• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    God is a subjective concept. I’m not speaking to any one religion. I’m simply referring to a creator. Science is currently in agreement of the Big Bang beginning existence as we know it. It does not explain where the large masses of matter came from, or what set them in motion.

    Like I said, there’s room for both.

    • jas0n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s like you filled in those tiny gaps in our knowledge with the possibility of a god. It’s like a god… of… those gaps.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That doesn’t mean you should believe that there’s a god. It just means there scientifically could be a god. That is what Einstein said on the matter. He was a pretty smart guy, and rather unbiased in his opinion.

        Your hypothesis is that there is no god. I just provided you with two unexplainable events. According to the laws of physics, that matter could not have been created from nothing, nor could have it have generated motion from nothing. Until you can find more evidence, your hypothesis is unsupported.

        Who knows? Maybe the JWST will prove there was no creator. I’m scientific. I’ll accept a logical explanation as soon as we have one. Until then, I maintain the position that there there is equal possibility of existence and non-existence of a creator.

        • jas0n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, I refuse to believe in anything without empirical evidence of such. These are gaps in our current understanding of our reality. History has shown, there is a logical explanation for just about everything. Nothing… ever… literally… EVER… has pointed toward the existence of such a god…ever.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            That’s fair. I’m not arguing that there is a god. I’m only saying that there could be a god. I respect your choice to remain in disbelief of existence. I just hope you also see how science can prove the possibility of existence.

            • jas0n@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              =] I absolutely do. I would very much welcome the evidence of a god and eternal life that is entailed. It sounds wonderful.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Sure. Although, one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. It’s possible there was simply a being larger than our understanding that set things in motion and left, two beings that chose to collide, or giant aliens playing marbles like the end scene in Men in Black. lol

                I enjoy the room for theories more than following a committed belief system myself. If I had to define my belief, I’d say I’m a scientific agnostic omnitheist. There’s no proof there is, or isn’t, a god, therefore any and all paths could theoretically be the path to god, or nothing at all.

                Basically, I won’t pervert science just to shit in someone’s corn flakes. Lol

        • jas0n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Tiny gaps are subjective. Sure.

          god has been attributed to everything that science had no explanation for at the time. Earthquakes, weather events, cosmological events, etc. Now… the general theory has been relegated to one of the very few things that we don’t understand with near certainty. While I agree it’s not exactly a small gap, but I would argue, in the scale of all of science, microscopic is being generous.

          • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            All of current science. We won’t know what we don’t know until we know everything.

            We still burn dinosaur juice that is slowly suffocating us, we poison our fresh water and turn our oceans into plastic hellscapes.

            How far in our evolution and understanding do you think we are?

            • jas0n@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Hehe. I think me and you would disagree on a lot of things for sure. But I really like this take. =]

              • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Thanks, I appreciate it ☺️

                Don’t get me wrong. I side with science virtually 100% of the time, I just think there is understanding to be had in areas that we currently see as taboo.

                • jas0n@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  It reminded me of this quote from Max Planck (emphasis mine):

                  As I began my university studies I asked my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly for advice regarding the conditions and prospects of my chosen field of study. He described physics to me as a highly developed, nearly fully matured science, that through the crowning achievement of the discovery of the principle of conservation of energy it will arguably soon take its final stable form. It may yet keep going in one corner or another, scrutinizing or putting in order a jot here and a tittle there, but the system as a whole is secured, and theoretical physics is noticeably approaching its completion to the same degree as geometry did centuries ago. That was the view fifty years ago of a respected physicist at the time.

                  Basically, there isn’t much left to be discovered in physics, so don’t bother. (Good thing he didn’t follow that advice.) Then, Einstein comes along and is like… you know Newton’s “laws” of motion? I broke 'em. He also broke the aforementioned “law” of conservation of energy.

                  So, while we actually do understand the physics of the Big Bang until about the first few milliseconds (not much left to be discovered), we don’t know what we don’t know.