes a subjective reaction of no value, and its urge would be pleasure only, and not differentiable in value from eating an ice-cream: that is, it would be a reactionary occurrence, and nothing more. See Ancient Words ... Ch. 7, Questions and Answers  5, SMR Ch. 5.

7. It is crucified by the notion that will is a derivative of non-will. Not merely does the concept operate without interface, in the manner of science, but without cause. All ideas of "happening to happen" do not constitute scientific or logical grounds for anything, but constitute simply a verbal ploy, or confused noise, choose what you ... will, to avoid the fact that the cause is being sought by reason, and words are being used instead of an admitted failure to account for these things. (See Causes.)

8. It is crucified by the nostrum that a man's spirit, his power to project in imagination whether to architecture or love, to religion or morals, to culture or to systems, is "the result" of its absence. The criticism is precisely the same as above, but yet more incongruous with reason, if possible. (See - The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy Ch. 2.)

9. It is crucified by the whole negligent concept of whole worlds of being - such as the above touches and such as are dealt with in more detail in SMR Chs. 3-4, esp. pp. 305ff, with 332Eff. - arising from their absence; and anything arising from nothing, a mere contradiction in terms.

10. It is equally crucified by empirical claims that evolutionary progress occurs, has occurred or should occur; since empirically this is not the case. See The gods of naturalism have no go!

11. It is crucified by the idea that gradual occurrences give ground and reason for rising edifices of construction contained in no part or premiss of the original. Gradually becoming intelligent is a mere misnomer, in terms of creation of the facility. It is mere exercise of its deposit which is available. Gradual production of anything presupposes the entire capacity of what constructs to do so. "Give me time!" is reasonably relevant only when capacity is present. See as for 10, above.

12. Suddenly becoming intelligent, or possessing parallel properties, is no improvement on the gradual acquisition, causally, since a cause sufficient is required if one is to become proficient, and so efficient (cf. SMR pp. 210-211, 134ff., 252Eff.).. The artful avoidance of all that is required is the artless abandonment of reason. Irrationality however proves nothing but the incapacity of the debater who descends to it. That he is able so to descend attests spirit; that he does so, attests loss. Nothing may be argued on behalf of that which forsakes reason systematically in advance, and since language and logic are intermixed in rationality and coherence, thought and language alike are thereby dissociated from much of their basis, and so rendered inoperable. This is effectual un-creation, a sort of parody of hell, but no more than does hell, does it avoid its creator.

13. The crowd at the crucifixion includes those who break the empirical, intellectual, logical, moral, aesthetic, epistemological, aetiological, ontological, heuristic, analytical and volitional attestations in order to avoid God. One way is to murder the man, who presents it, Jesus Christ: this has been done already, thwarted by the resurrection. The other is to murder the truth in thought. In murdering it, however, you lose the power to appeal to it. Reason jettisoned is debate lost.  See Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ.

A piece of contrived, delimited, describably functional, controlled, participatory, interactive and systematically partial material, is considered. It is small ? yes but not impressive; useful ?

Yet that is scarcely awesome: capable of being used in construction - perhaps, if it exists, but what of that ?

It is all merely in the Lego-block stage. Fashioned, it can be fashioned; delimited it can be dynamised, useful it can be used. In a schema it is a participant of partiality, a form of information reception, a goer in what goes. How on this earth or elsewhere that is supposed to have anything to do with the Schematiser, Substance Formulator, Logic Specifier, Mind Contriver, Spirit Fashioner, in its essential being, is a mystery for psychological sages and princes of pathological precepts to determine!

Particles ever newly found, by assault on matter or observation,  lack all that invents, cut off from what is in the domain of invention, and yet many look on that in fatherly style as the 'explanation' for what  is to be construed, and hence possessive in some sense of creative, formulative, specifying, defining, delimiting, powers, 'leading' to mind and spirit, which in due course are found constructing designs by their agility, ability, versatility and imagination!

