Vatican astronomer says 'God particle' is misnamed, but exciting

Onesimus

“The name 'the God particle' was given to it as a joke by Leon Lederman,” the Vatican astronomer recalled. “It was basically a provocative title for book he was writing on particle physics.”


“He said that if there was a particle that could exist that could explain all the little things we wanted to explain, it would be a gift from God. It is a metaphor and has nothing to do with theology.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-god-particle-is-misnamed-but-exciting/

Interesting!!!

Snappy Smurf

I don't know much about this higs boson thing, but a Scripture verse comes to mind:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being...

I don't think the scientists really have any evidence to support the idea that this thing is actually a thing. I think it's more likely to be a kind of 'force' and as such is God's acting in every moment to keep the universe in being according to His design.

Stercus Accidit

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I don't know much about this higs boson thing, but a Scripture verse comes to mind:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being...

I don't think the scientists really have any evidence to support the idea that this thing is actually a thing. I think it's more likely to be a kind of 'force' and as such is God's acting in every moment to keep the universe in being according to His design.

It's a particle, like any other, not a force, and the name 'god particle' is a sanitation of the term "god-damned particle" that was published in a scientific journal.
It is not evidence of jahweh, zeus or thor.

im invisible

Oh jesus...

doctoremma

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I don't know much about this higs boson thing, but a Scripture verse comes to mind:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being...

I don't think the scientists really have any evidence to support the idea that this thing is actually a thing. I think it's more likely to be a kind of 'force' and as such is God's acting in every moment to keep the universe in being according to His design.

If you don't know anything about the Higgs Boson (or indeed, science, the scientific method nor the definition of 'evidence'), I suggest you refrain from commenting on what it is or what it isn't.

Why don't you leave it to proper scientists to work out the details? Who knows, some of them might be chicks....

Benny_Cake

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I don't know much about this higs boson thing, but a Scripture verse comes to mind:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being...

I don't think the scientists really have any evidence to support the idea that this thing is actually a thing. I think it's more likely to be a kind of 'force' and as such is God's acting in every moment to keep the universe in being according to His design.

It is a "thing", in that it's a subatomic particle, and the scientists concerned are 99.99% sure they now have evidence it exists, which is good enough for most people.

Onesimus

and the scientists concerned are 99.99% sure they now have evidence it exists, which is good enough for most people.

But they have not actually found it yet. Which would lead us to believe that scientists are not just about finding evidence, they are men of faith too.

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

But they have not actually found it yet. Which would lead us to believe that scientists are not just about finding evidence, they are men of faith too.

No, it means they are people of suspicion. They have found something that looks like a Higgs Boson, acts like a Higgs Boson, and in a window of particle energy where there isn't anything else we know it could be. But let's check again, just to be sure.

If only there was such conscientiousness in other disciplines.

Zillah

Onesimus wrote: »

But they have not actually found it yet. Which would lead us to believe that scientists are not just about finding evidence, they are men of faith too.

It is always a fascinating sight to see people who don't understand science drawing conclusions about scientific matters.

lmaopml

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

It's a particle, like any other, not a force, and the name 'god particle' is a sanitation of the term "god-damned particle" that was published in a scientific journal.
It is not evidence of jahweh, zeus or thor.

That's actually true. It was meant to be called ''GodDarnedParticle'' because it's so hard to trace, in fact it cost billions to do so, except the publishers didn't like the name for the journal - the idea being to get 'readers' garner interest support etc. to explore - it's related to super symmetry and particle physics - finding out how 'Mass' is created -

Catholics have 'Mass' too - boom boom.

However, I think you are mistaken when you think that Christians think that it's 'evidence' of any sort either for or against (perhaps Deepak might be doing a jig, or victory dance, somewhere abouts though ) - all it is, is really, well informative I guess to the world of theoretical physics to witness the footprint of Higgs, it means they aren't barking up the wrong tree, however the benefits of that knowledge are a while off to better understanding - It is quite 'elegant' however - very elegant.

