Because this experiment aims to find what happened at the big bang it could be that this experiment proves that the book of genesis in the bible is false, throwing the rest of the old testament into questioning. This could lead to followers of other religions believeing that their religion is more substantial and therefore superior to Christianity.

There have been many scientific experiments and theories that have already cast doubt on the Abrahamic creation story, and none have so far sparked religious wars. Furthermore, if it 'disproved' the Book of Genesis, it would also 'disprove' other creation stories found in other religions - not simply that of Christianity (which isn't unique to that religion, of course).

Secondly, the creation story in the Bible and other holy books can also be interpreted as metaphorical. Simply proving the Big Bang happened doesn't disprove God - who is to say that God did not cause it to happen?

There are many commentators on the Bible (1000-1400) that argued the first seven days of creation were a different type of time that we experaince in every day life. Therefore the earth could be much older then 5000-6000 years.

There also many commentors form the same time period that suggest that the big bang happened. (Not in the same way as expalined nowadays but the same principles). Also there is a greek word (nowadays known as the atom) that is also mentioned by commentators that it was used by G-d in creating the world.

Clearly This experiement is important to the human race as it could allow us to see how everthing we know and see was created. It could also allow us to see what could happen in the future because the LHC is just a really small speeded up version of what the universe is continually doing in a very large long process of expanding and contracting.

Do we need to know this information though? is it important? as discussed earlier it could spell the beginning of many wars and also crush many peoples beliefs, do a select few have the right to do that?

Black holes and quark stars have, for obvious reasons, never been fully studied in detail because we can't, all we can do is produce theories about them. Quark stars in the theories created could potentially be VERY dangerous, they use forces to become all consuming, this means that a quark star could potentially consume atom after atom, Imagine a snowball thats rolling down a hill, it picks up more snow and gets bigger, a quark star could be rather like that, but instead of picking up snow, its picks up atoms, which is effectively everything! Scientists have however calcualted the risk to be VERY minimal, and the governing body has agreed that the risk posed is tiny and so the experiment has been given the green light.

The potential of the collider creating a black hole which would destroy the planet is not minimal: it is zero.

As explained by Professor Stephen Hawking in a recent BBC interview, the kind of event that is being created within the collider actually occurs all the time within Earth's atmosphere: with no adverse effects. Despite a 1% chance of a "black hole" actually being created (and note that this would not be a black hole on the scale of those found at the centre of galaxies), there is no potential harm from conducting the experiment, as as all the matter and energy produced from the collision would immediately dissipate.

And... Who cares if we are all trace of the human race is removed from existence? No one is going to be around to care...

It has also been claimed by a few scientists that the experiment could also be used by future intelligence (people years from now, not aliens!) as a time machine, This is due to the possible opening of dimensions (it is believed that there are more dimensions than the 3D we see but the extra dimensions are so small we cant see them, please google 'string theory' to find out more) and its believed the LHC (the experiment) could make these dimensions visible and we could in the future, in theory, use them. Is this a good thing the human race can play with time?

There is going to be huge changes no matter what happens. If the Experiment works, the world will change religion. If the worst happens, A black hole, Were pretty much screwed.

The LHC experiment costs £4.4 billion.(1) Valuable resources should not be spent on researching the creation of the universe, but rather on preserving the universe and humanity. Scientific research should, for example, focus on finding cures for terminal illnesses and on protecting the environment. Other costly experiments must defer to this type of research, particularly those which could have potentially devastating effects for the whole of humanity, as the LHC experiment might.

References: (1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/11/scicern311.xml

Scientists at CERN have not embarked on this venture with a specific practical use for the LHC in mind, but rather with the hope of proving certain scientific theories.(1) However if there is a possibility that the experiment could destroy the world, surely nothing short of a foreseeable and useful practical application of the experiment could justify it.(2)

References: (1) http://www.lhc.ac.uk/about-the-lhc/who-benefits.html (2) http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2008/04/three-arguments.html

The potential findings of the LHC experiment are significant. It could test the Big Bang theory and uncover new facts about matter and new dimensions of the universe that we are currently unaware of.(1) It could find the Higgs boson or the ‘God particle’ – a theoretical particle that could explain why matter has mass.(2) A better understanding of the physical world will no doubt play an important role in future research. One should also acknowledge that the world wide web was invented at CERN, as a means of supporting documentation needed for CERN operations.(3) This illustrates how scientific ventures can indirectly pave the way for new technology. There is even a possibility that the LHC could unlock the secret to time travel.(4) These possibilities make the experiment worth it.

References: (1) http://www.lhc.ac.uk/the-big-questions.html (2) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/10/lhc.collider/index.html (3)http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/11/computing.research (4) http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/07/large-hadron-collider-could-create-wormholes-a-gateway-for-time-travelers/

The experiment is unethical, as no one has the right to conduct experiments that might destroy present and future humanity.

EDIT: This is in the wrong column. And it's completely ludicrous. If anyone actually administrates these forums, They should delete this and make a new 'yes' point for the opposing argument.

Despite the speculation about the safety of the experiment, the chances of the LHC ending the universe are almost non-existent. Scientists at CERN have said that the likelihood of the LHC creating black holes is minuscule, and even if it could create them they would be so small that they would immediately disintegrate.(1) In fact, particle collisions occur in nature all the time. For example, naturally occurring cosmic ray collisions are much more energetic than those produced in the LHC, but have not endangered the planet.(2) The media has a tendency to exaggerate such risks in order to add colour to their stories and create public hysteria.

References:

(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/11/scicern311.xml (2) http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

The LHC is a milestone in international scientific co-operation and collaboration. It is something that all participating nations can justifiably be extremely proud of, as a major technological and engineering achievement. It is, perhaps, everything we had hoped the ISS would be.

Lessons learned, inter-disciplinary and inter-institutional relationships and networks formed in the process of building the collaboration and support networks necessary for a large international scientific project to come to fruition could lay the foundations for future large scale collaborations that could alter the way many scientific institutions (and indeed, academia in general) approach research projects, from the minor to the most ambitious.

It is next to impossible to anticipate changes in scientific knowledge. No amount of bickering and number-throwing is going to change that. We just don't know what we're going to find, and it's better that we try it in case it does hold answers than that we don't try it because it might not.

The scientific community acknowledges that it still has a very basic understanding of the universe's mechanics. At the moment, a number of different laws have been developed, which have been loosely collected into what is known as the "General Model". The majority of these laws, however, rely on the existence of as-of-yet undiscovered hypothetical particles, such as the Higgs or "God" particle, or on particles such as dark matter of which little is really known. Stephen Hawking, who has contributed more to this specific field in recent times than any other scientist, has acknowledged that the chances of actually discovering new particles is relatively low, and that the chances of this bringing about any significant leap in our understanding is even lower. When asked whether the experiment would potentially earn him a Nobel prize, he stated that if it produced the parameters he has predicted, that it would; but that the chances of any tangible result was less than 1%, and that as such he was not optimistic of his findings being supported.