A particle to assign mass, which seems to be in view, which gives it, is not its origin, cause, ground or meaning; and mass assigned is just one of the causally demanding aspects of just one of the causally operative functions of man, as it participates in matter, which in simple forms participates in complex forms, which participate in symbolic directions which participate in originative volumes of information, while information itself is never found to participate in non-intelligent bases *1.

How then is it of interest beyond matter as such, to consider the pulsation of particles ?

You have to get what we have from what is proposed.

To talk of what lacks


a) designable power


b) formative relevance


c) verifiable capacity


d) domains of being outside its formulation


is just like having a child say,

Daddy, I made a toy, and I was SO clever, but how did you make me ?

Now if the child meant to assume that because he in some way came from Daddy, that therefore Daddy must have used great imaginative ability and awesome insight to do it, he is merely absurd. He has not yet learnt that having something to do with something, and being the Creator of a thing, are two different matters. Means available and knowledge to make the means are two different things. If by throwing a switch, you obliterate a city, do you need to understand atomic power AT ALL!

Means require meaning in the sense that their arrival is the POINT.

To push them about requires a certain amount of force, but it does not demand understanding of their nature, power or origin. To find a particle is to find an aspect of matter - discussed for example in Ch. 4 above. To find the ground for particles, their particularities and their powers, their systematisation, the logic of the system in which they inhere, and the validity or otherwise of your own logic, this is a wholly different thing. In scientific method, you look for what is germane, relevant, has an interface with something in mind or in view, and choosing what is most intimate, rationally adequate and verifiably active, you propose this, pending results of test.

You do not say, Ah! because this is steaming, I shall look for the cause of coldness, or Since this is large, I shall seek the meaning of brittleness! You try at least to show SOMETHING of a connection, in all the domains and cosmoi, the profundity and the observability of that with which you have to do.

The sort of thing we find in the article in The Australian includes these words, concerning the point of seeking for the 'God-particle': "how matter has mass and thus exists in a form that allows it to make stars, planets and people." It is ALLOWED to make men.


How ?


Why ?


By what evidence ?


In what principles of logic ?


By what interfaces ?


In what observable fashions ?


Through which adequacy of disposition ?


In what wisdom, intellectual formulative capacity for coded contrivances issuing orders ?


In what ways has each of the myriad-form means required,
been demonstrated and verified in action.

If matter has mass, this like its velocity, manipulability, sub-particles in various cases and involvement in sophisticated constructions like molecules and DNA's elaborate informational complexities of orders and dynamic designable by code, is a facet of its operations, to be observed, formulated, conceptualised and tested. That is one more aspect, if such a mass particle is found, of what matter is.

What it is ? something that is NEVER found to invent information, NEVER tested to perform invention, but readily seen to act according to its character, imposed and definable, in systems, definable and dynamised, which have logic inherent and law demanding.

How on earth finding a particle underlying some aspect of this material thing is supposed to build people is beyond all measure of logic, an absurdity which measures quite aptly the contemporary visional occlusion of man. Something is stopping him from seeing.

Consider the principle of the thing, by illustration. He sees a speck of dust on a material, finds such particles liberally sprinkled on the whole surface, microscopically, and concludes this, being a liberally spread element, must in some way, perhaps in association with fibres, also found to be pervasive, have created the coat and made it fit, because all the coats that did not fit were presumably thrown away until the poor person who needs it to live, was at last, after millions of years, able to keep warm, while billions of dissident coats leave whatever remains are apt in various quickly covered zones, and endless examples of misfits are found everywhere, as some that almost made it, are used in more temperate climates and so on.

Silly cells on the way to being efficient, we learn from Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis), do not exist. On the contrary he ponders a form of perfection, brilliance in method and astuteness on all sides including miniaturisation of information and production past all human efforts with the edge of intelligence at work for years.