Other than that, I guess we can move on in our very weird but entirely elegant Universe.

dvae

probably on the wrong forum, but since we are all discussing this here, could somebody give a good analogy (as if explaining to a child) on this higs boson particle, for me and all the other gob****es.

Gumbi

Onesimus, you're embarrassing yourself. You've just demonstrated that you have no idea what science is nor how it works.

Snappy Smurf, you think it's a force. Really? I mean wtf?

Elysian

dvae wrote: »

probably on the wrong forum, but since we are all discussing this here, could somebody give a good analogy (as if explaining to a child) on this higs boson particle, for me and all the other gob****es.

This video explains it pretty well http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2012/jul/03/what-is-a-higgs-boson-video

Cossax

dvae wrote: »

probably on the wrong forum, but since we are all discussing this here, could somebody give a good analogy (as if explaining to a child) on this higs boson particle, for me and all the other gob****es.

From Wiki:

The existence of the Higgs boson and the associated Higgs field explain why the other elementary particles in the standard model have mass. In this theory, the Higgs field has a non-zero field everywhere, even in its lowest energy state. Other elementary particles obtain an effective mass through the continuous interaction with this field. The Higgs field interaction is the simplest mechanism which explains why elementary particles have mass.

I have no idea beyond what I've heard/read in the media but that seems to be the layman's explanation - without particles having mass the universe as we know it would be very different.

Snappy Smurf

Zillah wrote: »

It is always a fascinating sight to see people who don't understand science drawing conclusions about scientific matters.

I'm a trained biologist.

Gumbi wrote: »

Onesimus, you're embarrassing yourself. You've just demonstrated that you have no idea what science is nor how it works.

Snappy Smurf, you think it's a force. Really? I mean wtf?

I reject their claim that the HB gives other particles mass. They have mass by their very being particles. That's my take on it anyway.

I think this is just a lot of fuss about nothing.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

No, it means they are people of suspicion. They have found something that looks like a Higgs Boson, acts like a Higgs Boson, and in a window of particle energy where there isn't anything else we know it could be. But let's check again, just to be sure.

If only there was such conscientiousness in other disciplines.

My understanding is that they have discovered a particle with a mass of 125GeV, which is not quite the same as stating that they have discovered the Higgs boson. There are still other properties to be measured apart from mass and only time will tell if these match the theoretical predictions.

Gumbi

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Zillah wrote: »

It is always a fascinating sight to see people who don't understand science drawing conclusions about scientific matters.

I'm a trained biologist.

Gumbi wrote: »

Onesimus, you're embarrassing yourself. You've just demonstrated that you have no idea what science is nor how it works.

Snappy Smurf, you think it's a force. Really? I mean wtf?

I reject their claim that the HB gives other particles mass. They have mass by their very being particles. That's my take on it anyway.

I think this is just a lot of fuss about nothing.

Couple of things:

Massless particles exist. Also, how do you get from "I don't think it's particle" to "it's a force" to "I don't think it gives mass to other particles 'cos it has mass itself (thought it was a force??)"?

lmaopml

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My understanding is that they have discovered a particle with a mass of 125GeV, which is not quite the same as stating that they have discovered the Higgs boson. There are still other properties to be measured apart from mass and only time will tell if these match the theoretical predictions.

True. But the discoveries and predictions are not meant to be part of a 'religious' debate - it's about discovery and enquiry..it's not in the least anything got to do with religion at all for or against in the minds of most; because it's only a glimpse - a costly one - but I guess necessary.

The math is beautiful.

Snappy Smurf

Gumbi wrote: »

Couple of things:

Massless particles exist. Also, how do you get from "I don't think it's particle" to "it's a force" to "I don't think it gives mass to other particles 'cos it has mass itself (thought it was a force??)"?

Read what I wrote, real slow. Your error of interpretation of what I wrote is highlighted in bold.

Gumbi

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Couple of things:

Massless particles exist. Also, how do you get from "I don't think it's particle" to "it's a force" to "I don't think it gives mass to other particles 'cos it has mass itself (thought it was a force??)"?

