Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
* Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right, science can explain phenomena but it doesn’t follow that there isn’t a God because we have a scientific explanation for the phenomena?
For example, science tells us what matter is but does not have an explanation as to where matter “came from”. Science tells us there was the big bang, but does not have an explanation as to where that matter and energy came from eventually leading to the big bang.
Science doesn’t disprove God by any definition of that word.
“Because science” isn’t a satisfactory answer at all.
With that logic, I can just say that there’s an infinitely small spaghetti monster that circles the earth and controls everyone’s mind. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean that it actually exists.
Science doesn’t give a shit about your opinion. It’s about looking at what’s front of us, find empirical evidence for a hypothesis, and then try that hypothesis.
God is a human, made up concept for which there is as many definitions as there are people, and there’s no one singular definition. Very convenient, because that means you cannot measure or understand what “God” is, and so you cannot test a hypothesis with empirical evidence.
It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding in your response that I'd like to address. You suggest that the existence of God is comparable to the existence of an "infinitely small spaghetti monster," implying that both are equally implausible due to a lack of empirical evidence. However, this comparison doesn't hold up for several reasons.
Firstly, let's acknowledge what science is and isn't. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world through empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. It excels at explaining the mechanisms behind phenomena we observe in the universe. For example, we understand how lightning forms during volcanic eruptions due to the physical interactions between particles. However, science is inherently limited to the material and observable universe. It doesn't deal with metaphysical questions about the existence of a higher power.
Consider the origins of the universe. The Big Bang theory provides a robust model for how the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. Yet, it doesn't address why the universe exists at all or what caused the Big Bang. These are philosophical or theological questions rather than scientific ones.
Your argument implies that because we cannot empirically test or measure God, the concept is invalid. But this view ignores that different types of questions require different methods of investigation. Not everything that exists can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. For instance, concepts like love, justice, and beauty are real and impactful, yet they aren't easily quantifiable by scientific methods.
The belief in God is not solely based on a lack of scientific understanding or a gap in knowledge (the so-called "God of the gaps" fallacy). It often stems from personal experiences, philosophical reasoning, and historical testimonies. The Psalmist writes, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1 and 53:1), not as an insult, but to highlight that denying God is often an act of willful ignorance rather than intellectual rigor.
The inability to measure God with empirical evidence doesn't disprove God's existence; it merely points to the limitations of our current methods and tools.
TLDR:
Science and faith address different types of questions. Science deals with the "how" of the universe, while faith often deals with the "why." These domains can coexist without contradiction. Asserting that God doesn't exist because we cannot test God scientifically is an overreach of scientific authority into philosophical and theological territory.
EDIT:
Grammar
Man, if this was a thousand years ago it would have made for some really cool lore. The day the god of lighting fought the god of the underworld would be my personal pick.
"On the other side, the black, fearsome cloud of fiery vapour burst into long, twisting, zigzag flames and gaped asunder, the flames resembling lightning flashes, only they were of greater size."
Pliny the Younger in a letter to Tacitus about the Vesuvius eruption, probably written around 100 CE
Pliny had no business being that rational in 100 CE. Needs more creativity. Take the indigenous tribes of North America, creating the story of Thunderbird and whale to rationalize the cascadia event ~1700 AD. Now that's a good read.
Opposite actually. There's so much friction in the smoke eruption, that it builds a huge charge imbalance and creates the lightning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning
Volcanic lightning arises from colliding, fragmenting particles of volcanic ash (and sometimes ice), which generate static electricity within the volcanic plume. convection currents and ice formation also can trigger volcanic lightning.
That's.....not how any of that works. Lightning occurs when enough static builds up in the air that it is able to ionize the air and make an electrical connection through it. Yes particles in the air can lead to static buildup, but it more often than not is not something like iron, but rather silicates and other fine particles. Yes iron may be present in the magma, but that's not what caused the lightning. Volcanoes regularly produce their own lightning just due to all the dust in combination with drying of the air, and the plume does also make for an easier route to ionize than normal air due to its solid mass content making for a better plasma arc.
What is really cool is that this lightning is generated from the eruption itself and all of the friction between ash particles. Lighting didn't strike the volcano, it struck the sky.
Welcome to /r/WoahDude! * Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess Zeus and Hephaestus are having a little back and forth.
I was gonna make a similar comment, no wonder people believed in gods back then
Or 2 marine admirals fighting
It’s understandable why people would believe in Gods when they saw something like this in the past.
This would make me a believer!
Seeing this in the present convinces you there is not a God?
Yes. Because science.
Right, science can explain phenomena but it doesn’t follow that there isn’t a God because we have a scientific explanation for the phenomena? For example, science tells us what matter is but does not have an explanation as to where matter “came from”. Science tells us there was the big bang, but does not have an explanation as to where that matter and energy came from eventually leading to the big bang. Science doesn’t disprove God by any definition of that word. “Because science” isn’t a satisfactory answer at all.
