Jump to content

Talk:Cosmology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

re: Changes to biblical cosmology description.

Several people have been reverting the description of Biblical Cosmology to one that has nothing to do with fact and or the Bible's actual description of the cosmos. It's nearly a carbon copy of the Babylonian one and simply does not describe biblical cosmology. It's about as accurate as calling America a communist nation. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be accurate? Those who are reverting it may have good intentions, but their description is not factual. I have MUCH more documentation of this I can add if you wish, even by agnostic scientists. I'm also a professor myself and have done quite a bit of study into the Bible as well as science and history. Wikipedia is very good in many places..but there is unfortunately a bias against historical facts in some areas, sometimes in Christian areas, but not limited to that by any means. I use wikipedia a lot...but we need to make sure it is accurate, not just supporting a prejudiced agenda. This is what I changed the page to and the verses are given as references for the Bible's actual view. I can give much more biblical/technical depth if you wish. Please keep in mind that there can be no other historical source for biblical cosmology than the Bible itself.

[The Bible] (c.2000 BC-100 AD)

A created universe with subsequent expansion and a round/spherical earth hanging on nothing.

Biblical cosmology speaks of God creating the universe (Hebrews 1:2) the movement of the stars after that beginning (Job 38:31), ~15 verses speak of an expansion stretching from that beginning (Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13, etc.) and a number of stars comparable to the grains of sand, but finite (Psalms 147:4, Genesis 22:17) and a round/spherical earth resting/hanging on nothing (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7).

Here are a couple leading scientists views on this topic:

  • “Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” Imperial College of London astrophysicist C.J. Isham.
  • “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”–Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist Arno Penzias.
  • “A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.” Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize
  • Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics, stated“The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” New York Times, March 12, 1978. http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/lecture_pdf/1099874611879bb_hawk.NCL.pdf:
  • Penzias was asked what there was before the Big Bang: "We don't know, but we can reasonably say that there was nothing." An upset listener called immediately, accusing Penzias of being an atheist. He wisely replied: "Madame, I believe you are not aware of the consequences of what I just said. Before the Big Bang there was nothing of what now exists. Had there been something, the question could be: where did it come from?" He continued commenting that if there was nothing and suddenly things began to appear, that was sign that Somebody had taken them from nothing, and concluded saying that his discovery could bring about the overcoming of the historic enmity between science and religion.”

http://www.miradaglobal.com/index.asp?id=religion&principal=180503&idioma=en

  • Dr. Jastrow, director of the Mount Wilson observatory once led by Edwin Hubble, was personally agnostic about ‘religious matters,”. But, he reviewed some of the SURGE evidence and concluded, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” In an interview, Jastrow went even further, admitting that “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
  • Athough he found it personally “repugnant,” General Relativity expert Arthur Eddington also agreed saying, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”
  • George Smoot—co-discoverer of the Great Galaxy Seeds which won him a Nobel Prize as well—echoed Wilson’s assessment by saying, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” Dotoree (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