Read what I wrote, real slow. Your error of interpretation of what I wrote is highlighted in bold.

You've been quoted saying all those things. I'm not seeing the issue.

Corkfeen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I'm a trained biologist.



I reject their claim that the HB gives other particles mass. They have mass by their very being particles. That's my take on it anyway.

I think this is just a lot of fuss about nothing.

So what knowledge of particle physics do you have to make the claim that it's a fuss about nothing.... Since your a biologist, I assume you don't have extensive training in the field of physics to make such a claim unless you have a reliable source to actually back you up. I'm doubting that you do.

Extinction

You reject their claim? You obviously must have been studying this yourself. Why have we had such a one sided story and why have we not heard about your research? This is an outrage, another atheist conspiracy to deny the existance of god, stand up for yourself and publish the results of your research :rolleyes:

Zillah

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I'm a trained biologist.

The very fact that you think this entitles you to have your own "take" on a question in particle physics (which the world's best physicists required a seven billion euro facility to begin exploring) shows how fundamentally you misunderstand the scientific method.

It's not like theology where everyone is just making it up as they go along - with science you actually have to conform to reality.

El_Duderino 09

Onesimus wrote: »

But they have not actually found it yet. Which would lead us to believe that scientists are not just about finding evidence, they are men of faith too.

They have not found it and are not totally sure it exists which is exactly what the scientists involved say every time they speak about it but is rarely included in the retelling by people and the news.

They have found evidence in favor of the HB but they are not sure. They have doubt NOT faith.

georgieporgy

lmaopml wrote: »

True. But the discoveries and predictions are not meant to be part of a 'religious' debate - it's about discovery and enquiry..it's not in the least anything got to do with religion at all for or against in the minds of most; because it's only a glimpse - a costly one - but I guess necessary.

The math is beautiful.

Those scientists don't seem to mind spending money to feed their egos. Shouldn't they have,er... spent the money feeding the poor? :rolleyes:

Alan70

"er..."

A beautiful mind.

Fanny Cradock

What has any of this got to do with Christianity? If the word "God" wasn't stuck onto the front then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Corkfeen

georgieporgy wrote: »

lmaopml wrote: »

True. But the discoveries and predictions are not meant to be part of a 'religious' debate - it's about discovery and enquiry..it's not in the least anything got to do with religion at all for or against in the minds of most; because it's only a glimpse - a costly one - but I guess necessary.

The math is beautiful.

Those scientists don't seem to mind spending money to feed their egos. Shouldn't they have,er... spent the money feeding the poor? :rolleyes:

Spinoff technologies from CERN and other groups including NASA tend to have significant impacts upon all fields including medical. So everybody has tended to benefit to a degree.So, not simply feeding their egos. We do benefit from the improvement of our scientific knowledge and it may cost more now due to the point we're at in science but the benefits outweigh the cost. Unless you think the internet, pacemakers, insulin pumps etc aren't worth it......

georgieporgy

Corkfeen wrote: »

Spinoff technologies from CERN and other groups including NASA tend to have significant impacts upon all fields including medical. So everybody has tended to benefit to a degree.So, not simply feeding their egos. We do benefit from the improvement of our scientific knowledge and it may cost more now due to the point we're at in science but the benefits outweigh the cost. Unless you think the internet, pacemakers, insulin pumps etc aren't worth it......

I agree entirely. My comment was a tongue in cheek remark which I thought contrasted nicely with frequent calls for the vatican to sell its art collection and give the proceeds to the poor.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What has any of this got to do with Christianity? If the word "God" wasn't stuck onto the front then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I blame the Daily Mail and their pseudo-scientific articles.

In other news, 'boffins' say that eating butter causes cancer ..... or was that not eating butter?

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My understanding is that they have discovered a particle with a mass of 125GeV, which is not quite the same as stating that they have discovered the Higgs boson. There are still other properties to be measured apart from mass and only time will tell if these match the theoretical predictions.

Electron volts are a measure of energy, not mass. If you want to talk about mass, you need to use units of eV/c squared (can't make superscript?). Pedantic but, hey, it's who I am!

