It's all about interpretation of the facts, hypothesis and theories found in science. Some can be observed during experiments (experimental or observational science). Most are just theories with a lot of "maybe's or could be's or "we think this or that." Lots of fuzzy words. No one has ever seen a string but scientists gush over it. Perhaps atheists should realize they don't know much about the universe except it's big and expanding away from our solar system. Hmmm...
I since you refer to 3 dimensions, should I assume you don’t agree with classic physics’s assertion of SpaceTime as another dimension? Btw, if String Theorists are correct in the hypothesizing multiple dimensions (a testable hypothesis), we exist in all dimensions simultaneously, we simply lack the sensory equipment to perceive other dimensions give the scale postulated for them and that the inability to sense them has offered no selective advantage for life in the passing along of genetic material. To suggest God is hiding in dimensions we can’t perceive is a nothing more than a spurious speculative fiction little different than suggesting it is also where unicorns dwell. Reminds me of the maps of many ancients defining the limits of the ‘known’ and depicting the beyond is where monsters live as they often depicted in the edges of their maps. Considering how little we have explored earth, particularly it’s depths in the sea, I have sometimes wondered why God’s domain and heaven aren’t envisioned as being ‘down’, under the sea. After all, anyone going too deep, never returns.
While I can’t speak for most atheists, many of those engaged in science would be likely to say they don’t know much about the universe. I know in my case, every question I think I have provisionally answered has spawned many more. Now, if GOD = the unknown, the label assigned for eons to the gaps in human knowledge, then I believe in God, the fill in for my Gaps in my knowledge. BTW, regarding no body seeing a string, no body has actually seen an atom, but we’ve done a remarkable job of describing and measuring their properties and components over the last 150 years, and continue to do so with the largest machine humans have ever constructed.
Scientists have learned a lot about the universe besides cosmic expansion. Below is a list of other important astronomical discoveries of comparatively recent times; ones that have completely changed the way modern science looks at the universe just as previous discoveries in earlier times had done. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Dark Energy Dark Matter Exoplanets Black Holes General relativity Red-shifting of Objects in the Universe Gamma ray bursts
That's correct. But much of it like dark matter or energy is still not understood. When you read or listen to scientists about it, their presentations are full of those fuzzy words like "It might be" or "We think this might be" or many other fuzzy words. We know very little still. That's why it's perfectly okay for people to still believe in a creator. There are many scientists who have and still do. Belief in God does not interfere with scientific research. If atheists were more open minded, they would look at their information from both sides of the debate, old universe or young universe? Old earth or young earth? The interesting thing is when you listen or read creationist scientists theories, they all have come from the old universe schools and beliefs. They actually have looked at the science from both starting point. Not atheist scientists. No...
Belief in God "should not" interfere with scientific research, if you check it at the door. But there lies the rub."Creation science"only attempts to prove ideas by whatever evidence it can find - even if the evidence doesn't actually support it - and ignores or excuses conflicting evidence. Real science doesn't make excuses for evidence. Creationists misrepresent the facts, laws, theories, history, philosophy and methods of science.
There is a strong divide between theoretical physics and expperimental physics. Scientific method and the concrete testing that is done today is BY FAR the largest part of physics, chemistry and biology. Here, "theory" has a much stronger definition. It is NOT just an idea or opinion. The theories produced by this work are constantly tested and verified. It includes Einstein's work that gets tested every day. When you refer to "maybe's" I suspect you are thinking of theoretical physics, where the concrete theories of the experimental sciences are extended by math as a method of exploring the questions that are beyond what can be tested today. That includes string theory, multiverse, what caused the "big bang", what's going on at the center of a black hole, etc. These can not be tested. So, at best they are part of theoretial physics as they are not approachable by scientific method. It's a little like religion, which also can not be approached by scientific method. Theoretical physics is important work, but that work is completely separate from what is promoted as important for making decisions in our personal and public lives. It is not related to medicine or economics or food safety or pahdemics or anything similar. All the advice we get from science is from scientific method. String theory and other ideas from theoretical physics remain isolated in theoretical physics until such time as they can be tested by experimental methods.
Let's say I measured the distance to Chicago. Then, YOU say Chicago is actually a lot closer, because of God. How do you propose that should be resolved? Am I supposed to study your religion over that??? Scientists from all over the world are constantly measuring the age of the universe - it's actually a hot topic when you get down to fractions of a second, as it turns out. They use MANY different methods. They each strive to be more exacting than the others, because there are important differences based on exactly how olde the univese is. Now, YOU want to come along and say all their measurements are wrong by STUPENDOUS amounts, wrong by factors of hundreds of thousands, because your religious belief says so. ???
NO. The fact that science doesn't know all the answers does NOT have anything at all to do with religion. Your religion HAS to be more important than a stand in for absence of human omniscience.