There are a number of problems with your edit, which is why they keep getting reverted. I will list these problems in order to help your understanding of Wikipedia rules and policies.
The first is that the Bible is a primary source. It is not a reliable source because it is subject to a huge variety of interpretations by its believers. In Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred. With reliable secondary-sources, the interpretations are done by respected professionals who are known to be experts in their field, and they are peer-reviewed by publishers before going into print. If you can locate some secondary sources to use, that would greatly help others to verify your addition without trying to interpret Biblical text themselves.
The next is that, if you remove the Biblical references, you may notice that the paragraph is really just a run-on sentence, and not even a complete one.
The third (and this is a really important one when dealing with theology) is synthesis. It is very easy to parse together quotes (especially quotes from the Bible), which are taken out of their original context and placed within the writers own context. This is done to support an individual interpretation, regardless of what the quotes actally mean in their original context. The word "synthesis" literally means "man pretending to speak for God."
It is for these reasons that reliable secondary-sources should be used. If you can find such sources so that others can verify your addition, rewrite the information in your own words, and do so in fairly grammatical English, you will have a much better chance of having your addition remain in the article. Zaereth (talk)
with subsequent expansion? No. That's a post-hoc hook into expansion-of-space. No biblical scholars *before* that was actually discovered would have said any such thing.
A Creator must exist: this and other quotes you provide, above, seem to be designed to convince us that, errm, a creator must exist. That's obviously hopeless, and beside the point, so I'm not sure why you're doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Quick responses 1) The Bible is a primary source and the only valid source for biblical cosmology. It is a fully 100% reliable source here and the ONLY valid source. PERIOD. It is not accurate at all to say that its believers differ on these things. Even if that was accurate, the same could be said about any book on the planet and its adherents. There are quite a few different types of Darwinians for instance.
    • 2) Secondary sources are MUCH less reliable. Any historical department can tell you that. I also have listed professional scientists view of this above which were secondary sources by professional scientists, some of the Nobel prize winners..
    • Your one good point is that I could divide it into more sentences. I could correct that. Was just trying to make it short, similar to others.
    • 3) The idea about interpretation is not valid. There simply is no taking out of context. There is no interpretation. This is what the texts mean. I have a degree in theology and also edit academic papers for a living. There are no grounds for what you are saying here.
    • 4) A) What the Bible itself says is far more important than any later scholar. B) Yes, I'm quite sure it would be possible to find Bible scholars talking about this long before modern science discovered it. Yes, many scholars agree that the Bible was speaking of the expansion of space in ~15 verses. There is no post-hoc hook there.
    • 5) The quotes are from leading scientists who looked at the claims of the Bible IN CONTEXT and agreed that they paralleled modern science. Nobody should be so close minded as to say that convincing them is hopeless. We are supposed to follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads. I am not expecting you to become a believer in a creator just because of the quotes of leading scientists above, esp. since this is only 1 evidence of 1000s (although even this one alone is quite a strong proof). But, to revert to pure and complete fiction that has nothing to do with fact is not what Wikipedia was designed for...but it's what the reversions are doing.
    • The edits I am making relate somewhat to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP Dotoree (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I would hope that WP:BLP does not ONLY deal with living persons.. Ancient sources should be treated objectively and fairly as well. But, billions of people believe based on evidence that God is living now and did write/inspire at least some portions of the Bible, as I do, based on mammoth amounts of evidence. So, it can come under that heading.
        • This has never been a fringe belief. It is the views of most if not all Christians and has been for millennia. I've been a Christian all my life, am in contact with 1000+ pastors. NOT ONE would dispute what I have said and NOT ONE believes the absolutely ridiculous Babylonian nonsense portrays the Bible's concept of cosmology. NOT ONE. The original way the page was written is perpetrating fraud, most of which no Christian or Jew that I am aware of actually believes (except maybe a couple extremely fringe liberals..note that I'm neither conservative or liberal). This is not original research or a synthesis of it either. I have been signing every post at the end with the tildes Dotoree (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP is by definition a Biography of a Living Person, not "anything relating to your personal higher power of choice". And do not re-factor my comments with a different bulleting style again. Heiro 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That is what is called a literal belief. As a linguist, I can tell you that all language is subject to interpretation. This is why we have judges to interpret the law, and why my girlfirend can take a compliment and turn it into an insult. For example, when God says to Noah, "Only, you shall not flesh with its life." I take that to mean that animals should not be eaten while they are still alive. This implies that, prior to this statement, it was common to eat living animals. However, other may interpret this as saying that life is equal to blood, and that it simply says that the blood should be drained before cooking. This is the difference between a literal and a fundamentalist translation. Others still may translate that as being symbolic, and it is this type of symbolic interpretation which most of your non-biblical quotes address, which are at odds with the literal translation you are presenting. (eg: Synthesis)

If your goal is to try an add some useful information to help expand the subject, so that readers can decide for themselves which theory they prefer, then I would be happy to help. however, if your goal is to try to "convince" anybody of anything, then I think you've come to the wrong place. That is not what an encyclopedia is about. Zaereth (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

          • Please, I've been teaching in linguistics for 20 years, the last 7 at the university level, and just this month was promoted to assistant professor. It is absolute nonsense that all language is open to interpretation. That is not valid or true. SOME is, but some most definitely is not. If that were the case, translations would almost be impossible. If what you are saying is true about the Bible, then we can just willy nilly rewrite the author's intended meaning for all books in history. This is not at all a valid reasons to reject what the Bible, the original text that matters in this case, actually says says. The Bible is not only a literal book. It has many types of language in it, just as English does ranging from literal sections to poetic, metaphorical, symbolic, prophetic, puns, similes and others. But, there is no linguistic justification at all for saying that many of the things I am citing are just symbolic/metaphors. The linguistic cues simply do not exist in the text to justify that. And again, the majority of Christians and scholars and even many agnostic scientists view the Bible as speaking literally there. Even if you were right and correct, there is valid interpretation of the Biblical cosmology that could match the Babylonian one. That is an extreme misuse of the actual text.
          • Your Noah verse doesn't exist in the Bible. Typo? My goal is to add factual information. Whether it convinces people is something different. But, we MUST, MUST, MUST have factual and accurate information, and the Babylonion nonsense is just invented fiction that has almost nothing to do with the actual text. I am saying this as a pretty knowledgeable expert in both the Bible and linguistics.
          • To William M. Connolley Yes, many scholars agree that the Bible was speaking of the expansion of space in ~15 verses. There is no post-hoc hook there. Dotoree (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Genesis 9:4. I don't understand the hostile attitude, because I'm trying to give you some friendly help. Touting our professional skills means nothing here, because anybody can say anything. It is the quality of our edits that will win you respect here, and nothing else. What I am trying to tell you is that Wikipedia has rules by which we all must abide. If you are unable to find reliabe secondary-sources, then the info will get reverted. Simple as that. Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

            • Genesis 9:4 says: "But you must never eat any meat that still has the lifeblood in it." NLT This is a well known Bible health law and not ambiguous at all. It's also been documented from science as being quite wise as a way to avoid a number of diseases. It is completely literal, there are no linguistic cues that it isn't literal and the vast majority of scholars agree on this.
            • Thanks for trying to give me some "friendly help". But it's a double standard. Nearly all of the other cosmological summaries on the page point to primary sources, many which are sacred texts of other religions, and with no references of any sort to help someone find the evidence for those claims. I have given BOTH primary sources AND secondary sources of the highest credibility. And yet you are still objecting. Severe double standard. I have had a lot of trauma in life from misrepresentation and am also active in several human rights campaigns. Making false statements, using fallacies (double standards, etc.) and bias/prejudice to cause people to be ignorant of facts, wastes much time and money, and in some cases harm or even death is caused. You simply do not understand how important it is to be fully objective and as accurate as possible and use the same standards for everything, something that is not even remotely being done here. Dotoree (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I have never edited this article, nor do I plan to do so in the future. I am simply trying to explain the criteria for inclusion. I see no citations to the Bible, the Koran, or any other sacred text in the references section of the article, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of a double standard. If information exists which contradicts any unsourced info, you can easily correct it by providing a reliable source. If you truely are a scholar, then doing so should be no problem for you.