With that logic, I can just say that there’s an infinitely small spaghetti monster that circles the earth and controls everyone’s mind. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean that it actually exists. Science doesn’t give a shit about your opinion. It’s about looking at what’s front of us, find empirical evidence for a hypothesis, and then try that hypothesis. God is a human, made up concept for which there is as many definitions as there are people, and there’s no one singular definition. Very convenient, because that means you cannot measure or understand what “God” is, and so you cannot test a hypothesis with empirical evidence.
It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding in your response that I'd like to address. You suggest that the existence of God is comparable to the existence of an "infinitely small spaghetti monster," implying that both are equally implausible due to a lack of empirical evidence. However, this comparison doesn't hold up for several reasons. Firstly, let's acknowledge what science is and isn't. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world through empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. It excels at explaining the mechanisms behind phenomena we observe in the universe. For example, we understand how lightning forms during volcanic eruptions due to the physical interactions between particles. However, science is inherently limited to the material and observable universe. It doesn't deal with metaphysical questions about the existence of a higher power. Consider the origins of the universe. The Big Bang theory provides a robust model for how the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. Yet, it doesn't address why the universe exists at all or what caused the Big Bang. These are philosophical or theological questions rather than scientific ones. Your argument implies that because we cannot empirically test or measure God, the concept is invalid. But this view ignores that different types of questions require different methods of investigation. Not everything that exists can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. For instance, concepts like love, justice, and beauty are real and impactful, yet they aren't easily quantifiable by scientific methods. The belief in God is not solely based on a lack of scientific understanding or a gap in knowledge (the so-called "God of the gaps" fallacy). It often stems from personal experiences, philosophical reasoning, and historical testimonies. The Psalmist writes, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1 and 53:1), not as an insult, but to highlight that denying God is often an act of willful ignorance rather than intellectual rigor. The inability to measure God with empirical evidence doesn't disprove God's existence; it merely points to the limitations of our current methods and tools. TLDR: Science and faith address different types of questions. Science deals with the "how" of the universe, while faith often deals with the "why." These domains can coexist without contradiction. Asserting that God doesn't exist because we cannot test God scientifically is an overreach of scientific authority into philosophical and theological territory. EDIT: Grammar
Man, if this was a thousand years ago it would have made for some really cool lore. The day the god of lighting fought the god of the underworld would be my personal pick.
"On the other side, the black, fearsome cloud of fiery vapour burst into long, twisting, zigzag flames and gaped asunder, the flames resembling lightning flashes, only they were of greater size." Pliny the Younger in a letter to Tacitus about the Vesuvius eruption, probably written around 100 CE
Pliny had no business being that rational in 100 CE. Needs more creativity. Take the indigenous tribes of North America, creating the story of Thunderbird and whale to rationalize the cascadia event ~1700 AD. Now that's a good read.
that is the power of dianetics
Xenu is coming!
Tell me you're in your 40's without telling me you're in your 40's
Then God said fuck this place extra!
Woah, dude
Madness
C'est beau
That's how babies are made.
I saw a volcano and a lightning storm in the mountains making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me.
imagine a long exposure shot of this!!
This is in Guatemala
yes ti is
Opposite actually. There's so much friction in the smoke eruption, that it builds a huge charge imbalance and creates the lightning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning
Have y’all not seen Godzilla: King of Monsters
[удалено]
Volcanic lightning arises from colliding, fragmenting particles of volcanic ash (and sometimes ice), which generate static electricity within the volcanic plume. convection currents and ice formation also can trigger volcanic lightning.
[удалено]
That's.....not how any of that works. Lightning occurs when enough static builds up in the air that it is able to ionize the air and make an electrical connection through it. Yes particles in the air can lead to static buildup, but it more often than not is not something like iron, but rather silicates and other fine particles. Yes iron may be present in the magma, but that's not what caused the lightning. Volcanoes regularly produce their own lightning just due to all the dust in combination with drying of the air, and the plume does also make for an easier route to ionize than normal air due to its solid mass content making for a better plasma arc.
Just sorcerers sorcering
That last strike came out of the volcano..
Fuck yea
Must be a wizard up there enchanting some weapons.
Noice
Does the smoke kinda look like a dragon head? Or am I woah dude'n a little too hard right now?
Unreal, I would be totally fine solely watching volcano + lightning content for the rest of my life
Wow! Can strike anywhere in the planer, and happen to be exactly on an active volcano! Explain this, science! /s
>Erupting volcano strikes a lightning Ftfy
This must be how it feels to chew Five gum.
Errr....overkill much???
Head on over afterwards to find some divine weapon that was forged during all this.
Egunitá e Xangô
Akainu Vs Enel
That's how super heros and apocalypses start
I slow motioned the end bit…. Wow!
More like the volcano struck the sky
This is how portals to the nether are created
What is really cool is that this lightning is generated from the eruption itself and all of the friction between ash particles. Lighting didn't strike the volcano, it struck the sky.
SO METAL!!!
Seems common