Naw, I’m sure religion started with an honest attempt at understanding the universe. “Let there be light” could easily be a Big Bang thought experiment…
I don’t see how it could. The Big Bang is not something you can really come up with if you’re not measuring redshift and noticing older light being more shifted, or measuring CMBR - because if you don’t have any indication that the universe is expanding, it is also an arbitrary explanation to assume it once was incredibly dense.
Wrong. You cannot PROVE it in much of any way. Though I didn’t say, “they had it figured out correctly.” I said, “they were attempting to figure it out honestly.” How are you utterly failing to understand that I KNOW they wouldn’t have the scientific method?
An honest attempt at thought should obviously be very different than the modern excuse, “God did it.” THAT is what I’m talking about. Their honest thoughts, not their scientific understanding or social excuses…
My man, please calm down for a moment and try to understand what I’m saying.
Wrong. You cannot PROVE it in much of any way.
This opening alone makes no sense. Where did I talk about proving anything? The Big Bang isn’t something to be proven, it’s a description of what the earliest universe has looked like based on current data.
Though I didn’t say, “they had it figured out correctly.” I said, “they were attempting to figure it out honestly.” How are you utterly failing to understand that I KNOW they wouldn’t have the scientific method?
Why are you so unnecessarily aggressive? Again, you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Calm down and read what I wrote again.
An honest attempt at thought should obviously be very different than the modern excuse, “God did it.” THAT is what I’m talking about. Their honest thoughts, not their scientific understanding or social excuses…
And your best example for that is “Let there be light could mean something like the Big Bang”? How does this make the smallest bit of sense? That is literally “God did it”, in its purest form. But this is all besides the point, as this is not what I was talking about. Again, calm down, re-read what I said, and respond to my actual comment. Okay?
I’ll give you an example to make it easier. Let’s say that the character of Jeff Goldblum in The Fly is our actual god. One day I randomly say “What if Jeff Goldblums character from The Fly is god?”. Did I make an honest attempt at understanding?
You are still not understanding me correctly. I will try again.
You were literally saying, “they had no evidence” and then ask me where you wanted proof?? You are literally insane.
You are not just incredibly rude, but also seem simply incapable of correctly reading my comments. I am not talking about “they had no evidence” in the sense that they should have evidence or anything.
I also think you completely misunderstand what the Big Bang is. It’s not “the universe popping into existence”, as “let there be light” suggests. It’s the period of expansion when the universe existed already. That is why I’m saying you can’t have a “thought experiment” from “let there be light” that leads to the Big Bang. There are no connections between the two ideas.
But I guess your knowledge level is similar to theirs :)
I don’t see how it could. The Big Bang is not something you can really come up with if you’re not measuring redshift and noticing older light being more shifted, or measuring CMBR - because if you don’t have any indication that the universe is expanding, it is also an arbitrary explanation to assume it once was incredibly dense.
Wrong. You cannot PROVE it in much of any way. Though I didn’t say, “they had it figured out correctly.” I said, “they were attempting to figure it out honestly.” How are you utterly failing to understand that I KNOW they wouldn’t have the scientific method?
An honest attempt at thought should obviously be very different than the modern excuse, “God did it.” THAT is what I’m talking about. Their honest thoughts, not their scientific understanding or social excuses…
My man, please calm down for a moment and try to understand what I’m saying.
This opening alone makes no sense. Where did I talk about proving anything? The Big Bang isn’t something to be proven, it’s a description of what the earliest universe has looked like based on current data.
Why are you so unnecessarily aggressive? Again, you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Calm down and read what I wrote again.
And your best example for that is “Let there be light could mean something like the Big Bang”? How does this make the smallest bit of sense? That is literally “God did it”, in its purest form. But this is all besides the point, as this is not what I was talking about. Again, calm down, re-read what I said, and respond to my actual comment. Okay?
I’ll give you an example to make it easier. Let’s say that the character of Jeff Goldblum in The Fly is our actual god. One day I randomly say “What if Jeff Goldblums character from The Fly is god?”. Did I make an honest attempt at understanding?
You were literally saying, “they had no evidence” and then ask me where you wanted proof?? You are literally insane.
You are still not understanding me correctly. I will try again.
You are not just incredibly rude, but also seem simply incapable of correctly reading my comments. I am not talking about “they had no evidence” in the sense that they should have evidence or anything.
I also think you completely misunderstand what the Big Bang is. It’s not “the universe popping into existence”, as “let there be light” suggests. It’s the period of expansion when the universe existed already. That is why I’m saying you can’t have a “thought experiment” from “let there be light” that leads to the Big Bang. There are no connections between the two ideas.
But I guess your knowledge level is similar to theirs :)