The quote I gave from Genesis is word-for-word from the New Revised Version of the Bible. (I was looking right at it when I typed it out, so as not to misquote God. Of course, there are many versions of the Bible.) Personally I view the quote as supporting the scientific claims that humans were once far more savage that we are now (as supporting the theory of evolution). Simply google the phrase and you can view a myriad of interpretations.

Also, to indent your posts, it would be easier to read if you use colons instead of asterisks. It makes things much neater and easier to follow. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

            • The criteria for most other sources is just A) someone's opinion with no references beyond a book name as demonstrated above or B) Some primary source As it stands the representation of biblical cosmology is outright fraud, similar to calling America a communist country. What I put there had several very explicit references for what was said. I already DID provide the MOST reliable source that relates to Bible cosmology. That is the Bible itself. It is the primary source and every historian on the planet will tell you that primary sources hold the top post in terms of evidence (each source does need to be checked by a variety of methods for reliability though). If I am writing a biography of your life, your personal letters, diaries, pictures, will be the #1 and most accurate source info...although others can help as well.
            • You missed a word in quoting the Genesis text. It wasn't a complete thought. The most important scholars on Genesis would be Jewish ones and then Christian ones. Jewish scholars and many Christian scholars know know it clearly to be a text regarding a health law. This has been confirmed as valid by modern science as well. There are no linguistic ques that it is not literal. I can use google and find opinions that Obama is a commy loving, baby killing socialist who hangs around with terrorists for fun in his spare time, and wants to teach kindergartners how to have sex. It's really naive to think that just because there are multiple opinions that they have equal validity and that you can dismiss original documents based on that. That's extremely foolish and irrational. It is the original document and what it says that matters and the scholars who are not biased against it who have the right to explain what it means. Should we let communists decide what Jefferson meant when he was writing the Declaration of Independence???Dotoree (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that I took the quote out of context to make it fit my own opinion? That, of course, is synthesis, which are exactly what your edits appear to be. But, by my opinion, that is what is correct. Would you trust me to add my own interpretation, or would you prefer that I be forced to find sources that agree with that opinion, because they probably do not exist. Not being able to find reliable secondary-sources would stop me in my tracks, and, thus, I would not be able to add my synthesis to the article.

Let me give an example that doesn't relate to this article. Let's say that I use my expertise to write an article on maneuvering fighter planes during combat. I can most certainly use military instruction manuals, but those are primary sources. Would the average person be able to verify my article by reading the flight manuals? Most likely not, because the military has it's own way of speaking, its own idioms, and its own words that have a meaning unique to that application. These are no doubt the best sources out there on air conbat maneuvering, but the article requires secondary sources to back up what the primary sources say. I would not expect the average reader to try and interpret military jargon, metallurgical jargon, or archaic Biblical jargon on their own. We need reliable secondary-sources that the reader can use. That is policy, and there is no point arguing policy on this talk page. (You can go to the policy pages for that.) Zaereth (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

      • I have ALREADY give both primary sources and secondary sources of the highest credibility (and no other cosmology was forced to do what you are requiring me to do, even though I have already done it, and can provide more documentation if needed).
      • People, this is not a matter of whether what the Bible says is true or not. It's an ethical matter of giving each person and view the right to explain what they/it believes and to share that accurately. You want that for yourself. It's given to all other views in that list of historical cosmologies. But, for some incomprehensible reason, you are denying it to the Bible. This is a double standard and a profound violation of basic human intellectual rights. You are allowing a straw man on the page now which has absolutely nothing to do with fact, and no biblical scholar would support it. PERIOD. Only those that have prejudice against the Bible would invent that fiction out of thin air. Would you think it right for your enemy to invent fiction about what you believe and then propagate that? Do you think that the tea party and Fox news have the right to define what Obama believes? Do voodoo believers have the right to define what atheists believe, or agnostics what muslims believe? Of course not. It is absurdly immoral in the extreme to deny any person or view the right to explain their beliefs accurately. And THAT is precisely what you are doing here.
      • AFTER each view is defined accurately by its primary sources/adherents (which is just the basic golden rule), THEN others can come in and debate and discuss how true each cosmology is based on evidence of different types and things like that. It's also fine to have a primary source and then scholars confirming that (which I've already given above). But again, it is a severe violation of human intellectual rights to ban people and views themselves from being able to define what they believe and letting their enemies straw man that and misrepresent it. You are accomplices to perpetrating fraud by supporting that. Dotoree (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
We are not here so you can publish THE TRUTHTM, you do not have a right to express your "freedom of speech" here as this is a private website where volunteers edit and must abide by the rules. Nor is the place for you to "debate and discuss how true each cosmology is based on evidence of different types and things like that". Read up on WP:What Wikipedia is not. And knock it off with the "perpetrating fraud" crap, it is seriously bordering on WP:NPA to constantly hurl that out at everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your biblical outlook. Heiro 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you would care to take a look at these:

  • Heinrich Zimmern. The Babylonian and the Hebrew Genesis. Harvard University.
  • Richard S. Hess (1994). I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern and Literary Approaches to Genesis 1-11. Vol. 4 of Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Series. Eisenbrauns.
  • Alexander Heidel. The Babylonian Genesis : The Story of Creation (PDF). University of Chicago Press.

