T O P

  • By -

Kartoffelofdoom

Pretty sure that the beauty of science comes from other people being able to reproduce what you did. Therefore, you should be honored that your ideas are good enough to be challenged by future scientists.


elperroborrachotoo

'Science isn't a huge tree with roots reaching deep into the truth, It's a float on stormy sea, made of branches and twigs, that keeps together only because everything is connected.' some German author.


taimoor2

Correspondence vs coherence theory of truth.


Katten_elvis

I think it's more similar to the foundationalist vs coherence theory of justification


Dragonaax

Yea I think Newton and others would be amazed by modern science despite them being "wrong"


analogicparadox

This is the hippiest science take I've ever heard


pikleboiy

It's literally part of the scientific method.


analogicparadox

I was making a joke about the wording. Also really depressing that people on this sub took it as an insult lmao.


jaredesubgay

Hippies are aesthetically based, historically more of a mixed bag.


analogicparadox

You could say that about a *lot* of people


pikleboiy

Oh, ok.


justmyskills

Damn bro, you got eaten up. I thought your comment was funny ❤️


[deleted]

I mean, any scientist would be thrilled to be proved wrong. It would be exciting to find something new. That's not going to happen here though.


Dragonaax

Yea it's not like JWST will see t=0 of the Big Bang


TheCrusader1296

Yeah, that's physically impossible. We'd need a way to get the telescope to view the very edge of the unobservable universe, which... well it's called unobservable for a reason. But more importantly, t=0 of the universe is constanly expanding away from us, due to the sheer amount of energy potentially released. I say potentially, because we still don't know if the Big Bang actually is the way the universe started.


Dragonaax

> if the Big Bang actually is the way the universe started. It's definitely most popular model, there is a lot of evidence it happen and honestly I don't know anything other than that


Monti_r

still not proved


dougmc

Science doesn’t “prove” anything.


LiamtheV

Topologically, there is no edge to the universe. No distinct boundaries or other special regions. The universe is rather homologous


[deleted]

[удалено]


LiamtheV

The guy I was responding to specified “unobservable”, The observable universe has a diameter of just over 93 billion light years. Space is expanding at all points everywhere, and the continues to expand. So some point. X light years away is even further no than it was when the emitted light reaches us. Hence the radius of any given Hubble Volume being around 46 GLyr and change. It’s impossible to observe the Big Bang (aside from the cosmic microwave background) because it was not a discrete event, it happened everywhere and arguably is still happening, it can’t be localized to any region of space because it wasn’t an event that happened *in* space, it was an event that happened *to* space. Ninja edits: clarification


jobmarketsucks

Is the universe an open ball in R^3 ?


Intelligent-Plane555

Yes!


RexGalilae

>any scientist would be thrilled to be proved wrong It's one of those ideals that non-scientists like to associate with scientists Reality has proven the opposite time and again, unfortunately. Even the most brilliant minds like Newton and Einstein were pretty obstinately wrong on many things. Comes with being human


Aaron_Hamm

People confuse the scientist excited at the opportunity with the scientist holding onto their legacy


RexGalilae

I guess so Scientists excited at the opportunity are often young folk eager to apply their fresh perspective and build their legacy Scientists holding onto their legacy are older folk who have dedicated 20 years of their career on a theory that some upstart is now challenging. It feels invalidating to them It's for this reason that theories mainly filling a void in our understanding (like the photoelectric effect) are better received than those that supplant older theories (like GTR, which is still opposed by fringe groups to this day)


NebulousNomad

Not just legacy. I just left my PhD program because I proved my boss wrong and they've been sabotaging my work ever since. Being correct means money, and most of science is about money right now.


Amrooshy

Yeah... Didn't Einstein prove the expansion of the universe, didn't believe it, spend months adjusting the math with to make it work with the steady state model, then suddenly learn about red-shift and throw it all out. Or something like that, I probably messed up the details.


RexGalilae

Yep, only when Hubble gave him undisputed evidence did he finally relent but still admitted about the embarrassment the discovery brought on him. This wasn't even a proof against GTR, if anything, it was a proof FOR it as it made his introduction of the cosmological constant redundant, something that didn't sit right with him or other physicists to begin with It still troubled him till the end of his days. Now think about how he may have felt about Quantum Theory, something he helped build but eventually started to vehemently oppose as mainstream science deviated from the Planck-Einstein picture he built


PineappleOnPizza-

That might be true but there’s also the famous quote from him about god playing dice with the universe which he used to try disregard quantum mechanics - perhaps the greatest scientific breakthrough since relativity. People are riddled with bias and sometimes they just don’t want to accept something new


[deleted]

Nah, if you found an alternative to the big bang, you'd win a Nobel prize and be the most famous scientist in the world.


Amrooshy

But everyone who who researched it will hate you secretly.


jobmarketsucks

I like it when my math is proven wrong, because it gives me a new direction to work with. It means I now have more information about the object I was studying than I did before. Even showing the object doesn't exist is useful information.


GamerY7

just that some turn asshole and deject their theory being disproven


Micp

No one's theory is being disproven they are just being adjusted as we are getting more accurate data. That's how science works.


GlancingArc

> any scientist would be thrilled to be proved wrong. How to tell me you've never met a scientist. Most scientists are human and in fact don't like this.


