ICANT writes:
That is a normal assumption. But if you did not examine the tree stump and the burn mark because time was too short or for any other reason and went on your merry way believing it was caused by the lightning the night before
you would be accepting that fact on faith.
This is completely wrong: you would be accepting that the tree was struck by lightning on evidence, not on faith. Your evidence is the burn mark on the tree.
You don't have to have
all the evidence, nor do you even have to have
good evidence, to accept something on evidence. If you say: "because I see A, I conclude B," you are not basing your conclusion on faith, but on "A," which constitutes your evidence. If "A" turns out to be bad or incomplete evidence, or if more evidence could be found, conclusions drawn from "A" do not automatically become faith-based.
Seeing how science does not purport to know or conclude anything about T=0, it's hard to understand what we're supposed to be having faith about, anyway.
The topic title is "Theories of Cosmological Origins..." This is misleading, because without evidence, we do not have any theories about T=0. Without a theory, we don't have any science there, so there is no "scientific belief" about it. Ergo, there is nothing in which we are putting our faith.
There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from
Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams
™ Version 4.2