Maybe someone can use them to better cite the section. Heiro 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

      • I'm sorry, but Wikipedia exists for the express purpose of disseminating facts about all views and concepts as objectively as possible to as many as possible, regardless of what your or my personal belief about truth is. Definitions do not determine what truth is. PERIOD. We can define spontaneous generation, but that doesn't mean it's true. You are getting these two concepts BADLY mixed up. This has NOTHING to do with whether you believe the Bible is true or what your personal views are. Nor does it have anything to do with what I believe or my personal views are. Neither the goals of being factual, nor the rules of objectivity nor Wikipedia's own rules are being followed in any way. This has to do with the ethical intellectual human right, that each primary source is allowed to describe itself, not have itself thoroughly misrepresented. It has to do with what the Bible actually says and what secondary scholars agree it says. I've cited BOTH of those. Until just above,nobody else has cited any primary or secondary sources at all (and those being cited are massively out of date and a fringe view.
      • None of your references above are dealing with Biblical cosmology. They are dealing with accounts of the creation of the earth, which are very different. Did you even read what you cited at all? The Hess one says:

"The major item of the Babylonian text, the battle between Marduk and Tiamat, does not appear in the Hebrew accounts of creation." He then tries to assert that there is some battle between Yahweh and sea monsters at the beginning like in the Babylonian account, but he provides ZERO evidence for that. Why? Because it doesn't exist. He and others try to argue that there is some fight between God and monsters in Job. But, that's simply not true. God is just telling Job about how He made the world (Job 38:1-42:6). Read it for yourself. books.google.co.kr/books?id=g5MGVP6gAPkC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=babylonian+cosmology+in+genesis&source=bl&ots=EurZK7yPP8&sig=--TQMUtR3gNDR-soKgVTdC-FR6c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aXcoUa-jJurB2QXdlYD4Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=babylonian cosmology in genesis&f=false

      • The clear statements of the Bible about what it thinks of the cosmos and major scholars are being just thrown in the garbage and fiction replacing them. Here are some for starters, which you could easily have checked from references I gave.

1) The Universe had a beginning: Hebrews 1:2 says, “through the Son He (God) created the universe.”. This is a strong statement for a beginning.

2) Science describes the universe in ~5 terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis was written ~1450 BC. Genesis 1:1,2 and all these aspects were included from the very beginning.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters."

3) God created many things through the power of His word. Logically, at least some aspects of creation had to come into being out of nothing (ex nihilo). “The Lord merely spoke, and the heavens were created. He breathed the word,and all the stars were born.” Psalm 33:6 “…for he (God) issued his command, and they came into being.” Psalm 148:5

4) God speaks of the movement of the stars: ““Can you direct the movement of the stars— binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion?” Job 38:31

5) ~15 verses in the Bible also speak of a stretching of the universe. “This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth?” Isaiah 44:24 (see also: Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13, etc.).

6) The number of stars is incredibly large (like sand), but, finite since they can be counted and are named. “I will multiply your descendants[a] beyond number, like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.”Genesis 22:17 “He counts the stars and calls them all by name. Psalm 147:4

7) The earth hangs on nothing. “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” Job 26:7

In regard to how these support an expansion of the universe, consider: a) The term stretching is linguistically about the same as expanding, considering translation from a different language/culture, the ancient minds and simplified language God had to use to make it understandable for them. b) The term heavens, shamayim (שָׁמַיִם), is used to refer to both the earthly sky and the universe. 3) To get from a universe with a beginning to what human beings have been able to see, an expansion is required. This is simple logic and this concept was not at all foreign to the Hebrew mind.

Dotoree (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That is entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are trying to say the Religious cosmology of the ancient Hebrew scriptures describes the Physical cosmology now put forth by modern scientists (you might want to re-read the lede of this article where it explains the difference between the two). And you haven't provided any WP:RELIABLE sources for this, merely your own interpretation of biblical verses. Heiro 17:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The Bible is a poor source for biblical cosmology. We need reliable secondary sources (i..e. written by recognized biblical scholars and academics) that interpret the Bible. References to the Bible to support any statements about cosmology are WP:OR. Even scientific writings may not be reliable sources for content on biblical cosmology unless the authors also have biblical credentials. Jojalozzo 20:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. A simple look at the text in question can put it into context. For instance, Job 38:31 is not God speaking but, rather, it is Eli'hu speaking, asking Job if he is capable of such things. The Psalms are a group of praises to God. All of these thing, including the scientific quotes, are being taken out of context and stitched together to draw a novel conclusion, which is the very definition synthesis. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    • There isn't hardly a shred of fact or consistency in anything above.