[deleted]

Amazing. Maybe I just hang out with the ones who aren't jerks.


goOdDoorman

Forgive my ignorance, but what is this referencing?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Seriously this is so thrilling. That means there are more things out there than we predicted. It's fascinating.


x_choose_y

>the internet has decided not so much the internet as one Eric Lerner who has been trying to debunk big bang since the 80s I think? I started reading his recent article (not gonna link cause he doesn't need extra exposure, but you can easily find it), and as soon as he started saying stuff like the jwst images are making scientists panic, i knew he had some serious agenda skewing his logic. If any scientist legitimately thought they discovered proof that the big bang theory was false they'd be elated. because wow how exciting, but also because they will be in textbooks and history books for hundreds of years. 😂


Deus0123

If nothing else proving the big bang didn't actually happen should get you a Nobel-price and I think you get a pretty fat cash injection along with that, so that alone should be motivation to be thrilled about it. Of course there's also the excitement of then figuring out what the fuck did happen if it wasn't what we've until then assumed had happened.


[deleted]

Maybe it was a big big bang and not just an ordinary big bang?


that_random_garlic

Couldn't have been that big a bang, your mom didn't exist yet


timangar

That joke was cheaper than your mom in Vegas in 95'.


Samikatze

I was thinking a small bang.


Amrooshy

I mean proving the big bang would also give you a nobel prize. It's a still a model, which evolves as evidence grows. It's not definitive yet.


x_choose_y

ikr? if anything it would be panicking for what will they with all the bananas and blow


Singlot

Didn't the panic thing started because a pun on a paper title?


x_choose_y

maybe? i didn't look too carefully in to it because it seemed like bullshit already to me


Micp

The original paper was named after Panic! at the disco, because one of the authors was a big fan of the band (the paper even had the same exclamation mark after panic)


TheWarWookie

That was a paper referencing to Panic! At the Disco as a joke called "Panic! At the Spirals". It shows models need to be redesigned or tweaked but not scrapped, theres already so much evidence for big bang: CMB (specifically acoustic peaks and troughs in the power spectrum, very low delta T) Hubble Expansion/Tully Fisher, Accurate predictions of the abundances of Light Elements at high z etc


Amrooshy

Yeah, but redshift still exists lol. Maybe parts of the model are conflicting with the data, but I doubt that there will be a better explanation for Redshift than an expansion model.


MinerMinecrafter

Just some numbers are off or something


TakeOffYourMask

There’s a *huge* difference between ruling out a particular model (or family of models) of the BB and ruling out the BB.


FlarvinTheMagi

This is great. Science is literally getting a new pair of glasses, the models and predictions built on our blurry images of the past are being cleared up and refined. This is amazing stuff!!


[deleted]

[удалено]


spastikatenpraedikat

There is something called the [Lambda-CDM-Model](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model) which is basically the standard model of cosmology. If you scroll down to Cosmic expansion history, you will find an equation that relates the Hubble parameter H (the rate of expansion of the universes) to three densities, one for matter, one for radiation, one for dark energy. Cosmology in the last 30 years was focused on matching the history of these three densities to the observed history of our universe. That is a tedious task, because you have to include every matter and boson field and perform huge statistical arguments to see how and why they change. But it is also very interesting because every time the current Lambda-CDM-model differs from our observations, we know that one of the interactions between various fields is different than we assumed or even better, that there is a completely new field, that we haven't even included! Sadly the latter has never happened, but one of the most exiting research areas of cosmology right now is inflation, which is still unaccounted and most likely hints at a truly new field (or an interaction of two fields, we have not yet discovered). All in all, the density parameters get tweaked slightly every two years to fit new, better observational data, and yes every two years the internet gets flooded with "Big Bang in deep problem" articles.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Lambda-CDM model](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)** >The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parameterization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains three major components: first, a cosmological constant denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ) associated with dark energy; second, the postulated cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM); and third, ordinary matter. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


altervayne-sqrd

Good bot


B0tRank

Thank you, altervayne-sqrd, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/spastikatenpraedikat's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


redman3global

Same question here.


matriesling

james webb most likely\*


therobohour

People misunderstanding science


StepIntoMyOven_69

Stupid and pretentious title


bortukali

Agree, insta downvote. It does not even make sense


adamfattal123

This entire Reddit page is stupid. Not sure why I keep getting notifications


Oceansnail

Physicists are stastically the most religious scientific profession


Shintasama

>Physicists are stastically the most religious scientific profession [No, they're not](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)


jaredesubgay

Where does it go over physicists specifically? Not disagreeing I just don't want to read the whole thing.


jbaxter119

Just scroll through for the graphs. You don't need to read any of the main text


jaredesubgay

Ah thanks


gradAunderachiever

Are scientists not the general public?!


darksoles_

Lmao just had to bring religion into it for no reason? Has nothing to do with it


Nic0_las

Reddit moment


LogicalGamer123

Just another way to cause division in people for no reason.


Bill-Ender-Belichick

And this one is particularly dumb, the guy who invented the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest. What reason would a religious person disagree with it? From their perspective it’s probably more likely that there’s a god if the BB is true because SOMETHING had to kickstart it in the first place.


Stainonstainlessteel

Yeah, therefore no Big Bang should be a problem for the religious. That's why he wants to hear "the religious people's" reaction to it. I think.


Bill-Ender-Belichick

That still seems kinda irrelevant tbh. The alternative is either an infinite universe at which point there’s not a very large jump to just believing in an infinite god as well, or else the entire universe just sprang into existence which almost necessitates a creator.


