1 edit
Speculation about the universe's origin goes hand in hand with things like speculation about various God figures.
It might create prisms through which one can look in order to contemplate the human condition, but the resulting narratives and folklores ~ and any jeopardy attached to not believing them ~ cannot, by their very nature, be objective.
Thoughts?
1 edit
-Removed-Either could be classed as creation if a controlling influence determined the process.
We can only speculate about the nature of the "controlling influence" you mention. Your speculation has resulted in you believing that this "controlling influence" took on human form, walked the Earth 4.5 billion years after it was created, and tangled [fatally] with one particular ethnic group and the Romans ~ and in so doing granted us everlasting life.
1 edit
@fmf saidIs it your contention that one cannot use tools to observe the universe and thereby ascertain certain facts about that universe, even going back to that universe's origin?
Speculation about the universe's origin goes hand in hand with things like speculation about various God figures.
It might create prisms through which one can look in order to contemplate the human condition, but the resulting narratives and folklores ~ and any jeopardy attached to not believing them ~ cannot, by their very nature, be objective.
Thoughts?
"Speculation" about the universe's origin is for people who have never cracked a book on cosmology nor held an interest in finding out. In today's world, considering there are libraries and the internet, there is zero need for "speculation" about facts.
@suzianne saidIt is my contention that we can use tools to observe the universe and thereby ascertain certain facts about it but that we only have theories and speculation about its origin.
Is it your contention that one cannot use tools to observe the universe and thereby ascertain certain facts about that universe, even going back to that universe's origin?
@suzianne saidSpeculation about the universe's origin is for everyone, whether they be scientists or theologians.
"Speculation" about the universe's origin is for people who have never cracked a book on cosmology nor held an interest in finding out. In today's world, considering there are libraries and the internet, there is zero need for "speculation" about facts.
Did time exist prior to the Big Bang?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.
scientificamerican.com
@fmf saidThis is why I am open to the idea that there may be a creator entity but I don't feel the need to anthropomorphize it in the same way as followers of the world's "revealed" religions do.Did time exist prior to the Big Bang?Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.
scientificamerican.com
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 19306
@fmf saidall earthly religions come from Extra terrestial aliens !! Our ancient ancestors didn't have any technology so they automatically figured the aliens were "gods"...
Speculation about the universe's origin goes hand in hand with things like speculation about various God figures.
It might create prisms through which one can look in order to contemplate the human condition, but the resulting narratives and folklores ~ and any jeopardy attached to not believing them ~ cannot, by their very nature, be objective.
Thoughts?
