It seems that way.
I think it is the admittance by cavediver that the origin of the matter is not what the Big Bang is trying to explain. So, whereas we previously had comments on what is meant by the Big Bang, space time and expansion and so forth, finally cavediver hits something that divinebeginning was after, an explanation other than something naturalistic. It seems he just wanted someone to admit that naturalstic explanations do not exist as of yet on how everything arose, or how everything existed forever. Therefore, allowing the possibility of God.
There is a recent debate about whether or not we should try explaining science to people in terms of their religion/culture.
This is something I have not seen before, however, I think it has truth in it. For any explanation that excludes God as a possibility, I will look down with a disproving look. Likewise, it seems, you look down on explanations that have a 'God Did It' attached to it.
So if I were to appeal to you, I would need naturalistic explanations and quantifications, AND I would need to exclude God as a remote possibility. Likewise, if you would want to interest me, saying that God is not an acceptable answer in science will do just the opposite.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about some of the assumptions I made about you. But this is what I generally understand from the replies I see.
Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’
*
Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
™ Version 4.2