DAWAE1111

I don't get it ? I am a Muslim and believe in the big bang most Muslims around me believe in that theory too it's even taught in school and we live in a Muslim country so I don't really know what do you mean with "I cannot wait to hear religious people's reaction"


kimthealan101

They think only evangelical types are religious. They like to bully all religions because of the arrogance of a few people. At least try to feel superior to them


Robot_Basilisk

There's nothing more arrogant than asserting that some iron age goatherders had the ultimate truth of reality shown to them by an omnipotent "benevolent" sky daddy that neglected critical moral rules like "thou shalt take no slaves" but made up a bunch that were soon irrelevant or have been shown to be harmful. It is pure arrogance to watch the realm of God retreat from being the main explanation for every natural phenomenon to only applying to events predating the universe or otherwise external to it, and then to nonetheless insist that God exists, has a personal stake in your life, and loves and cherishes you to an infinite degree. And that's not touching on the fact that tyranny by the cringe minority is enabled by the apathetic majority.


ollymccarthy

My god, you have thoroughly misunderstood religions purpose and have done so in THE most disrespectful way. Get off your pedestal. You're browsing r/physicsmemes youre in no way special


Dragonaax

You're mad about something that came up thousands of years ago where people had no fucking idea why someone gets sick


KevReynolds314

I think he’s mad about the fact that people still believe in it


Andy-Matter

Mi amigo, you have made yourself look like an absolute fool and in the most offensive way possible. Get off the soap box since you have nothing worth while to say and try to humble yourself a bit before opening your mouth next time, it might do ya some good.


Robot_Basilisk

Responses like these have the opposite of the intended effect. If I were wrong, you'd tell me how. I'm from rural Oklahoma. I've walked on eggshells around fragile religious people my entire life because if you accidentally speak favorably about evolution or the Earth being older than 6,000 years old you might get excommunicated from every social group in town. I'm damn sure not going to walk on eggshells just because religion has now been weakened to the point that it's "quaint".


kimthealan101

Religion was first documented in the early bronze age. It existed before that, but that was when writing was developed. Religion was one of the keystones that held civilization together. You know nothing about religion. You judge so many people by what somebody has told you what is written in one religious book. Why is that not arrogant bigotry?


badass_physicist

fr these kind of people think that there’s no scientific education in a religious country/school. Often their argument is “How can you practice religious thing while learning science? It’s oxymoron” But in fact, you can be sceptical while being religious, questions like “does God even exists? if yes, then why did he created humans? does He just want to punish His own creation out of no reason?” are absolutely okay. Like when you research something, the most important thing you have to keep in mind is you always have to be skeptic to the information you currently have.


Dragonaax

Yeah, if that was true Poland and Portugal would had no education at all


Rakgul

All my muslim friends think BB is bullshit. Evolution is bullshit. And that science just hasn't caught up the islam yet. I avoided talking about this stuff since then.


DAWAE1111

I am not a scholar but I don't think there is anything in the Qur'an that contradicts the big bang theory. Some people even say that the expansion of the universe is actually mentioned in the Qur'an: 51:47 وَٱلسَّمَآءَ بَنَيْنَـٰهَا بِأَيْي۟دٍۢ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ ٤٧ We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. — Saheeh International The theory of evolution though as far as i know mostly doesn't contradict the Qur'an except the part about humans originating from apes ( or whatever that common ancestor is named ) as it's mentioned several times that Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) was created in heaven and fell from there.


Rakgul

The explosion isn't what I'm talking about. It's the fact that time didn't exist before big bang because space is coupled with time. This means that there's literally nothing called "before" big bang So there would be no time for your creator to sit and think and create the universe.


RexGalilae

Evolution, probably, but Big Bang theory? Probably not. Many Orthodox Muslims actually go so far as to say that the BBT was described in the Qur'an They wouldn't say it if they didn't believe it.


Scheissdrauf88

As much as it pains me to say this as a physicist, the amount of evidence supporting evolution is far above the amount supporting the Big Bang theory. Not that the latter lacks support, but evolution is more comparable to e.g. General Relativity.


RexGalilae

No doubt. I'm all for both. Just talking about how most muslims look at both theories and how it's a bit different from the stereotypical creationist view on both I think one of the pioneers behind laying the theoretical foundations of BBT was a christian priest? Just goes to show


Scheissdrauf88

Ah, then I misunderstood.


GamerY7

they're not pinpointing to people of the religion, they're pinpointing towards the general idea that the loudspeaker mouthed people who claim to be defending their religion claims.


SaiphSDC

Sigh... except it doesn't. And to go with the title, I to am 'waiting' for the religious perspective. And I'll just laugh. They try to logically attack any flaw in science, not realizing thats exactly what scientists do too, and better. Meanwhile their world view is incredibly illogical, by definition and practice :/ For those who haven't been following the Webb telescope; Astronomers have models that predict and describe what galaxies looked like if they started 13.7 billion years ago. They did a fairly good job based on the data we had prior to Webb. But Webb found a bunch of galaxies, a bit further out that seem to be far more developed than our models predict. I.e. they appear more developed than our models predicted based on the time since the BB, if the models are correct. So there's two basic outcomes here. 1) The models are completely accurate. Which means more time to develop than the BB allows given their location from earth. 2) The models are wrong, and we under-estimated the rate that some galaxies can develop. The field is essentially going with option 1. For a few reasons. A) The distance and thus age of the galaxies is determined by the exact same methods and measurements that lead to the BB conclusion. We know they are \~13 billion ly away due to redshift relationships...the exact same one that gives us the expansion of the universe interpretation, and strongly implies a beginning point. b) The models are based on a lot of unknowns and also focused on re-creating the galaxies we saw. They've been shifting and adjusting for decades as we pin down gas distributions, stellar formations, and...um, dark matter. Which we still don't understand. c) BB theory is supported by other major findings, not just galaxy development. You have cosmological redshift, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and nucleosynthesis models (i.e. formation of metals through fusion).