1) The user "Dragons_flight" above rightly said, "This is an encyclopedia. Our objective is not to find the truth but rather to report on what others believe to be true. See: WP:NPOV.'

2)Many other cosmologies listed have not been required to have specific primary source references, secondary sources or third party sources confirming that (which makes me question their accuracy). I have actually provided ALL these and more (and I can find many more). 100% false claims are being made that I haven't and no consistent rules of any sort are being used, only double standards. I did not post any original research nor is it justified to call it a synthesis. I only posted a shortened summary of what the actual Bible verses say based on the widespread view of numerous Christian Ph.Ds. in theology, Christian Ph.D. scientists and even skeptic Ph.D. scientists and can find plenty more if needed. No, I am NOT copying modern cosmology and copying it back onto the Bible. That is a completely false claim. If I had claimed that the Bible teaches a universe of 13.77 billion years or something like that, THEN that would have been WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I did no such thing. Actually the real WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is claiming is plagiarizing Babylonian cosmology and attributing it to the Bible when they have almost no similarity in actual fact.

3) I have listed Bible verses that describe its view of cosmology. This is NOT MY OPINION and stop lying that it is and using relativistic nonsense to change the actual meanings of the words as the Hebrews understood them. It is what the Bible itself says about cosmology and the Bible is the SOLE and ONLY LEGITIMATE source for the Biblical view of cosmology. THERE ARE NO OTHERS, least of all Babylonians. If secondary sources are to be taken seriously, they must references the Bible, not just pull fairy tales out of thin air and perpetrate them as factual. Most of the other sources are permitted to list their views based solely on their primary source, but then the Bible is banned from doing that. Double standard.

4)The Bible has more people than just one person talking, yes. But, whether it's God talking or Elihu (someone who got his view for what God said and prophets of the time, but wouldn't be considered infallible like God) or any other godly person, that is ALL part of the BIBLICAL COSMOLOGICAL VIEW. How can any adult not understand this. The biblical cosmological view is something SPECIFICALLY dealing with what biblical beings, esp. God and godly people, though. It is NOT solely what God said (that would be God's cosmology or something like that).How can any adult not understand this? This is like ABC kindergarten logic.

5) To say that skeptics with Ph.Ds. in science don't count, even skeptics, is just astronomical bias against evidence and flagrantly against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Scientists are the most important experts in this area of whether an ancient source matches what current science says. Biblical experts aren't the judge of modern science. They are the judge of what the Bible says and they are overwhelmingly saying the same thing I have said above. I actually should include the comments of the secular scientists in the page to be fair and similar to many other Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where people can get an objective summary of the primary source facts as well as some thoughts by proponents and critics on those primary source facts. It is not a place where people's personal opinions should be used to eradicate the facts of history. That's diametrically opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for. Dotoree (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously having trouble understanding what Wikipedia (nor any other encyclopedia) stands for, which is why we've been trying to help you do this correctly. Screaming at us isn't going to help matters either. It is very simple. You are presenting your own view of what the Bible says, and trying to claim that all Christians believe exactly what you believe. Most of us have been here long enough to spot it a mile away, and will usually intervene whether we care for the particular article or not. There are a huge variety of Christian religions, and very few of them share the same views of Biblical interpretations, so it makes no sense to say that the Bible means the same thing to each of them. Growing up a Presbyterian, I most certainly was not raised to share the Catholic view, the Baptist view, nor the Puritan view. Although I've studied a vast number of religions as a point of pure curiosity, I cannot recall a single scholar that shares your particular viewpoint on the subject. However, one thing is clear, the Bible is no more a reliable source for what all Christians or Jews believe than the Illiad is for what the ancient Greeks believed. (I could easily read the same conclusions into what the story of Chaos says, or the story of Ragnarok.)
There are literally tons of books out there on this exact subject, and if you ar unable to find a single one that spells out your belief, then it is clear that it is not a very popular view of the Bible. (eg: a novel interpretation) Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


