For about a day, the big news was that Webb photos stood an excellent chance of debunking the Big Bang Theory.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/05/14/is-it-time-to-dethrone-the-big-bang-theory-heres-how-you-overthrow-it/?sh=293f4e3e20d9

http://www.dictionary.com
Worship
7) to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).

When one feels that a theory based on observation (usually someone else’s observations) that can be described mathematically is sufficient to warrant ridicule of other’s who do not subscribe to that exact view, I would say that they are giving that theory an adoring reverence and regard. Hence, you do worship those beliefs. Science, in many many levels BECOMES a set of beliefs for those who follow it.

I say “becomes” because science by itself does not prove, nor attempt to disprove the existence of God. It is when individuals take the collective knowledge of man and their various abilities to “mathematically” describe nature around them as supreme evidence that a God does not exist that science becomes a religion with Man’s reasoning abilities as their God. The observations and laws become their Bible with which to wip the masses of Heathens who dare look to a supreme being. No one can be better than MAN! We are the culmination of evolution the UNIVERSE over because we have been to every nook and cranny and alternate dimension as described in our string theories and found that WE are SUPREME!

Taken from another view its likes this. Supreme being from dimension X uses method Y to make universe Z. Then some sentient being sees some natural phenomena and is able to write an equation that describes it. Huzzah! There is no God because I can describe this observation!

The truth is that Science and Religion to NOT but heads. It is only when religion takes offense at an observation that doesn’t match their assumed beliefs (sorry, but many Christian beliefs are NOT biblical and ARE assumptions i.e. the method of creation is not described, it could have been done by big bang or who who knows how, so quit beign offended! This is cool stuff!) OR when an ANTI God person tries to use science as empirical proof of His non existance. In both cases both parties are simply wrong…get thee off thy high horse!

Science is great, but it can typically only attempt to describe how things behave and is considered valid when it is able to predict other reactions, etc. However, it can only theorize as to why. Describe gravity? Yes. Show why it works? No, not really. Many theories and some sound great. If we knew what gravity was and how it functions, we could start to tackle antigravity ( I cannot wait!). For most people, belief in science is belief in other people’s observations and trust in their calculations. This is the popular thing to do..whee!

Religion is purely based on personal observation. I would say that those who persue truth on a spiritual level as much as they did scientific things, they would soon observe the phenomena that so many people ascribe to…answers to prayer, enlightenment, Faith, miracles, etc. You can test religion via scientific method…only the results are not measurable by someone else. But once you have expereinced it, you won’t require someone else’s proof.

… In the beginning (in the pre-big bang universe) there was only the vast vacuum of space and time. But this vacuum was not sterile, it was seething with vacuum energy. This vacuum energy field permeates and defines the universe, an astronomically large sphere of energy. And just as matter generates gravity by warping space and time, so does energy and this is the force that defines the size and shape of the universe, and also the force that bestows mass on matter…

…When a virtual matter/anti-matter pair becomes a matter matter pair, the virtual particles are no longer able to mutually annihilate and they become real, stealing energy from the vacuum energy of space. This is the mechanism of slow matter creation in the first phase of the pre-big bang universe. Over perhaps a billion billion years, clouds of matter form over the entire universe, and eventually coalesce into cosmological bodies and eventually the first pre-big bang black hole, which starts the second phase of the pre-big bang universe, fast accretion of matter from vacuum energy by black holes…

I don’t agree with your assumption that the man predicted them. Firstly, if I know there will be a lunar eclipse in 20 min, and no one else knows how to time those, then I could “predict” the event and take credit. People of that time didnt know nearly as much as they do now. Even just a little of our current knowledge of the world may have given this dude a precieved Oracle level knowledge. Magic of old is science of now.

Ultimately, just because I predict something in something’s name does not make that thing exist nor does it make me a profit. Future knowledge does not automatically create anything else. For instance, I predict the weather, and I am right. This does not mean I am channeling God’s mouth. Also, just because I claim I was inspired by something, does not make it so. Even more importantly, where did my prediction come from? Experience? Tools? Meterological data? Just because he made a prediction that came true, it does not negate or support any claims to God’s involvement. Even if he lifted one finger and a hundred men died, a hundred more turned to goats, and another hundred turned into purple monkey dishwashers it would not make him a vessel of God automatically.

The reason Egypt was enslaved is largely because of these jumps to God-hood conclusions. The pharoah was precieved to be godlike or sent by god and because no one said “hey what proves this?” they were enslaved. Every day I am more relaxed to see more people using logic to determine that these leaps of faith are just that. To make those assumptions are dangerous. When using logic I try my best not to jump from one conclusion to the next.

However, to be fair, to be logical and non-bias, the knowledge of how these things happened does not disprove God either. Nothing really proves or disproves God under the notions I have been told from various religions. Evidence of God is an oxymoron. There just can’t be evidence. There are just too many other things contributing to the observation to narrow it down to just “God did it” or “That is God”. Science doesnt prove things by saying “Well it could be one of these reasons, so I’ll choose the one that supports my theory.”. That is the kind of thing a statistics person would do.

I once saw a show on the History Channel that explained how the 10 plagues in Egypt occurred. Apparently it was all started by earth quakes. They even proved that there was a major earth quake around the time they believe the happening took place. It would take way too long to explain how everything occurred (the show was like 2-3 hours long) but i’m completely convinced. I encourage anyone to look it up and watch it.

but after they explained how everything happened and why they got into the discussion of the debate of science and God and how a lot of people would say that their findings would disprove that God exists because everything can be explained by natural occurances in nature but the fact that there was a man there to predict the plagues in the name of God to free his people leads one to believe that God just manipulated nature to do his bidding, which makes sense in my mind.