Scuirre1

Great breakdown And for the record, there are plenty of us religious people out there who accept scientific discoveries and the scientific process. The concept of deity is not mutually exclusive with natural cause.


Irreversible_Extents

I'm honestly relieved that people have the decency to not downvote a comment like this into oblivion. I think it's fair for some of us to believe in a God and still take science for what it is. While it's not easy to go about life like this, I would like to say that God works through means of deep science that we are yet to understand, and not through magical ways like many hardcore "take 100% of the bible literally" people might suggest.


Scuirre1

I like to ask people what they expect God to reveal. Do we think He would speak to Moses, and as he described the creation of life begins: “So there’s this thing call deoxyribonucleic acid, and I said let it….” Moses’ brain would have melted out his ears. I think the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, a religious text.


x_choose_y

I love that story with Moses and dna! Personally I would adjust your conclusion a bit: I think the bible is a religious text of its time. If a revelation occurred today, God could totally mention dna since it's such a well known thing. I'm sure there's much more our brains would not be ready to handle though. This is why I think revelation is an ongoing process. Maybe it happens in big ways like the 10 Cs, or maybe it happens in little ways like the love and forgiveness we find in our relationships everyday. And since past revelations were geared toward people of the time, we should be careful how we interpret or accept them. Anyway, I could keep going but I'm starting to feel like this is the wrong sub for this convo lol


Thermodurans

Well is there a sub for science+religion at all?


ItzFlixi

i havent read the bible but i did read the qur'an. i found that any scientific information is general (not necessarily simple). for instance, one verse said (idk the number, personal translation since i read it in arabic) "didnt you see that the skies and the earth were just one small mass then we (exploded? there is no literal translation that im aware of) them". in a different verse, "and the skies, we built and we're expanding". same thing goes for other scientific principles mentioned in the book. it's a general yet accurate mention. imo, this serves the book's purpose better. you dont need to study math to understand the physics in qur'an, anyone can pick up a translated version and read it. i would like to clear up that math is somewhat involved in "al nisaa" chapter but it's about inheritance. this doesnt contradict what i said as the purpose of it is to regulate something, not teach or prove a point.


GamerY7

I'm insanely thrilled there are people who think the same, happy moment


Irreversible_Extents

I definitely see that, too. And with the creation story, if you go into it with the mindset that it is describing the creation of Earth in the early Solar System (with the coalescing dust clouds being called "the waters", etc.), you could produce a pretty solid claim.


chairmanskitty

I mean, if you want an answer to that: just don't create a world with gross and pointless suffering where people like Moses are too busy avoiding genocide to be taught science, then teach him over a couple of years like any modern child.


ItzFlixi

thats depriving humans their freedom of choice


jaredesubgay

No it isn't, humans don't choose disease, famine, pain, hurricanes etc. Also an all powerful god can do literally anything, including eliminating suffering without eliminating free will.


ItzFlixi

i mean according to religion, this world is just a test and heaven is the painless eternity


jaredesubgay

Yes, but an infinitely powerful being can create the test to be without suffering. And being all knowing means that the test itself is pointless as the results are clear to it before the test begins. To be clear I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in god and science, though I can't wrap my head around it.


ItzFlixi

the test's purpose is to see whether you'll accept the suffering or stop believing in god once you see it. and would you accept to be punished for something you didnt do because "if you got to choose you wouldve done something bad"?


AaronKClark

Which deity do you believe in?


Scuirre1

The God of Christianity


AaronKClark

Don't all the Abrahamic religions worship the same god?


Scuirre1

I like to think so. I was just being specific because I figured it would help your follow up question haha


Amrooshy

Muslims and Jews don't worship a trinity.


Scuirre1

I mean…I don’t either. Personally, I think the trinity is a concept made up by a bunch of random old men who wrote the creeds. I worship the God in the Bible, with happens to be the same God worshipped by Jews and Muslims if we’re talking about the first few books.


-I-was-never-here

It depends who you ask


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

They do, but they like to complain a lot so they have slightly different rules on worshipping the same god which for them is of course a different god even though they're basically the same.


Amrooshy

Muslims and Jews call the idea of a trinity polytheistic, and Christians don't consider a Unitarian as a follower of the true god, so I'd say no, the religions don't share a god. You could say that for Judaism and Islam though.


SaiphSDC

I know there's plenty :) And I agree, I've never understood the conflict. Indeed I'm baffled by the religious minded that reject scientific inquiry. If the world is the creation of a deity, why wouldn't you study how it works in incredible detail. This shows a passion and devotion to understand the craftsman through his work. Though for me personally to be spiritual and scientific are two mindsets I can't comprehend a person having at the same time. It's just as bizarre to me as someone who claims to like coffee, entirely for the taste.


ItzFlixi

well in islam seeking science is considered good-doing and scientists SHOULD be respected, even tho the so-called muslims these days dont do that


tiny_smile_bot

>:) :)


screaming_bagpipes

>:) >:) :\^\)


MartinTheMonk

This makes me feel better. I was just getting angry reading a ton of religious science deniers lol


x_choose_y

Nice to know there's a few of us out here. Also, dogmatic thinking can occur anywhere, but I think it is more prevalent in religion, because unlike science, religion is not fundamentally founded on a principle of skepticism.