LIFE is not another name for the causeless, but a far more intimate body of information and production, order and performance which demands precisely what its results show. To imagine that life means irrationality is the precise opposite of what is found in the DNA, in man and in his logic by which he investigates this world with such consummate success, when he is not being deliberately or deliberatively blind. Further, if rationality were void in life, it would be void in man, so making any argumentation from those believing such contra-evidential myths void in advance.

Furthermore, LITTLENESS does not constitute creation. IMPLEMENTS do not constitute the meaning of activity. PARTICIPATION in a work does not define it. Moving by magic - that is, effects demanded without sufficient, and germanely active cause - is fun, but not edifying. It is rather like reading a mystery novel in which the mere following of the text brings you to the answer.

However, someone had to write the text, and assumptions about the gradual building up of letters from nowhere, in order that they should be compiled by nothing into a definable series of symbols, which should be composed by nothing into an interface between power, logic and symbol-application, with material available on demand through the good offices of nothing, so that the orders of the symbols should issue in the arrival of what was demanded, are merely grave, adult fairy stories. They, like their topics, are founded on nothing, evidenced by nothing, supported by nothing and elegantly sit in the mind like statues to death.

That someone was not the smallest particle of the ink, and so does not exist to DO the job involved: that is merely to be wilfully blind, even to imagine.

The needs are in detail derived in SMR Ch. 1, but nothing is not one of them.

In such a case of erratic hypothesis as this materialistic one, it may with absolute precision be said that there is nothing in it, and nothing to it. It is a thing of nothing.

A small particle of ink inheres in a text which inheres on a paper (or other visibility means), which derives from a mill, which comes from forest-mind-plan-imagination-conception combinations, of which the purpose is paramount. To reach mystically for particles to MAKE the totality from their ingenuity, of which they show none except in their formation which they are not found EVER to perform, is to deny every component of logic.

It is neither empirically based, nor logically sufficient, nor scientifically relevant, being a suffocatingly obtuse advance on the idea of making a penny of wishing put in a well, into an answered desire. Pennies express (because of a mind using them) the desire for something in this case, and the well is a basis for this (in the literal sense, of being a repository for the penny), and the hope of the thrower of the penny is a mental phenomenon, and the assumptions of fairies or providence (which means oversight by mind with adequate power and interest to receive information and enact results by HIS OWN POWER) being ready to act on the throw is a conscious or unconscious hope. It may be rational, or merely possible, or wrong, depending on the line of basis in view.

It is however looking to SOMETHING which has all these receptive, directive, inter-posing facilities, if done with even the slightest thought of relevant result.

If in the mystic agonies of hope, the thrower of the penny often fails to formulate what is in mind; yet it is precisely what needs to be  in mind, if rational, that involves not less than a whole array of power and performance criteria invested in what can so deploys such things, that results flow ... This would mean spiritual action of this or that dimension, derived from power with all the capacity to do what is required. Information absorption, symbolic-reading facilities, directive capacities: ALL would be involved.

Why wish ? why not simply put the penny there and see what it does. What not be empirical! Why ignore the main things ?

The reason for naturalistic magic  is simply oversight; and the irrationality of it all is simply irrelevance fashioned into a formula, untested, except in negativity, assuming the grounds, not witnessed in that domain, and demanding that it MUST BE SO, although it never is or has been seen to be such. It is putting divine power in a  visible 'Daddy' on the part of a child, even though demonstrably the visible Daddy knows not much about it, and certainly did not create what the reproductive procedures enable. You have to proceed past the emblems and operators to the source of the operating equipment, and to consider the spheres of operation, and their inherent powers, and what is adequate for each, and the synthetic operations of all.

When you do this, bits of matter are not relevant. The God-particle is merely the magic-throw, the Boeing from hope, the Space-Ship from desire, ever bettering itself because of the magic hopes of man, built on nothing, derived from nothing, formulated into power and imagined into proficiency.

