Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
Real science neither proves whether a deity has existed or not.
We are not currently discussing whether a deity has existed or not. We are discussing why you seem to think that the BBT is any different than any other actual scientific theory ever. There is also nothing in the BBT that says 'there can't have been a deity ever', so if you are attempting to claim such, it's a straw man.
Originally Posted by Georges Lemaître
Thermodynamical principles from the point of view of quantum theory may be stated as follows : (1) Energy of constant total amount is distributed in discrete quanta. (2) The number of distinct quanta is ever increasing. If we go back in the course of time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum.
That quote is from a letter to Nature by Georges Lemaître, and it is basically the initial proposal of the BBT. Note that it does not claim that this proved there was no deity, and also note that Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest.
So again, I will ask,
Given that the observational and experimental data we have is consistent with BBT, given that there are falsifiable predictions BBT has made that not only have *not* been falsified but were predicted before the measurements could even be made, but were later actually made and found to be consistent with BBT, and given that the theory does not in fact claim there is no deity, why do you have a problem with people provisionally accepting BBT as true if they are explicitly willing to throw it out and adopt a newer, better model should one be found?
If your answer is simply 'but they're extrapolating and using imagination', please prove the sun will come up tomorrow without using extrapolation or imagination.