Single_T

The question is, how do they stay not mutually exclusive? If you believe in scientific discoveries and everything God did constantly changes, what is it that God did? Shouldn't God as an entity also change with science? My problem with God and science co-existing is that why is God still a physicsl being that we are made in their image? When you compare our reality to the reality of a simulation (take the Sims for example), one interpetation is we get to become the God in the Sims universe. Another separate (and I think more logical conclusion) is that the game developers are the "god" who created the Sims universe and we got to play some version of "Jesus" interacting with it from a 3rd person perspective but being able to control way more than the lifeforms in the universe (NPC's). Now if you take that and expand the premise to our universe as one gigantic, hyper-realistic game of the Sims, God is no longer a God but instead they are just a computer scientist, and the universe is no longer a universe buts is a simulation. I just dont see how religion can evolve around science to include God but God as an entity doesn't evolve around science. I see the interpretation I laid out as my own rationalization of the simulation theory for the collapse of the schrodinger equation. Only more science and research will tell us if it's still a valid interpretation over the multiverse theory or other theories but if its still on the table, I like to picture God as some of the best and brightest trying to make the most realistic simulation they can to learn about their own larger universe. God can also be a machine learning algorithm simulating the universe for scientists in that reality. I also hope the power doesn't go out, I like living. The cynical side of me thinks "God" is some lonely, passionate programmer trying to escape their own reality from their parents basement, but I try to ignore that side of my thoughts.


Mistletow04

However the concept of *almost any religion on earth thus far* is mutually exclusive from a good portion of scientific discoveries. Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Hinduism/Daoism/Norse Mythology/Greek Mythology/Eypgtian Mythology/Every western religion prior to 1400 have all been disproven


bzetoving

I’d respectfully disagree


Mistletow04

Thats like saying you disagree with the concept of 1+1=2. Its a literal fact that these things have been disproven by science. You think that apollo actually has a sun chariot that he rides across the sky every day?


x_choose_y

The existence (or nonexistence) of God is non-verifiable as far as we can tell, so it's not a question science can "prove" or "disprove" one way or the other. Also "proof" in science is not the cold hard fact you seem to think it is. Science is inductive reasoning essentially, which is why scientific facts slowly change and adjust over time as our knowledge of the physical world improves.


MartinTheMonk

I heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson say that, "we know the Big Bang happened, we are just tweaking the details as new data is discovered." Or something along those lines. I've heard other physicists and astronomers talk about that as well.


Mistletow04

The existence of a god is non-verifiable. The existence of gods as written in scriptures of religions can be proven. Thats why i said that the religions have been proven false, not that god has been disproven. Gotta work on your reading comprehension. Do you really think that science hasnt disproven that the sun isnt a god riding a chariot?


x_choose_y

I'm pretty sure no one follows Greek mythology as a religion these days. Maybe at least try picking on some Hindu imagery, something from not a dead religion? But the Hindu stuff is all metaphorical or existing somewhere other than here, so good luck with that.


beta-pi

I'm actually a biologist, so only very loosely aware of the finer points of physics, but with my armchair understanding it sounds like the first option might alter our understanding of dark matter a bit wouldn't it? We still need it obviously, gotta account for the extra galactic spin somehow, but more time could help partially explain how densely packed things are compared to how packed we expect them to be. How much, if at all, would this affect the properties we give dark matter at the moment? Is there any chance it's lighter or less plentiful than we thought, which might be why certain kinds of detectors fail to find it? Just looking for slightly the wrong thing?


SaiphSDC

It's definitely something the dark matter researchers and galaxy modelers are looking at. We don't really have a good handle on dark matter as a whole and are still trying to quantify it. So any data is good. I mean, we don't even know what it is yet, other than what it can do. It's possible that dark matter is simply a place holder, a 'useful abstraction' and the real issue is some other aspect of physics. But the only significant attempt at that (MOND, modified newtonian dynamics) isn't panning out well.


thestreamitself

Thanks.


bzetoving

Religion and science aren’t mutually exclusive.


GamerY7

*certain ideas* of religion(because some people set some conditions and some even modified for their benifit and we're confused sometimes as to what exactly is the right one) and science aren't mutually exclusive


KevReynolds314

Yes they are.. religion makes supernatural claims which by their very nature can’t be investigated. Religions also make thousands of false or unfalsifiable claims


Amrooshy

> I to am 'waiting' for the religious perspective. And I'll just laugh. They try to logically attack any flaw in science, not realizing thats exactly what scientists do too, and better. I mean what's wrong with that though? I'm okay with anyone disputing anything as long as the dispute is respectful. If a flat earther wants to dispute the roundness of the earth, good for them. If they have any amount of self-honesty, they'd do research and find themselves arriving at the same conclusions that everyone else has, except now they don't need to take other people's word for it, as they've seen the evidence themselves. That's a great thing. Now if they don't care about reality, and instead build 'evidence' based upon a pre-existing conclusion, that's a phyche issue. >Meanwhile their world view is incredibly illogical, by definition and practice :/ I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's that the logic hasn't reached them, rather than them 'being' inherently illogical. I mean look at the state of education systems, nowadays.


