timberlandko wrote:All evidence, all the way back to the Planck Horizon, indicate to beyond a reasonable doubt the Big Bang happened, while no evidence contraindicates that conclusion. Conversely, no evidence indicates any supernatural being or condition, and natural laws serve quite well to explain much, and ever increasingly more, and more precisely, with each successive discovery stemming from the entire body of discoveries which form humankind's ever-expanding body of knowleedge.
I'm sure you know this already Timber, but for any who don't, I would like to point out that the Big Bang is the best
model we have to explain the evidence we see around us. This is the same with all scientific theories.
But it's just a model. It's the best model for explaining the evidence. If a better naturalistic model is proposed which matches the data better, then it would take preeminent status. Again, this is the nature of the scientific method.
In the case of the BB, the model we currently use is extremely detailed, and correct to a high degree of probability, but it will never be absolute or certain. It's only correct to a degree of tolerance which most knowledgeable people agree is overwhelming.
I suspect that the eventual resolution of QED and Gravity will alter the model slightly and perhaps even result in a paradigm shift for visualizing cosmological events, but one thing is for certain, no degree of paradigm shift will ever alter the philosophical basis which prevents us from concluding it was all done by magic.