    • (sorry for delays, had major computer problems) It is utter and complete fiction that these views are only mine, as demonstrated amply above already, even by secular scientists like Jastrow and others. Wikipedia is not a place to plagiarize one culture's ideas and willy nilly impose it on another. It is a place where facts for each culture and idea should be respectfully and factually represented. I would speak VERY STRONGLY (I never screamed at any point...capitals are often used for EMPHASIS around the world, esp. when important facts are discussed) and say exactly the same thing if Buddhist cosmology was imposed on atheists or Islamic on Vedic or whatever (and if I were an expert in that area to know what they teach in detail). It is completely against everything Wikipedia stands for to do what is being done above. There is no bias in representing the facts of what a primary source says. The bias is entirely on the side of those who want to hide and distort that.
    • I don't think this is intentionally being done by most here. But, probably due to not being taught these facts in school or something, people are having a hard time breaking out of traditional thinking and opinions to recognize objective facts, such as that the Bible explicitly speaks of the beginning of a universe and an expansion from that point on to now. This and other things just aren't in harmony with Babylonian cosmology which spoke of the cosmos revolving around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy#Cosmology
    • I made no claim that all Christians believe exactly what I do in every area. What is at issue here is the BIBLE'S view of cosmology, not what all Christians think. If I were to describe what Homer in the Iliad thought about something, it would not be shared by all Greeks. But, it WOULD describe what the Iliad says about it and THAT is the key point here. There are plenty of differences among Darwinians. But that doesn't given anyone the right to describe it with Lamarckianism. That would be really absurd and wrong. I can get all sorts of Darwinians to disagree about concepts in Darwin's book. Can I just throw out what Darwin said and impose his rival's view on him, by using the fallacies that are being used above? Of course not. This page says it is describing biblical cosmology in one section, and it categorically is not. It is only imposing Babylonian cosmology on the Bible. What Christians think does not matter if it conflicts with what the Bible says about itself, just as what Darwinians say does not matter if they conflict with what Darwin said about himself. It is the primary source that is being evaluated and it's not right to distort that. It is a sacred right for each view/organization/person to be represented with actual facts about what they say. And in this area, there is wide agreement by many Christians with what I have said.
    • Here are some books by major pastors and scientists that support some or all aspects of what what I'm saying:
      • www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364126082&sr=1-1&keywords=I+don't+have+enough+faith+to+be+an+atheist
      • www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Alpha-Robert-John-Russell/dp/0800662733/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364124600&sr=1-11&keywords=The+Bible+cosmology#reader_0800662733
      • www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364124600&sr=1-12&keywords=The+Bible+cosmology

Many others. Here are some articles on the same topics by a range of Christian theologians and scientists:

Dotoree (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, you are again pushing your own Point of View. The way Wikipedia operates has been explained time and time again and I, amomgst many others, have offered help - yet this seems to be ignored. Please abide by Wikipedia's conventions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Penrose?

I am no expert, but I just read Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, and I am surprised that his theory is not represented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf57 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, "Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" is still not mentioned in the article here. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

BICEP2 telescope and creation postulates

Headine-1: BICEP2 finds first direct evidence of cosmic inflation

QUOTE: “Cosmic evolution from the Big Bang to today” [Very popular news coverage, everywhere!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — PS:This will explode to more in popular media.

Copied from the Cosmology#Physical cosmology section

On 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the detection of gravitational waves, providing strong evidence for inflation and the Big Bang.< ref name="BICEP2-2014">"BICEP2 2014 Results Release". National Science Foundation. 17 March 2014. Retrieved 18 March 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)</ref>< ref name="NASA-20140317">Clavin, Whitney (17 March 2014). "NASA Technology Views Birth of the Universe". NASA. Retrieved 17 March 2014.</ref>< ref name="NYT-20140317">Overbye, Dennis (17 March 2014). "Detection of Waves in Space Buttresses Landmark Theory of Big Bang". New York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014.</ref>

Image => File:PIA17993-DetectorsForInfantUniverseStudies-20140317.jpg
Caption => Gravitational waves in the infant universe found by microscopically examining focal plane of BICEP2 radio telescope.

Headine-2: Evidence of young universe's growth spurt is discovered

QUOTE: “Researchers focusing on gravitational waves find the first direct evidence for the theory of cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the big bang.” [One person says the work is worthy of the Nobel Prize.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Cultures?

I am surprised that this entry (and probably others) is so 'Eurocentric' (by 'Eurocentric' I include its antecedents, such as Babylonia, and its descendents, such as America). What of other cosmologies, such as those found in China or Australia or Polynesia or the Americas?Mcfete44 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done — At least Babylonian is in the table now. You are speaking of 'Cosmology' as part of a culture/religion, but I would rather consider cosmology as a science, such that different nations/cultures/religions could hold to the same scientific details, such as Big Bang or Creationism. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Or to say it another way, the God of everyone on Earth created a Big Bang! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add your own POV comments here. The Talk page is for improving the article. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Not intended to be my point of view, it is an important point of view going back to the monkey trials. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing Help

Hello,

I need help with the following: I'm trying to combine this links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) section 3 with this links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmological_theories) information. I keep on getting confused and muddling it up...

Can someone help me with this please?