Regardless, there are several properties mapped for this particle that match the predictions of the Higgs Boson, not least its energy signature and the manner of its creation (both correspond to the Standard Model). It is, by definition, the Higgs Boson.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

Electron volts are a measure of energy, not mass. If you want to talk about mass, you need to use units of eV/c squared (can't make superscript?).

Regardless, there are several properties mapped for this particle that match the predictions of the Higgs Boson, not least its energy signature and the manner of its creation (both correspond to the Standard Model). It is, by definition, the Higgs Boson.

I'm using the units of measurement given out by CERN themselves.
"Both experiments observe a new particle in the mass region around 125-126 GeV".

And whatever has been discovered has not yet been confirmed as the Higgs boson. What was discovered matches a mass prediction, which is not the same as saying that they have definitely found the Higgs boson. And that is why the official press release is entitled CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson. It's also why in the same release they state that more work is required to analyse the findings and compare them with other theoretical predictions.

Let's be clear. I'm not saying that they have not found the Higgs boson (though I guess it could be a different particle with similar properties to the Higgs boson). What I'm saying is that you are jumping the gun when you are claiming at this very point that they have.

doctoremma

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I'm a trained biologist.

Is this the area you're trying to get a job in?

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I reject their claim that the HB gives other particles mass. They have mass by their very being particles. That's my take on it anyway.

Sure, and things are coloured red just because they're red, yeah? Nothing to do with the physics, chemistry and biology of light, retina and brain? They're just red, job done?

Mass is a property conferred on a particle. What causes subatomic particles to act as if they have mass? That's the question under investigation and if you don't even see the question, it really isn't for you to reach conclusions.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I think this is just a lot of fuss about nothing.

I'm sure Peter Higgs will bear that in mind as he prepares his Nobel acceptance speech.

tommy2bad

In physics you have two significant concept - fields and particles. A field is something that is spread out and affects all sorts of things - e.g. "magnetic field" or "gravitational field". Particles are packets of mass/energy. One of the profound insights that built the Standard model is that fields and particles are not separate - the effect of a field is afected by particles, the effect of particles behaves like a field. The Higgs field, afected by the Higgs boson, is the theoretical explanation for mass - like a viscous liquid that 'drags' on particles with massive particles being 'dragged' more, except that the 'drag' isn't related to motion. rough analogy but it sorta describes it.

If the Standard Model holds and if we find the corresponding Higgs (rather than say supersymmetry and the Higgs belonging to that), then a massive so-called "fine tuning problem" arises. The universe as we find it would be incredibly unlikely, in the sense that some parameters would have to have very precise values or otherwise the world would not be as it is. Certainly one can understand that a omnipotent and omniscient Designer could adjust all of the universe's settings to highly specific values. And alternate explanations rely on unobserved entities in a way that one can consider at least as "fantastic", e.g., the idea that there is an infinite number of universes co-existing, that cover all possibilities, of which we happen to inhabit the one which allows us to come into being.
However this is a sort of magical thinking, along the lines of rolling a dice 10 times and getting 6 every time, the gambler's fallacy being that the next role must be a five or four or anything but six. No such condition exists six is as likely as two but we attach significance to a run of 6's that isn't merited in a universe that is ruled by chance.
I know the chances of a universe that alows for 'life as we know it' is statically astronomical but it's also a certainty as here we are.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's be clear. I'm not saying that they have not found the Higgs boson (though I guess it could be a different particle with similar properties to the Higgs boson). What I'm saying is that you are jumping the gun when you are claiming at this very point that they have.

Sure. My first two posts here are a far more measured reality of what I think! It looks like a Higgs Boson, it's made under the conditions we predict for a Higgs Boson, let's see if it walks the walk.

