• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Communist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          i don’t assume the vast majority of astrophysics is true

          neither do astrophysicists

            • Communist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              be·lief noun

              1. 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

                • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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?

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

                    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.

                • Communist@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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?

                  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    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?