(Russell.mo (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

I'd be happy to help, provided it's within my ability, but I'm not sure what you are asking for. What do you mean when you say "combine links?" Can you elaborate? Zaereth (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest Zaereth. I meant what's inside the link, i.e., I need to combine Cosmology article's section 3 "Historical cosmologies" together with Timeline of cosmological theories article's content. I must warn, it's hard! You'll be confused with the dates, the names, the models names. Try to amend them together. Keep it in the same layout as the Timeline of cosmological theories article's content. Start from the Cosmology article's section 3 "Historical cosmologies" last row, try to insert it in the Timeline of cosmological theories article's content. Start with the date, as you go up you'll get confused with the name and date, then date and model, then everything... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC))
I think you may be confusing things here. The Historical cosmologies section lists the various cosmological theories, while Timeline of cosmological theories lists events in the history of cosmology, so these are quite different topics, and should not be merged. Paradoctor (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility Paradoctor, since some of it relate with each other, merging by creating a separate article as a whole? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC))
Lots of articles are related to each other, why should we merge? What would be the topic of the article you are proposing? How would it improve Wikipedia? Paradoctor (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your problem, but agree with Paradoctor in that I don't see the reason why you would want to do such a merge. What benefit will there be for the reader? What would such an article be titled? The title of an article should summarize its purpose in a few short words, so in figuring out what to call this article, perhaps that would help us understand its intended purpose.
If I understand you correctly, what you are trying to do is a huge undertaking. If your goal is to create a timeline of the evolution of all the different cosmological theories, I foresee that as being a nearly impossible task. (Maybe not completely impossible, but very, very difficult indeed.) One of the main problems is that many of these theories have been evolving and changing simultaneously. If the goal is to assemble them all into one timeline, then it may be easiest to create a timeline for each individual theory, and then try to combine them, but that will be difficult to do without causing great confusion, as many of these theories were growing at the same times.
Such a task is going to take a lot of research. I would suggest instead of merging, try writing the article from scratch, which will actually be much easier than trying to merge conflicting information already in Wikipedia articles. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources, so they cannot be used to create a new article. Not to mention (no offense to the authors) that these two articles are poorly lacking in inline citations, so it is difficult to verify that the info is correct. You may want to start by reading the sources themselves, and looking into other sources. (Perhaps try adding inline sources to this article and correcting any conflicting information could help too.) Then think hard bout how you want the article to be laid out, so that it will be easy for a reader to follow. Most of all, consider what the benefit of such an article would be for the reader, and why Wikipedia needs such an article, and give it a good, corresponding title. There are many good links to information about writing articles. You can find a link on my page, or check User:Tony1's page for some really great information. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I think what you suggest would simply be expanding the existing timeline article, and reformatting it. Nothing against it. Let me note, though, that the list in the Cosmology article serves a distinct purpose from a timeline, and will, in all probability, get its own article sooner or later. Also, upon rereading, I realized that something else is missing: History of cosmology. Paradoctor (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for delaying in getting back to you guys. Yes Paradoctor you are right, I also understand the distinction between the two articles aforementioned. I thought there would be a possibility to merge them since few bulletins are similar. Thanks anyways guys. Regards -- (Russell.mo (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC))

Extraneous words

Yesterday I took out a bit of waffle but was promptly reverted. Maybe taking it a bit at a time; the picture at the top of the article has the caption "The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) was completed in September 2012 and shows the farthest galaxies ever photographed by humans." I suggest removing the words "by humans" from the end. It is patently obvious that humans took the photo (even if indirectly via some automated process) and this doesn't need clarifying here. It also sounds daft. Any thoughts? 86.23.104.190 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No response, so I'll do it. 86.25.25.134 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not the way Wikipedia works. There is no consensus for your proposed changes whatsoever. David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I originally made the change a while ago. You reverted without discussion. I opened the discussion here, I got no response, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that no one objects, hence my edit. Now - if you object, state your case here! If you fail to do so I'll make the edit again. Have you ever heard of bold, revert, discuss? 86.25.25.134 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I had seen the comment but didn't bother replying because it was so obvious. I fully agree with the removal of the humans, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Same as DVdm. David, can you please clarify for the rest of us what your objection is? Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, because I felt it read better. There are loads of references throughout Wikipedia that refer to "humans". Also this unregistered IP needs to learn how we work, rather than arrogant comments. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the anon has learned a bit about how we work, so I'll close the case by removing the humans then . - DVdm (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Expert attention please at Big Bang Page: Elaboration and Citation

Some interested editors have highlighted a few sections of the Big Bang page that could use some expert attention for content elaboration and citation. Please see Talk:Big Bang. Thank you and I apologize if cross linking this way is not optimal. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Fate the correct term in the first sentence of this article?

Looking at the article for fate, it seems that fate refers to some actor making something happen. Perhaps "destiny" should be used instead, since destiny seems to refer to things working themselves out without intervention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "fate." Both words are synonyms and interchangeable in this context, but destiny has the connotation of something turning out well, whereas "fate" has the connotation of something turning out badly. I'm sure the end of the universe will be a bad day for us all. Zaereth (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable (and unattributed) list of questions for "Religious, mythological, and metaphysical cosmology"

The section "Religious, mythological, and metaphysical cosmology" contains a list of questions. Where do these questions come from? Observation of what scholars working in religion and metaphysics ask themselves? Or is it somebody's idea of what these fields involve? I ask because some of the questions seem overly general, so as not to be specific to cosmology. Consider: "What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)." Mechanism and atomism seem like issues in core metaphysics, not in cosmology specifically. (Granted, sometimes people use "cosmology" to refer to everything in metaphysics that isn't ontology, but this article is using the term in a much narrower sense.)

Compare this list of concerns with the list given at "Cosmology and Theology" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "[M]any of the theologically relevant questions related to current cosmology are old. Has the universe come into existence a finite time ago? Will it come to an end? Why are the cosmic evolution and the laws of nature of just such a kind that they permit intelligent life to exist? These and other questions of obvious relevance to theism are currently being discussed in the light of the most recent cosmological theories and observations, but the questions themselves (and, indeed, many of the answers) were familiar to medieval philosophers and theologians. This is also the case with the question that is sometimes considered the ultimate one: Why is there a cosmos?" These seem more specifically related to cosmology as it's understood as a sub-field in metaphysics and theology.2601:47:4001:7056:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection? & Merge?