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

In physics you have two significant concept - fields and particles. A field is something that is spread out and affects all sorts of things - e.g. "magnetic field" or "gravitational field". Particles are packets of mass/energy. One of the profound insights that built the Standard model is that fields and particles are not separate - the effect of a field is afected by particles, the effect of particles behaves like a field. The Higgs field, afected by the Higgs boson, is the theoretical explanation for mass - like a viscous liquid that 'drags' on particles with massive particles being 'dragged' more, except that the 'drag' isn't related to motion. rough analogy but it sorta describes it.

If the Standard Model holds and if we find the corresponding Higgs (rather than say supersymmetry and the Higgs belonging to that), then a massive so-called "fine tuning problem" arises. The universe as we find it would be incredibly unlikely, in the sense that some parameters would have to have very precise values or otherwise the world would not be as it is. Certainly one can understand that a omnipotent and omniscient Designer could adjust all of the universe's settings to highly specific values. And alternate explanations rely on unobserved entities in a way that one can consider at least as "fantastic", e.g., the idea that there is an infinite number of universes co-existing, that cover all possibilities, of which we happen to inhabit the one which allows us to come into being.
However this is a sort of magical thinking, along the lines of rolling a dice 10 times and getting 6 every time, the gambler's fallacy being that the next role must be a five or four or anything but six. No such condition exists six is as likely as two but we attach significance to a run of 6's that isn't merited in a universe that is ruled by chance.
I know the chances of a universe that alows for 'life as we know it' is statically astronomical but it's also a certainty as here we are.

Been on SoF lately?

:P

Zillah

georgieporgy wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

Spinoff technologies from CERN and other groups including NASA tend to have significant impacts upon all fields including medical. So everybody has tended to benefit to a degree.So, not simply feeding their egos. We do benefit from the improvement of our scientific knowledge and it may cost more now due to the point we're at in science but the benefits outweigh the cost. Unless you think the internet, pacemakers, insulin pumps etc aren't worth it......

I agree entirely. My comment was a tongue in cheek remark which I thought contrasted nicely with frequent calls for the vatican to sell its art collection and give the proceeds to the poor.

1 - Scientists don't choose funding, politicians do.
2 - Scientists don't claim to be the moral authority on the planet.
3 - The Vatican's vast treasure hoard doesn't add anything to humanity's knowledge or understanding.
4 - Scientists doing science isn't hypocritical, priests hoarding material wealth is.

Ergo, the Vatican should sell their treasure and use it for the poor. After all, did Jesus himself not say that rich people don't go to heaven?

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

After all, did Jesus himself not say that rich people don't go to heaven?

No.

opinion guy

PDN wrote: »

I blame the Daily Mail and their pseudo-scientific articles.

In other news, 'boffins' say that eating butter causes cancer ..... or was that not eating butter?

The frist couple of minutes of this shoudl entertain:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

AtomicHorror

The God particle name is much regretted- the amount of confusion it has caused is very unfortunate. It also means that every discussion about it gets derailed into a religious debate. Inevitably it should cause some religious debate, but it seems like every single mainstream discussion. It's a shame.

PDN wrote: »

I blame the Daily Mail and their pseudo-scientific articles.

In other news, 'boffins' say that eating butter causes cancer ..... or was that not eating butter?

Yeah, that's one of my pet hates! It hasn't been updated in quite some time but this might amuse you:

http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/

Everything either causes or cures cancer, sometimes both... no wonder people think scientists just make stuff up.

Doc Farrell

Zillah wrote: »

1

Ergo, the Vatican should sell their treasure and use it for the poor. After all, did Jesus himself not say that rich people don't go to heaven?

you might be surprised by the number of Christians who agree with you! I'm no big fan of gold objects but I prefer to see religious art in churches rather than in the vaults of insurance companies or hidden away in private collections.
Does the Catholic church hide their artworks? I think they tend to publically display them nowadays as the entrance fees pay for their upkeep? I was told that the Cathedral in Vienna costs 3 million a year to maintain. If it or Notre Dame in Paris were stripped of their interiors they would fall into ruin, no? A few people might prefer that but most citizens recognize their aesthetic beauty as well as their religious and historical value.
Most people who appreciate beauty in religious artwork also tend to donate time or money to charities.

georgieporgy

Zillah wrote: »

Ergo, the Vatican should sell their treasure and use it for the poor. After all, did Jesus himself not say that rich people don't go to heaven?