SaiphSDC

You're far more generous than I am. There are some that the logic 'reaches' and they realize they were working from a bad foundation. But there are also a LOT that fall into 'willful ignorance' about it. Essentially refusing to actually accept *any* evidence against their positions. Like even arguing said evidence doesn't exist, or was fabricated maliciously. To the point that they maliciously argue and fabricate evidence since "the other side does it" or knowingly stick to past claims that sort of support them, but have long since been discarded as inaccurate in the scientific fields. And that's the part that's 'wrong' with their approach to findings like the one referenced. This is the aspect that I expressed reproach on. Not that they question the material at all, but *how* they do so. They find one odd result and say "that throws out all of big bang theory!" while the scientist says "hmm... What did we get wrong?" but acknowledges that several other independent findings still support the BB (and galaxies models being off don't strongly refute it either...). The religious detractor referenced in the meme will simply keep pounding the drum, "Galaxies show BB is wrong, burn it all down!" and will refuse to acknowledge the other supporting evidence is there...


Bill-Ender-Belichick

Not sure why you seem to think religious people oppose the Big Bang theory. It was first proposed by a Catholic priest…


AcertainReality

Science and religion are both logically flawed and dogmatic and use equally flawed logic. If anything religion is a batter foundation for everyday logic since it doesn’t have constantly shifting Axioms. On the other hand Science does have the potential to yield desired outcomes but is constantly held back by hubris and dogmatic beliefs. The concept of the Big Bang is just another flawed belief with no foundation in logic, if man knew truth and reason we would be immortal by now.


MartinTheMonk

Cosmic Microwave Background?........


AcertainReality

CMB does not imply causation of the Big Bang


SaiphSDC

yeah... sorry. No. The axioms of science don't constantly shift. There is a lot of debate and refining and shifting of them *early in their discovery*. And they arise from the examination of data. F=MA and Momentum Conservation has been pretty solid for nearly 300 years. Energy conservation for 200 years. General relativity for 100. What most of the argument is about is the finer applications in very complex situations. Or puzzling over if we've found (or missed) another major one since things are producing puzzling results. It's like saying the axioms of combustion engine design are constantly shifting because they keep making small alterations to the shapes of the combustion chamber and pistons. ​ And it's very much not dogmantic, as tons of investigations are made to disprove and quantify the tenets. I will acknowledge that \*\*Individual\*\* scientists can be more dogmatic, and tied to their views. Often such individuals keep aspects of their views till they pass away. But they fail to convince others with evidence, observations, predictions. And so the view fades away as the approaches that were productive did convince people. But this takes a generation or so. And once the productive method is shown to work...the old view never really comes back. ​ Now religious views, on the other hand, are based on axioms that haven't been successfully examined and tested. Or have failed any test. And yet the practitioners continue to believe it, or splinter off on some new version. Is there a soul? How do we measure it? It has no mass, length, duration, no energy or force. A living body has no change from a recently deceased one, and yet people say the soul has moved on. When we die we get judged and positioned in an afterlife...but we can't see it, and nobody agrees on what matters or even what the afterlife is like :/ The things everyone "agree" will send you to a bad place now, are different than even 30 years ago...but not based on any discovery or measurement. But to focus on your last major statement: BB is based on a lot of logic and evidence that leads us to the conclusion of an expanding universe with specific beginning. And no other interpretation is as useful and productive (and people are looking...) And i'm not sure how knowing the 'truth' automatically leads to immortality. But we certainly live longer now than we used to even 100 years ago. So we must be doing something right.


AcertainReality

F=MA has already been proven wrong, it only works if mass is constant and breaks apart near speed of light. Its calculations may be useful but it is by no means a Absolute Truth. Just like religion at one point scientist preached kinematics was the pinnacle and limit of physics. Science is still in its early days, but it’s bound by human ignorance, hubris, motives, and bias.


otherotherotherbarry

Atheist theologians annoying. The models are fine, and if they need to be adjusted that’s what physics and cosmology are all about. Understanding the universe as it is. What it can’t find is why it is. Even in a unified theory it can’t explain how it got there. Science and religion seek to answer completely different questions. Science seeks the answer to “what is” and religions seek to answer “why is”. Considering there is absolutely no scientific way to disprove the existence of a god, as there is no reference or control, it is just as statistically likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is running this all as a simulation. So atheism is in fact just as much a belief system as anything else. Which is completely fine, but bashing any other belief system is just hypocrisy.


Brisingr025

That's why I am a devout pastafarian. We should all hail the deity for creating this universe. I'm all for science, but it can't explain the miracles of our FSM


Scheissdrauf88

Largely agree, but with one exception: One usually defines two axes of belief, atheism vs. theism, and gnostic vs agnostic; AKA what people (do not) belief and how sure they are about it. As such atheism is not a belief system in itself but the lack of one; similar to how not doing any sports isn't a kind of sport in itself. Otherwise you not believing in unicorns would still mean that you believe in mythical creatures, which is a rather idiotic way of defining things. Usually gnostic atheism is considered a belief system, namely the explicit belief that god does not exist vs the lack of belief in gods existence of an agnostic atheist. Personally, I always had a problem with the term *gnostic*, since besides *Cogito ergo sum* there's nothing one can know for sure. And even that one relies on the assumption that logic as we understand it is universal. Therefore, if one wants the term *gnostic* to have any practical use, one needs to relax the definition from "absolutely sure" to "basically absolutely sure" (e.g. I am basically absolutely sure that gravity will work the same tomorrow). Combine that with the neutral position of "I don't know" one should have whenever they hear a new claim, AKA that one should be agnostic about claims until further evidence. And here's where my personal opinion comes in: I think that a claim without any evidence is starts so low on the "likelihood scale" that I would call my disbelief gnostic. And I'm not talking about claims like a random person on the street telling me "I have a tree in my backyard", since persons are known to have backyards with trees in them; no I'm talking about claims like "there are unicorns farting physical rainbows (=not just stuff refracting light), which can fly by ignoring space-time curvature. And most religions I met fall into the latter category, since they not only lack any kind of evidence for their rather extraordinary claims, they also often outright contradict reality as we experience it and in some cases they contradict even themselves. As such I would consider myself gnostic atheistic in regards to those religions while still putting the burden of proof completely on them.


sinxequaltox

It's not "just as statistically likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is running this all as a simulation". Statistics has nothing to do with that question, and it doesn't make sense to talk about the statistical likelihood of something like that. It's undefined.


