“Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.”
Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism. So if they assumed that, then they would have two basic contradictory assumptions, and would be building a house on a foundation of sand.
Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No it’s not, that’s the point.
The Big Bang supports a proposed entity outside the universe that somehow initiated cosmic inflation.
Hence my previous statement:
“In short, Big Bang needed an unexplained period of inflation (which was an EXTREMELY brief period of time - a 32-position decimal fraction of one second), which needed an entity outside of the universe to initiate - an entity that we have known for millennia as God.”
Nothing I wrote was untrue. What you call an entity that is external to the universe doesn’t matter, just like whatever theology you attribute to it doesn’t matter.
It’s science that claims the entity exists. So does Judaism, Christianity, and every other monotheistic religion.
The big deal is that science has claimed this for only 60 years. Monotheism has claimed it for millennia.
Hence Robert Jastrow’s somewhat humorous quote.