Do you not believe in untested hypotheses or theorems? They are also made up without evidence.
The Big Bang itself has evidence, like the rapid expansion of the universe from the universal center in a state of decay toward entropy. According to the laws of physics, the masses that collided could not have spontaneously begun moving towards each other without force. Suggesting they began to move on their own without propulsion is just as made up as a creator pushing them.
I do not, why would I?
nobody asserts that, they assert that we don't know, which is accurate it is religion that asserts it happened through magic
So you don’t believe in any astrophysics? The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena.
Evidence exists for astrophysics
You may not understand science as well as you think you do. There is evidence that supports the theory, but it is untested until it is repeated in a controlled experiment. According to the scientific method, the vast majority of the field of astrophysics remains untested.
i don't assume the vast majority of astrophysics is true
neither do astrophysicists
I didn’t ask that. I asked if you believe in it. That’s all religion is; a belief.
be·lief
noun
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
\2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself"
I don't believe in anything without evidence and if I do I seek to correct that
belief without evidence is a failure of the mind
So you don’t believe any of the untested theories of astrophysics?
This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn't tested? And why do you think we do?
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they've failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?
I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events.
What events? I've never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven't been tested.
They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
If they're not proven then they're hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they're still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is.
We're not saying there is no god. We're saying we're not convinced there is a god.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. https://lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
No neither do astrophysicists, they think it might be true with healthy skepticism
or they have proven it true with observation, neither of which applies to religion
are you confident you're not the arrogant one?
I’m making no claims of the unknown, other than defending the possibility of something that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. You’re openly discrediting the beliefs of others through your own understanding. What sounds more arrogant to you?
I never denied the possibility, I denied we should believe in those things
it sounds incredibly arrogant to me to assume you know something without evidence
Arrogance comes into play when one person asserts their beliefs over another’s.
They weren’t stating that you should believe in god.
Do you not believe in untested hypotheses or theorems? They are also made up without evidence.
The Big Bang itself has evidence, like the rapid expansion of the universe from the universal center in a state of decay toward entropy. According to the laws of physics, the masses that collided could not have spontaneously begun moving towards each other without force. Suggesting they began to move on their own without propulsion is just as made up as a creator pushing them.
I do not, why would I?
nobody asserts that, they assert that we don't know, which is accurate it is religion that asserts it happened through magic
So you don’t believe in any astrophysics? The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena.
Evidence exists for astrophysics
You may not understand science as well as you think you do. There is evidence that supports the theory, but it is untested until it is repeated in a controlled experiment. According to the scientific method, the vast majority of the field of astrophysics remains untested.
i don't assume the vast majority of astrophysics is true
neither do astrophysicists
I didn’t ask that. I asked if you believe in it. That’s all religion is; a belief.
be·lief noun
"his belief in the value of hard work"
\2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself"
I don't believe in anything without evidence and if I do I seek to correct that
belief without evidence is a failure of the mind
So you don’t believe any of the untested theories of astrophysics?
This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn't tested? And why do you think we do?
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they've failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?
What events? I've never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven't been tested.
If they're not proven then they're hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they're still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.
We're not saying there is no god. We're saying we're not convinced there is a god.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. https://lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
No neither do astrophysicists, they think it might be true with healthy skepticism
or they have proven it true with observation, neither of which applies to religion
are you confident you're not the arrogant one?
I’m making no claims of the unknown, other than defending the possibility of something that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. You’re openly discrediting the beliefs of others through your own understanding. What sounds more arrogant to you?
I never denied the possibility, I denied we should believe in those things
it sounds incredibly arrogant to me to assume you know something without evidence
Arrogance comes into play when one person asserts their beliefs over another’s.
They weren’t stating that you should believe in god.
You were stating that they shouldn’t.