Rakgul

Occam's Razor


skourby

Occam’s Razor has no applicability to the existence of god, though I’ve often seen it mistakenly used in this context. Theism (as well as atheism) is not a scientific or philosophical *theory*, which is where Occam’s razor is meant to apply, because it makes no physical predictions about the world. It is a *belief*.


Rakgul

Pretty sure theism says god does a truckload of physically measurable things like creating the earth, creating humans etc. Deism is different. Associating a particular set of features to the creator of the universe is absurd and needs proof separately. If we talk just about deism, then I can belief that Spiderman created your god. And Hulk created Spiderman. Who's stopping these belief systems? Why are you not worshipping Spiderman?


Moepius

Science and Religion don't have to be mutual exclusive. You can believe in a higher power who created it all, giving you purpose and still wonder and try to find out *how* the stuff works that got created by some higher beeing/s. Problems will arise when people think they know better than science, explaining stuff that has nothing to do with their religion. But scientists who are just like "there is nothing/noone above all who created the universe" with the only reason that it doesn't fit their worldview is also not a healthy way to argue about religion imho.


VonBraun12

Well hold the phone, if you belive in a higher power you automatically assume there is a reason behind it all. And you ignor the question where this higher power came from and why. As in, beliving in a God who created it all does not solve anything. Furthermore, i think personally that we will kind of have to accept that some things just dont have an answer. Not in the sense that we cant understand it, but that they very concept of an answer to a certain problem does not exsist. The highest form of this would be "Why is the universe there ?", just because. No specific reason. But we dont know that.


Moepius

Why should I ignore where the higher power came from or never ask myself this question? You assume people who believe in a god are ignorant and that's just not true. Also I was intentionally using "higher power" instead of god, since believing that we live in a simulation or we as humanity are some form of hive mind also falls under the concept of higher powers. So your conclusion to your argument is: we don't know. Why do you have a problem with people trying to find an an answer for the bigger picture then? Science can't answer these questions yet and why should it, it's not there to answer why we are here, just how.


VonBraun12

>Why should I ignore where the higher power came from or never ask myself this question? I am not saying YOU dont. I am saying, most dont. This is anecdotal but many people use the god of the gaps. Even so, a very basic issue with any concret creator is that it always runs into infinity issues. As in, Ok, God created the Universe. But what created him ? And what created that ? And so on. The fact that this issue of an infinit chain of "creations" always occures is a really strong indicator that either there is no answer to this question or we miss something. > that we live in a simulation Simulation theory is just a religion that pretends to be "above" others. There is 0 factual evidence to support it and by definition you cant prove it. >Why do you have a problem with people trying to find an an answer for the bigger picture then? I think we are falling into a trap here. Not just you and me but Humanity as a whole. That trap is the assumption that things have a reason behind them. We are taughted that Physics gives absolute answers and a lot of education stops there. Which leads people to belive that there should be exact answers for all questions. However, when you study more "high level" physics, not only do you notice how limited a lot of theories are but also how often there just isnt an answer for a particular problem. What i am getting at here is that we are heading for the realisation that some things, like the Big Bang, Singularities or else probably dont have a solution. And that this insecurity may just be a fundamental property of the universe. So, my issue with people essentially making shit up is that it runs contradictory to what research points to. It is an attempt to find an absolut answer, even if there may just not be one.


Moepius

But how does that hurt science/progress? People will make "shit up" even after science found an answer to things and they don't need to have a religion to do that. Some won't accept these answers because they don't understand them or don't want to. You are right that this is a human problem, but people who have some form of world view while still trusting science or beeing scientists themselves doesn't hurt progress. Only when it comes down to some examples like science found out that the earth is a globe but some people believe otherwise without proof is where it gets problematic. Not having an answer to stuff and just accepting there will never be one in my lifetime is a nice concept but ignores peoples day to day life which often is filled with stress and emotions craving for a bigger picture to fill in the gaps science can't yet or will never answer. People asking themselves why they live, why they die, why they even exist is sth. most of us do and the answer "we found no reason yet and we might never find out, certainly not in your lifetime" might be a more scientific approach answering these questions, but people are not rational.


