• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s more humble to accept that neither science nor religion have a definitive explanation to creation, than it is to leverage a burden of proof argument against those who believe in a creator, when science doesn’t have an explanation or evidence either.

    A true scientist would acknowledge that there is possibility of interference-based creation based on our current understanding of physics.

    What created the matter? How was it set in motion?

    Arrogance is the enemy of science.

    • Nelots@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      when science doesn’t have an explanation or evidence either

      The difference is that we’re willing to admit we don’t know, while the religious think they do. We don’t have a burden of proof here because we’re not claiming anything.

      A true scientist would acknowledge that there is possibility of interference-based creation based on our current understanding of physics.

      Most people do acknowledge that its possible. Its just very, very, very, (…) unlikely to be the case. Everything else we’ve ever proven to be true has been caused by natural causes. Why should it suddenly be different? I’m open to being proven wrong when the time comes, but in the meantime I will continue to ignore wild ideas that contradict everything we know and are brought forth without any evidence. That’s not arrogance.

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

        Science has the burden of proving that two masses collided to create existence without breaking the laws of physics. What created that matter? What set it in motion?

        I’m only saying the argument works both ways. I’m also very against dogma over science. I’m a scientific person who simply believes it’s equally possible that there was, and was not, interference-based creation of existence.

        • flerp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re begging the question(s).

          As far as we know, matter can’t be created or destroyed. Before asking “what created it” you have to demonstrate that it even CAN be created.

          And “what set it in motion?” Have you ever seen anything NOT in motion? Everything is moving relative to everything else.

          As far as we have observed, there is no such thing as “nothing” or “motionless.” To ask a question like how does something come from nothing, or how did things begin to move, you are assuming states that we have never observed to be possible.

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

            Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Both matter creation and spontaneous motion are against by the laws of physics.

            The current theory of the perpetual expansion of the universe is that all objects are moving away from the universal center due to the Big Bang. It is supported by observations of directional movement and evidence of perpetual slowing toward universal entropy. That explains the motion we observe in all of existence. It does not explain the existence of two enormous masses prior to the Big Bang, nor what caused them to be in motion to collide in the first place.