[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Crofter

I agree that in science theories are as good as it gets. I do not agree that in science theories are better than laws or facts.


A law only states that a given phenomenon occurs - a theory, such as the theory of evolution can incorporate laws within it. A theory in science can be a framework of hypotheses and laws all supported by mutually corroborating evidence.




To a scientist or anyone else, a theory is a theory, and remains a theory until it is proved beyond doubt. Neither can they say it does not matter what caused this bang. Something caused it, and that something had to come from somewhere, and be made somehow.

Except in science even if something were 99.9% proven scientists would still term it a theory. How perverse would it be however to dispute the validity of a theory on the basis that there is a .1 % chance that it could be wrong. Therefore some theories in science are effectively facts. Big bang theory states that a super condensed particle of matter and energy reached critical mass and resulted in big bang. It doesn't touch upon how this particle came to be in existence. Maybe some deity created it, maybe it was even the God of Christianity but that is outwith the scope of physicists to comment upon. They deal only in the available evidence not the supernatural.


Nothing that has been said on the subject so far can dispel the belief of those who maintain that in the beginning was the Word.

It is not my intention to try and pro-actively dispel the beliefs of any religionists- I'm neutral towards belief in God(s). It is my intention to point out that there are natural explanations for the origins of the universe based on valid evidence. If evidence were put forward that pointed directly to a supernatural deity having had a hand in the creation of the universe then I would consider that objectively but in the absence of such evidence it isn't something that I think has to be brought into the equation.