Please have a someone do a

?

Possibility merge both Cyclic Modals together as well?

— 73.47.37.131 (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection.
If you are trying to seek consensus for a merge please expound your argument as to why this would be beneficial. - Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bias

As is all too frequent on Wikipedia, this page seems subject to Pro-materialistic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.166.111 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of your concern is not at all clear. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As I asked on my talk page ([1]), please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~).
See wp:FURTHER and thus wp:ELNO. I can't find any wp:secondary sources combining this work with "cosmology" — see Google Scholar, Google Books. Looks like book promotion with, coming from your location, a wp:Conflict of interest, i. o. w. spammy. - DVdm (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Astrophysics?

I suggest that astrophysics be included in the list of science topics that are interested in cosmology in the fourth paragraph. Astrophysics is mentioned in prominent places below, but should be introduced early Furthermore, astronomy may or may not be limited to specific celestial objects as suggested, since observational astronomy provides the experimental data used to support much of physical cosmology's basis.

Additionally, gravitational waves detected by the LIGO observations should be included in the appropriate place.

24.199.211.139 (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

24.199.211.139 (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The article, as far as I can tell, is not protected. Since you know exactly what changes should be made, it is probably most efficient if you make them yourself. Just be sure to cite any information which does not already have a reference. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Link to German article

On the left side of the article there are links to other languages. But why is there no link to the German article?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmologie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.135.201.173 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Adjectives (I didn't include cosmogonical which is unnecessarily complex)

• cosmogonous /kɒzˈmɒɡənəs/ able to create a universe; related to cosmogony
• cosmogonic /kɒzmɒˈɡɔnɪk/ able to create a universe; related to cosmogony
• cosmogenic /kɒzmɒˈdʒɛnɪk/ of cosmic origin; from Ancient Greek -γενής (-genḗs, “offspring; kind”); “a cosmic offspring”

That would be nice if this were a dictionary and those are in fact real words, but this is not. It's an encyclopedia, which means we're only concerned with nouns (things), not words. In most cases, the title of the article is just the most common name among many, but the thing is the same regardless. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I think...

I think it's not about how in-depth or specific you are when you write a page. I think it's about where you got the info, whether it's true or outdated or a lie, and how much info there is, and putting it in a way the reader can understand, and if it's on the right topic or not. So go do some research, and get writing!

EmotionalBananaGirl (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saxonnn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 16:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

– Cosmology looks now as an attempt for a WP:broad-concept article. But I do not think that a broad-concept article on this topic is possible. It is definetly fails "expert test": the expert on "cosmology" would need to have both physics and religiom in their knowledge base, along with philosophy. Heanor (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A "history of cosmology" articles implies a "cosmology" one. Srnec (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't follow the nominator's logic. This is an article on cosmology, so what's the problem? "History of cosmology" might be an acceptable spin-off article for some academic study of how beliefs on cosmology have changed over time, but it isn't the current article. SnowFire (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, I see that I was unable to explain what I mean. Then it is better to nominate this article for deletion. Srnec, SnowFire there is no such thing as cosmology. branch of astronomy concerned with the study of the chronology of the universe is called physical cosmology. There are also philosophical cosmology and religious cosmology, they have nothing to do with physical cosmology. Thus WP:broad-concept article is not possible. By history of cosmology I meant of course history of physical cosmology, but from your reaction I understand that it is confusing. --Heanor (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. It's clearer now. If that is what you want, though, then that is what you should propose: History of physical cosmology. There is no way we can have a "history of cosmology" article without a "cosmology" article.
There is an Oxford Companion to Cosmology. And it has an article on "Cosmology". It says, "Cosmology may be divided into four disciplines: physical cosmology, metaphysical cosmology, religious cosmology, and esoteric cosmology." It then has sections on each of these four. So a broad-concept article that works as a kind of clearing house for folks who have to google "cosmology" wouldn't be so bad. Although this article isn't that (yet). Srnec (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I too find the logic flawed. This seems to be more an issue of semantics. It's like saying, "there is no such thing as energy. There is potential energy and there is kinetic energy, but not energy." However, energy is the noun in this example, and "potential" and "kinetic" are just adjectives. Likewise, "cosmology" is the noun in the above statement, and to be a noun it has to be a thing. The adjectives are simply different types of the thing. Like Energy, this article should serve as the "parent article" that broadly lays out the concept, and then breaaks it into its different aspects, and then we should have a subordinate-article (aka: main article) on each of those aspects. In a way, a parent article works like a DAB page only much more informative, except, whereas DABs are for entirely different things that share the same name, parent articles are for the same noun that has many different adjectives. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article covers what most people searching for "Cosmology" would expect to read about, therefore it's in the right place. PianoDan (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition too narrow

From the article: Cosmology (from Greek κόσμος, kosmos "world" and -λογία, -logia "study of") is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe.

I think this definition is too narrow. Cosmology refers to *any* theory of the Universe, including religious narratives and metaphysical ideas. This definition implies that cosmology is astronomy, and that is not historically true. Rendall (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's a metaphysical field of philosophy that happens to include astronomy. Even in astronomy, there are speculative aspects that appear untestable, and thus are philosophical in nature. Praemonitus (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cosmology/Archive_2&oldid=1254122585"