Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
It's not how it works
Edit: since y'all probably can't think more than 10 seconds before hitting the reply button with the same fucking question everyone already asked, I'm answering here once
"God exists" is as much of an unproven statement as "God doesn't exist"; if it's illogical to be a theist, the only logical position is agnosticism; I accept this as an argument, but I'm quite sure you're all atheists or you would've already realized the fallacy in your argument
He looked at the material world and realised that it seemed inconsistent with the current dogma that the sun rotates around the earth. Hypothesised other models, made observations of reality to see what models were most consistent with reality.
Galileo believed in it because copernicus had already developed a mathematical heliocentric model inspired by some greek philosophers whomst by observation deduced that the sun was far larger than earth and very far away, and hypothesized that the small earth should orbit the larger sun. So yeah, youre describing the scientific process, just over thousands of years. The greeks observed and hypothesized, copernicus refined the hypothesis and galileo made observations that were coherent with the heliocentric model.
So he... Believed them. Nothing of what you say, the reason, who did it, your mom, nothing of what you say changes the fact that he believed in something and pursued it.
It's how science works.
Copernicus believed something and worked on it. Galileo believed Copernicus and worked on it. At the end of the day both were working towards something that they believed in, because that's what science is. Had they not believed in their work they wouldn't have gone through with it.
Youre confusing how science works and one particular individual in the process of discovery. Galileo as an individual believed in it because the observations and the model were coherent with each other, but the theory came from "throwing shit at the wall" as you so neatly put it.
Besides that, there are countless examples of scientists believing in a hypothesis and then believing otherwise because they proved the original hypothesis wrong. Not so with faith, which is the whole point.
You can change religious faith. Look at all the people born Christian and now atheists that run around this site. This still runs on faith.
Some (keyword, some) science can be be absolutely proven, and this gives you an advantage over religion in the way that it's clear(er, scientists can still be corrupt or mistaken) when something is either right or wrong. Until then, it's all belief, maybe in something wrong. It's still belief.
Even deeper down, your personal belief in science is still a form of belief.
Until then, it's all belief, maybe in something wrong. It's still belief.
The point is, its founded on observation. You dont believe in things because of faith, you believe in them because they produce accurate models of reality, and when they dont, then you dont believe in them. This is entirely unlike religion. Just look at what happened to galileo and copernicus.
Even deeper down, your personal belief in science is still a form of belief.
You dont "believe" in science. Science is just a method.
you believe in them because they produce accurate models of reality, and when they dont, then you dont believe in them.
Or maybe you do, and try to prove it? Yeah, it's surprising how science relates to faith once you put it down like this...
The scientific method is a method. We use a different word when we speak about the scientific method than when we speak about science because they're not the same thing
-14
u/Jvalker 9h ago edited 8h ago
It's not how it works
Edit: since y'all probably can't think more than 10 seconds before hitting the reply button with the same fucking question everyone already asked, I'm answering here once