No he didn't say that. But he did say atheists don't go to heaven:D

lmaopml

georgieporgy wrote: »

No he didn't say that. But he did say atheists don't go to heaven:D

No he never said that specifically - But there have always been Atheists, just like there have always been human beings, in need of redemption.

He decides, and can make one stand or no, thank God that we don't decide anothers fate, I'd imagine we would be decidedly crap at it.

He reads the heart better than we do, and is a God of understanding, mercy and justice too. It's all his business.

Gumbi

lmaopml wrote: »

georgieporgy wrote: »

No he didn't say that. But he did say atheists don't go to heaven:D

No he never said that specifically - But there have always been Atheists, just like there have always been human beings, in need of redemption.

He decides, and can make one stand or no, thank God that we don't decide anothers fate, I'd imagine we would be decidedly crap at it.

He reads the heart better than we do, and is a God of understanding, mercy and justice too. It's all his business.

Do you mean heart in a metaphorical or literal sense here?

lmaopml

Gumbi wrote: »

Do you mean heart in a metaphorical or literal sense here?

No, I'm not talking about the 'pump' - and neither am I being metaphorical entirely. It's about what you love - it will bind you to it what you choose to love, be it yourself, or wealth, or pride, or humility etc.

When Christians speak about the heart they speak about what makes you 'tick', your true motives, and above all knowing for yourself what makes you tick too, if you don't know yourself than how can you be honest in anything?

There is nothing worse, and better, than meeting yourself, and what drives you, no matter how lovely you think you are or how valuable or full of knowledge, but there is a certain freedom about knowing how you are just another sinner, no matter how wealthy or how influential, or how poor and lonely. That's where you find Christ and family.

smokingman

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Read what I wrote, real slow. Your error of interpretation of what I wrote is highlighted in bold.

The boson is a particle with mass because it is being acted upon by the Higgs field just like every other particle. The boson is like a ripple (excitation) in an ocean (field) in that it effectively proves the Higgs field exists, but in itself, is not that important.

They were looking for the Higgs field so they kept throwing different size pebbles to see if there were any ripples. Simples.

Fanny Cradock

smokingman wrote: »

The boson is a particle with mass because it is being acted upon by the Higgs field just like every other particle.

What about photons and gluons? It is my understanding that they do not have mass.

equivariant

doctoremma wrote: »

Electron volts are a measure of energy, not mass. If you want to talk about mass, you need to use units of eV/c squared (can't make superscript?). Pedantic but, hey, it's who I am!

Regardless, there are several properties mapped for this particle that match the predictions of the Higgs Boson, not least its energy signature and the manner of its creation (both correspond to the Standard Model). It is, by definition, the Higgs Boson.

Electron volts are commonly used in particle physics as an unit of mass. This makes sense because of mass energy equivalence (Einstein's famous equation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt#Mass

Zillah

Well I'm sure you have some wonderful rationalisation as to why Jesus didn't actually mean what he explicitly states: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven".

MrStuffins

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Some ridiculously embarrassing posts in this thread!

I actually feel sorry for knowledgable Christians who come to their religious conclusions after research, examination of facts and who eliminate ignorance from their conclusions.

Because those whose beliefs are riddled with ignorance really ruin it for the rest IMO and undermine the opinions the others.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

Well I'm sure you have some wonderful rationalisation as to why Jesus didn't actually mean what he explicitly states: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven".

No "rationalisation" is required because we actually read what was written. Have you, I wonder? I ask because in the verse proceeding the one you first quoted Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:23). This is not the same as saying that "rich people don't go to heaven", which is what you claimed Jesus said.

I personally know of no Christian denomination that shares your interpretation that Jesus had a message no deeper that how many talents you should have rattling around in your purse if you wanted to see God. The verse is about priorities - possessions taking primacy over God - and perceived self-sufficiency - "I don't need your god because I've got all this stuff to keep me safe and secure".