The actual particle is MAN. He is small, he is a series of systems supervened by spirit and equipped with mind, by which if he will, he can brutally damage them, wilfully distort them, devilishly spoil and foil them. THAT particle, so good at being evil, at damaging, by ignorance or passion in political, military and psychological wars, has an answer to its pen by which it writes to specifications surpassing man's capacities so to write ? No, not actually. It is the writer who uses the creative pen who pens the paramount necessity for production, it is the power which he incorporates, not the means he deploys instrumentally to express his imaginatively logical excursion into formulation and function.

Material particles are not pens, they do not inscribe formulae, produce the cosmos of understanding involved. They may express it, as means; they do not so operate as grounds. They are not fathers of the disposition of dynamic in ordering ways to achieve acuities of that co-ordinatingly impelling, proficiently interactive, mutually impressive, unitarily expressive, cohesively construable thing called design (on which in detail see Design and Deity ... ).

Particles are particular, and so is the mind that made them, and man's mind and man's spirit and man's destiny. Dabbling with destiny by finding micro-spots of ink is not very wise. You need to find for this book called man, not the paper but the writer. You need not an imagination, but a minimal series of powers, and the attestation of them. You need to be able to test and to verify. In the case of Jesus Christ ONLY, and His Book, this is readily done, since so much is said of so much that the testable criteria over thousands of years lie ready at any moment, for any person, in any topic. It is noteworthy that the type of test for God is extreme, since He is not ignorant; and that the type of result is precisely in accord with this (as shown in the work cited in the next paragraph).

Fortunately for us, the writer is SO intelligent that He MADE intelligence and so has not forgotten man. Being dependent on nothing and the constructer of all limits, He is limited by nothing, and has no need of anything from man, His creation. He gives. Advice, commands, commandments and a Book, the Book of the Lord, the Bible, the only testable and the utterly confirmed manual for man (Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ, Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer, SMR Ch. 1): this provides the answers to the questions, and questions the answers man often gives to his role. Further, it criticises a thing called sin, which is omission of the Creator and His wisdom and Book and remedy for man; and it demands of man a return to the Creator, a reception of the redemption, and what makes it much easier, a return of the love shown in the provision of this free return to reality, rationality and above all, to God the Father and Author of mankind.

This Information from God explains, validates and verifies all (cf. What is the Wheat to the Chaff, Chs.   3 and   4). What then is said by the God who made system, a logical concatenation of cause-and-effect, beauty and liberty to spoil or sacrifice, ideological creativity and inane desecratory prowess an option, with idolatry a mode and worship a facility, who made man and his spirit, matter and its dis-spirited littleness an expressive agent for intelligence, both in its construction and its dispositions, whose mind is the definition of good and evil, whose power is the instrument of destiny ? What does He have to say in His manual ?

It is this. Man is self-important in seeking to divest His Maker from His world, and in this vanity, he is crushing his race, distorting his face, and polluting divine grace. He is ramifying in sophistication, prevaricating in knowledge, inane in misconception without the God of his creation, and there is provision for restoration. It is not in speaking loudly, nor in bashing up nations, it is not in devising schemes to do this or that, but in repentance at the folly of imagining he could be as God in the first place (Genesis 3, Romans 5), or the last to come (II Thessalonians 2), and acting like it now (cf. Ezekiel 28:9,17).

The contemporary culture of man ? In much of it, he first downgrades God to particle, and then upgrades arrogance to deity, and so seeks to run the place ex-Creator, in the crevasses of illusion.

After repenting of this, man needs to disparage his desecratory dynamics, whether by his conduct towards other creations, other people, or towards God, and see that utter futility of trusting in parts of the creation or himself (Luke 13, Isaiah 44-46, Proverbs 28:26).

