Kermos

Now, faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which you say/think but not see is what you believe. I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian. Many scientists believe the beginning of Universe was about 13.8 billion years ago. A subset of those scientists believe an infinitesimally small, densely packed, super-heated region (point) exploded as the Big Bang, and other scientists believe that nothing exploded as the Big Bang. Regardless of alternative models, such as a cyclically oscillating Universe, I am focusing on the beginning, that is, the origin of the Universe. I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old. For me, and not for scientists of the Big Bang persuasion, "faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) applies because my assurance of things hoped for is my Lord and my God Jesus Christ's triumphant return while scientists are not hoping for the Big Bang since scientists believe the Big Bang is an event of the past. Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science. I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong? npts2020 published an excellent description/definition for science at https://scienceforums.net/topic/140094-the-ultimate-religion-theory/ as "Science isn't about 'proving' or 'disproving' anything. It is about putting forth the best explanation for a given phenomena using experimentation and observation." This is very pertinent.