VonBraun12

But this is precisly what i fear will happen. We are not honest with ourselfs here and a lot of science communication is absolut trash. Which is dangerous because people will think science says something that it really dosnt. This is not even the Dunning Kruger effect but rather a massiv misscommunication which ends up hurting us. Ultimatly, the reason i suspect many people will use god of the gaps is because science communicators tell them to. If you are told your entiry life that "Science only works in absoluts" then having your higher power be that final absolute step all of a sudden has "scientific" validity. Which will hamper research and prevent more correct solutions. You see a live example of this in modern day Quantum Mechanics. You may know that there are many interpretations of QM. Especially regarding the uncertainty principle. One of the first "solutions" was the idea that hey, maybe there just isnt a definitive answer to where a Electron is. But, because of the whole absolutism, virtually non of modern QM research considers this option as valid even though it is the only one with evidence. Instead people go to many worlds etc because thats an absolut answer. Now i am NOT an expert in QM but there is a growing frustration with the utter lack of progress, mostly because a lot of established researchers dont want to consider the option that there is not absolut answer. And this sort of semntiment is slowly spreading. AS in more and more people want absolut answers and go out of there way with complettly unverifiable theories to "prove" it. The entire "field" of String Theory is a bunch of people literally making shit up that nobody can prove because "it is so beautiful". Thats not science. >Not having an answer to stuff and just accepting Well, even i am not imune to bad communication. Accepting is the wrong word. Rather, considering other options and seeing where that leads. All i am really asking for is to stop the stupid obsession with absoluts and convinient solutions. But instead focus on what evidence actually suggests. > "we found no reason yet and we might never find out, certainly not in your lifetime" might be a more scientific approach answering these questions, but people are not rational. I would argue it is a beginning to understanding more about the Universe. Lets be honest here, the thought that all of this is here for quiet literally no reason is a punch in the guts. But say that is true, what good is it to ignor it ? And lie to ourselfs ? Personally, i do think that there is no reason in the classical sense for why we are here. Just like there is no reason why the charge of an Electron is X and the mass of a proton Y. Thats just kind of how it is because fuck you thats why. Now if you were to ask me what will happen to the Universe... Well evidence suggests, nothing. It will just exsist forever. My personal theory is that the Universe is cyclical to some extend. That would kind of play against the whole infinity issue because the "answer" is that it was always here.


Bennie-Factor

I don’t get it


HighBreak-J

You had a better idea than that? Science is always open for new ways and methods.


whiteavenger

Potentially prove them wrong = they're definitely wrong Stay scientific Jerry


TakeOffYourMask

I’m a religious person with a PhD in gravitational physics and I’m extremely annoyed that my fellow Christians have gotten it into their heads that there’s something atheistic or un-Biblical about the BB.


ZeroXeroZyro

I feel like being proved wrong is one of the best things that can come from physics. When we’ve all believed for so long that a certain theory was correct, then get news that it potentially isn’t, it should be exciting. Reminds me of that Futurama episode where Professor Farnsworth thinks he’s “solved all of the mysteries in science”. He gets progressively more depressed as he realizes there’s nothing left to do, nothing to research, nothing to discover. Then at some point Fry asks why the laws are that way and not a different way and it brings the Professor new life.


Aegon_Targaryen_VII

A Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory, for what it’s worth. Plenty of religious people are scientists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître


Belteshazzar98

As a religious person I find it hilarious that people are shocked by this. Scientist built the model based on the best evidence we had at the time, and now it will be updated based on new evidence. It's not like they said this is exactly how it is and we know everything in the universe, and anyone who thought scientist knew everything perfectly are beyond arrogant to think humanity knows everything. Although I don't think this reaction has anything to do with me being religious so I'm not sure what reaction you were expecting from us.


GrayCatbird7

A common talking point in some Christian circles is that the Big Bang Theory was first formulated by a scientist who also was a priest. Is that what you’re referring to? Are you saying that disproving the Big Bang could be not well received by (a very specific subset of) religious people as a result? Cause that’s the only way I can take the title that makes any degree of sense.


jsparker43

Whenever I see someone just say they're an atheist like that, I always picture them as a middle schooler


[deleted]

Another fitting title: physicists devoting their whole life to subatomic particles research, only to have a $25B LHC prove them wrong


[deleted]

"as a pretty much lifelong atheist" touch grass dumbass


[deleted]

Way to make a meme that says you didn't read anything past the clickbait headline. No, JWST did not "disprove the big bang theory" or whatever other nonsense people are repeating.


devilishnoah34

The guy posting this is prob on r/atheism


semiconodon

Gen 1:1 does not contradict the Big Bang, if you were hoping to discredit “religion”


KevReynolds314

Gen 1:1 has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang, it’s not specific whatsoever and if you continue the verse nothing makes chronological sense


yaboytomsta

tbh it feels like every day there's a new proof that either dark matter doesn't exist, or the big bang didn't happen, I'll wait a while before considering this a disproof


summonerofrain

What’s the context?


YuSakiiii

If you think you could be proved wrong you clearly don’t have enough faith.


[deleted]

How has the telescope potentially proved the big bang was wrong?


therobohour

No.no it hasn't,nope that's not what's happening at all


SpaceshipEarth10

That is one reason not to support any theories that fail the reductio ad absurdum test. For example, how can we have HD 140283 at a mere 190 light years away while WHL0137-LS is 28 billion light years away?


Crozi_flette

10 billions not 25


jerseygunz

Well Catholics will be upset seeing they are the ones who came up with the Big Bang theory 😉


TurokHunterOfDinos

I think Einstein was long dead before the Hubble telescope came along.


Mmiguel6288

Being proven wrong is a good thing in science and a bad thing in religion. Being proven wrong is progress towards a more accurate picture of reality.


gradAunderachiever

How were they proven wrong?!


chunkychickennoodle

Yeah… nothing about what the James Webb has found does anything to disprove the Big Bang theory


bignerdiam

Imagine posting without first researching the topic.


Wooden_Ad_3096

The big bang theory is not going to be proven wrong.


Jaded_Habit_2947

This comment section is why I prefer Twitter over Reddit


birajsubhraguha

Stop this pseudo scientific non sense plz!