And what is the practical application of us writing on a message board. Don’t we have more important stuff to do? What about writing music, or listening to it? Why do we spend resources on that?
You can’t predict what practical applications will result from certain research. Hell, you can’t even predict which research will yield practical applications. But scientists don’t care about whether the research can be used tomorrow to build a better lightbulb. If it can, brilliant, but that’s just an added bonus. It’s not the reason the research is done.
Try this, astronomers discover a planet rotating about a star in a different galaxy. The star is about the same size as our sun. The planet about the same distance from the star as our planet is from the sun.
“Well, shit,” says Bob the scientist, “We gotta get a better look at this!”
Bob and his poker buddies, also scientists, rush to come up with a way to get a close up view of this planet in their lifetimes so they get credit for their work.
“Bam,” Jimbo says, “I found a way to fuel this rocket by playing Brittany Spears songs backwards.” This fuel will allow us to reach 96.36% of light speed and this special CD player that I created will never wear out."
How does this help us the common man, you may ask, ivan? Because we have now found an energy source we can us on Earth. Oil problem solved.
SSG Schwartz
There will always be “practical” problems that demand our immediate attention. And there will always be “impractical” scientists who seek knowledge without any immediate benefit. But in the long run we all benefit from these scientists, just as we benefit from philosophers and artists. If everybody focused on solving this generation’s problems, who would lay the groundwork to inspire our succeeding generations?
And who gets to decide how scientists should better spend their time . . . you?
Not trying to pile on here, just expanding on an earlier comment: Einstein conceived and put into context his theories of relativity through what was understood about gravity, light, and so on directly through the work of astronomers. What they find on the macro side goes hand and hand with the micro in quantum physics and string theory and the like. A discovery in one field may go through a number of transitions in other branches of science until someone hits the jackpot because that work makes sense of something else in another field.
On origins of the universe Alan Guth has suggested it has to do with some kind of vacuum fluctuation which is one accepted possibility. So at this time it’s no less likely that there was just a vacuum seething with quantum bits and pieces that pop in and out of existence. And always was. Which made no difference (to us), at least until our universe popped into existence. Perhaps that’s all there needed to be, was a whisper of vacuum.
That we don’t know, and the scientist will say that. But the difference between those who want empirical evidence and those who believe on faith is that if the empirical evidence shoots down that person’s pet theory, they get over it and are OK with it; they go with the evidence. Science goes on and they go with it. The faith based person needs the evidence to reinforce what they believe. It’s heresy if their pet theory is ever shown to run counter to evidence. That runs counter to their faith in faith. If their faith is shown incorrect they have nothing left. They have to start over again. They can’t just reverse themselves and argue the corrected situation.
Lastly, per the designer, evolution is where simple compounds or proto-life or systems become more complex due to continual adaption to changing environments. Stuff designs itself - everytime a star explodes more complex elements are created. Proto-life in chemical compounds becomes life and then more complex life. That’s what evolution does, there’s the ‘watchmaker’. That is, unless someone devises a falsifyable test for a designer which passes and is replicated by others who test it.
That there is the observable universe is all we do know. Postulating beyond that without any way to test any possibility is the same as rolling an infinitely sided die.
Shouldn’t we determine that the universe has an origin before posing questions on it?
>That there is the observable universe is all we do know. Postulating beyond that without any way to test any possibility is the same as rolling an infinitely sided die.
Do you mean we cannot learn anything about the universe? For example, when Einstein predicts that the orbit of Mercury should have an “error” in it from the point of view of classical mechanics, and astronomers look for it and find it, haven’t we learned something?
1010011010’s version was better. Read his post and presume that that’s what I meant, kindly. 
Is one of the only things we know for certain about space, is that it doesn’t conduct heat?
By “space”, do you perhaps mean “vacuum”?
That bit between the galaxies.
The two positions are inequivalent in so far as one has the creator and the universe to account for, the other just the universe; simple frugality demands we try the second one first, and only if that doesn’t work may possibly go on to the first.
Also, there’s ample evidence of the existence of at least one universe.
Your OP mentioned Atheists. Atheism is the rejection of Theism, or the denial of the existence of a divine, supernatural, Deity that humans are asked to worship. Atheism is not the rejection of extraordinarily powerful alien beings from another universe who may or may not have sparked the Big Bang 20 billion years ago.
>1010011010’s version was better. Read his post and presume that that’s what I meant, kindly.
Sage, I don’t follow. Did you mean to say that postulating about the universe is hopeless, or that we shouldn’t try to explain an origin if we don’t know that there even is one?
The universe certainly has a history. Whether it has an origin may depend more on what we mean by “orign” than on what science turns up. There is also the problem that the way we express ourselves, our very language, often has assumptions and limitations to which we are blind. For example, the wave particle duality problem is really no more than the problem of using one or the other of two explanations that are well rooted in language but that do not actually explain the real world well. For another, when discussing Einsteinian relativity we wind up using words like “now”, even though the concept of “now” is not quite right.
THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER
(bonus points if you know what thats from)
I’d say the questions are fairly similar though, both being basically unanswerable.
Essentially, yes.
I can postulate that there is an invisible salt shaker hanging in the air two feet in front of my eyes, but that exists in such a state as to be untestable. But, equally, I can postulate that the salt shaker is in fact two feet and one inch in front of my eyes.
Certainly it’s good to use your imagination, but postulating on things that are entirely untestable–especially if untestability is part of the definition–really all you’re doing is making stuff up. Using your imagination is good, but you should be aware that making stuff up is all you’re doing when you’re sacrificing goats to the great whale in the sky.
This.
But the question is amazing. It’s the definition of existence. Why something? Why not nothing? It’s the meaning of life. That it happened at all is a wondrous thought. That the concept of things happening could even, er happen.
It’s the question of what defined everything else. I fear our brains may not be wired right to ever know, but I hope we can some day.