Then he needs to cast himself, as a ship upon the ocean, on the depths of divine mercy and making radio-contact with the Lord of the Admiralty, Jesus Christ, the Saviour sent to deliver what has smashed itself in heart and spirit, acknowledge this sin,  and to accept His sublime offer of free pardon and reconstruction of heart and mind and spirit, called regeneration. He needs to read and feed on his manual, since it is not merely technical, but embodies the love of God, and find his meaning and seek out the divine methods of dealing with man. These include a humble heart (not in appearance, but in reality - a fault here is fatal, for God is not interested in hypocrisy or mere formalism), and a willingness to revere Him and His word, and to avoid all efforts to cut off His mouth, and worship whatever you like, and call it God, in a religious renegacy to replace materialism, and certainly no better.

Materialism is one folly; urbane self-regard in religion is its counterpart.

Man needs to worship and know God, as a friend, Father, and in Christ a brother, to rejoice in the redemption which Christ has made available in death, to enable life anew, and to live by faith in what has validated itself, and answers all queries, questions, giving light and love, courage and character,

as shown in detail in

Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ,

Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer,

but as can be found only in the heart that acts.

Man needs to live by faith in God, through acceptance in Jesus Christ, by the power of God (cf. Psalm 57:2, 62:11, I Peter 1:3ff., Ephesians 3:16, Matthew 28:19-20).



A chair is comfortable because it fits. It purpose is to allow sitting; comfort is a perquisite of intelligent design that both allows that and makes it a fitting fit.

Truth in some ways is like that. It NOT ONLY meets the case, but ramifies in all directions, touching lightly here with gracious interface, alighting there with perfect poise, never vulnerable to error, only in the minds of distorting man.

There is comfort in the fact that particles are mere things we observe, that flit about and do their assigned and designated duties (cf. Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny). There is a rare beauty in truth, for it covers all like sunshine - which is far from saying that polluting clouds cannot be invented. But these dissipate for the time when the next drove of darkness seeks to torch truth.

But it does not. Truth stays, salvation stays, the world stays, the word of God stays, and sin stays until its day is up. That will be supremely uncomfortable for the denizens of the lie (I John 2:22), because there is nothing quite like truth to be unanswerable. If you prefer particles to Power for your creation, chaos to Wisdom for your own, and design irrationality and myth for your production, then when you find what is so obvious after all the talk is over, to be so, there is a shame which nothing can efface. It is the shamefacedness of untruth in the presence of truth; and of contempt for contrivances in the place and face of Deity.

Comfort, however, comfort Jerusalem, says the Lord, to a people who had sinned most grievously, for your warfare is accomplished. Their sins had by then had their outcome; but far more profoundly, as Isaiah goes on to predict, the Messiah was coming (the date of His death predicted  by Daniel at about AD 30 - cf. Highway of Holiness Ch. 4), was coming. It was, as it now is, He who would swallow up the sin of the penitent (Isaiah 25:8, I Cor. 15:54, Hosea 13:14), of the one who seeks not products but Producer, not priest but Prince, not self-importance but Saviour to worship. He has not only come but has tasted death for every one of mankind, if by any means some might find Him, and be relieved. His scope of Saviour is to all (I John 2:2); but His effectuality is limited to those who receive Him as He is, and NOTHING is paid to ANYONE or FOR ANYONE unless these be those who receive Him (Romans 8:32). It is to them that He says, "all things are yours."

Those who DO receive Him are healed in their hearts and restored in their place before God (Isaiah 53:2-6). It is a comfort to be where you should be, doing what you ought, because you love the One who made you, and rejoice in God your Saviour, through the man who coming from heaven, constitutes the way home. It is good to have a home, which man cannot destroy, because it was good in God's sight to make us people for home, which is He.







See  Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch.    4,  The Desire of the Nations Ch. 2, Epilogue.

Dr Werner Gitt from Germany's Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, has made a flat statement which for years has gone unanswered. This fact was noted in Creation, Sept.-Nov. 2001. It was made in 1997, in his work, In the beginning was information. It is this:

bullet "There is no known natural law
through which matter can give rise to information,
neither is any physical process
or material phenomenon known
that can do this."

For more on this topic, see the above references.