No. There is no faith involved in science. In science, every idea is under constant examination. In fact, those whose work we most remember are the ones who proved previous ideas to be wrong. Einstein? He blew a major hole in the physics of his day. Galileo? Herschel? Planck (quantum theory)? Science clearly states this. There is no claim to what the size of this universe was before the advent of the big bang. There is evidence of it being very small. But, as you point out, physics breaks down, so physicists say "I don't know" at that point when asked the size of the "singularity". That is NOT faith. That is humility in recognizing what it is that we definitely do NOT know. This is somewhat confused by the fact that there is science and there is theoretical science. Nothing is science until there is real world evidence. However, we hear from theoretical physicists all the time - string theory, multiverse, etc. These don't become science until there is experimental evidence. Remember the Higgs thing? That was developed by theoretical physicists. The huge celebration at CERN came when the largest machine ever built by humans was able to produce direct evidence allowing Higgs fields to enter the world of scientific method. Anyone who wants can come up with ideas for which there is no experimental evidence. But, those are conjecture. The first step in determining what is science is to ask for the evidence. Yes. Anyone can come up with cool ideas. There are lots of totally unsubstantiated ideas in cosmology. It doesn't become science until there is actual experimental evidence. The "changing mass" idea includes zero evidence - see above for what that means. In fact, that idea hasn't even been reviewed! Religion has a different objective. Science is interested in how this universe works. Catholics are interested in "why" questions - why are we here, what does that imply about what we do. Science is based on the fundamental principle that we may meaningfully observe the universe. Catholicism is based on the fundamental principle that there is a god of specific characteristics. These are very different tools designed to address very different problems. Mixing the two is certain to obtain rubbish - they were not designed to work together. When one tries to prove god doesn't exist by using science - garbage results. It's equally rubbish to use religious methods to determine how this physical universe works. We should all be OK when we manage not to mix these methods.
Steady state might be a thing if it wasn't for the overwhelming observational data that points to a finite age to the universe? The BB predicts this, the steady state did not predict the observational data and thusly was discarded. But interesting that you posit that BB is mathematically untenable when in every regard so far its predictions have born out in observation, while your pet theory seems to inadequate for the task.
I think I made my point quite well. All that blather doesn't change it. Faith also means belief in something, I showed the definition.
I explained how the definition of faith differs between religion and science;you choose to ignore it.
I think you misunderstood my question. Genesis is religion, not science. I'm asking what it is that you think makes science a religion.
When people abandon or misuse the scientific method but call it science in order to spread their beliefs as absolute truth. What makes this more than just personal belief is when it becomes systemic in certain groups where they reinforce each other's beliefs offering only evidence and arguments to build up their beliefs while refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary.
Exactly. "When people abandon or misuse the scientific method" it is not science. And, we do see a lot of that. For example, there are those who would love to attempt to prove there is no god by pretending to use science. But, science doesn't provide a way to address the supernatural. Also, there are a lot of people who would love to use what religion sees as evidence and argument to make claims about how our physical universe works - and that's almost always a total fail, too. As stated earlier, science and religion have different fundamental assumptions and different methods. And just as importantly they are attempting to answer different questions. Mixing science and religion is going to lead to garbage. We need to do better at keeping them separate.
I think that was answered above. The big bang is NOT a "creation theory". Physicists will state clearly that physics breaks down when approaching time = 0, that gathering evidence concerning most of the important questions about that time is essentially impossible at present, and therefore the correct answer concerning the size of the universe before the big bang started is "I don't know". As I understand it, there is evidence that it was pretty amazingly small, though. Physicists identify evidence of the expansion starting at some very early point in time - so the big bang inflationary period is science. Physicists come up with ideas of what might have been going on. That's useful in working out where and how to look for evidence. A lot of those ideas have our big bang as a local event in a stupendously larger totality. One might ask if our part of that larger totality expanded, maybe other parts did, too. The point here is that physicists do not see the big bang as a "creation story". There just isn't evidence of that at this point.
Faith may mean the belief in something but that something by definition does not have to be empirical. Science but definition is based upon empirical Evidence.
Mathematics is nothing more then a language. When it does appear to break down, It just requires a rewrite when new physical properties are discovered before they can become utilized. It just takes time and discovery. When newton, one of the fathers of calculus began his journey, it still took others in the shadows like Leibniz to help expand on it. We’re presently going through the process now with quantum theory and mathmatically describing astrophysics. This is one of the reasons why science is institutional and mathematics is such an integral part of it. It helps provide model building and predictability without which any new found knowledge can’t be utilized or discribed. It’s hard to imagine by the right how the more we reach outward, the closer we become to solving our problems here on earth. But it’s true. It’s true in ohysics but it’s also true in our relationship to other nations. We get it. It’s part of the foundation of our immigration policies. Righties want to eliminate that necessary component in dealing with our problems.....they’re motivated more by fear then discovery.
He sure had a sense of humour; he probably invented the term Big Bang to see how twerps would buy into it.
Even Newton invoked God when his science could not get him to the next step. Maybe the word “God” is just another way of saying, wtf knows after this.
Does infinity have a shape? If so what shape would infinity be? How would you measure infinity to verify that shape?
