Science and religion require the same amount of miracles, gm
Discussion
😂🤣😂🤣 Good morning!
GM☀️💜🫡
Real science doesn’t require miracles, becuase conclusions are always challenged amd with new evidence, overturned. This is a false equivalency. Gm.
Just the first one.
The first one what?
I wouldn’t say all science is predicated on that idea that something came from nothing. Maybe the culty side representated by the “trust the science” crowd. Personally, I believe everything has always existed, therefore nullifying the need for a creator, and that life is a beautiful and terrifying dance between the cycling of maximum density and maximum entropy. At least, this is what the DMT elves told me. 😂
Philosophy can be the creator 🙃
Truth.
They ultimately point to the same thing
Unless you actually study history!?
Theres no miracle in science, but if you hear only stupid people about science u can ever keep blinding yourself about the truth, just trust, dont verify. LOOSER.
Lmao triggered?
What miracles does science require?
The one where something came from nothing.
Ahhh but I mean what happens before the universe began is beyond the realm of science (at the present time). Religion and science are not two sides of the same coin.
This is where is disagree a bit, but thank you for bringing this point to light. Science is just a method for testing ideas. Anyone saying it is anything other than that is selling something. You should see and hear warnings. “Trust the science” goes against the scientific method. Ideas should be tested. If they aren’t you end up with Religions. The Universe had no beginning, much the same as believing god had no creator. Existince is a dance between density and entropy.
"The universe had no beginning" what? Our current best theory says it does aka The Big Bang.
Best is relative. It’s not the beginning, it’s happened many times and will contiinue to happen. It’s not the only one either, just the only one we could percieve as creatures in this dimension.
Lmao you used the scientific method to determine all of this with certainty?
No, just an idea that hasn’t yet been tested.
I would add that the idea that there was a beginning is as ludacris as believing there wasn’t.
But there's evidence to support a beginning. There's no evidence to support infinite rebirths and multi verses. Those are only theories. There may not be a beginning, but at least there's evidence for it.
No one could fathom what you’ve just described when it was an idea, before the evidence was gathered to support it. There is evidence to suggest an event that no one can see past. Many would like to find a beginning, but I and many others believe that to be a flawed assumption. A beginning is very normalized, except when it comes to a creator. Time is a unique phenomenon, as creatures of a third dimension, we weren’t here for the beginning nor will we be here at the end. Perhaps there is neither, or the beginning and the end are the same thing and there are no real paradoxes. All of these ideas seem radical until they are normalized by pusuing the idea and gathering evidence, testing, etc.
I disagree with the indictment of a method for testing ideas, becuase you disagree with a single theory.
I simply pointed out that our modern secular cosmology requires an equal if not grander leap of faith as the biblical.
If you relugate all of science to the big bang, I see your point. I’m hopeful the proliferation of bitcoin will usher in new ideas for exploration, as opposed to dogmatic nonsense of both the big bang and the creator.
What we popularly call science today is really scientism. The Scientific Method doesn't require any miracles.