People accuse us of being anti-science. We understand why. On the face of it we've evaluated the scientific method, found it wanting, and rejected it. We exposed the logical fallacy of scientific truths.
Truth isn't falsifiable so, technically, there's no hypothesis for it. What if it isn't testable either? That means it's unscientific. And yet it's still the truth. We're watching a philosophical train wreck in slow-motion.
First cause isn't the same as the Big Bang. The Big Bang, or more accurately we should say nucleosynthesis, is an effect, not a cause. Popular Science (SciPop) promotes speculation about a possible first cause.
Physical laws describe broad classes of observations. They're a summary of what we know. They don't define the universe, they're defined by the universe.
For centuries the scientific mainstream has been building a narrative of godless existence (SciPop). The purpose of SciPop is to account for human existence in a way that requires no supernatural cause.
According to the rules of the scientific method the truth isn't scientific, therefore it has to be rejected. That's what we call Popper's Paradox.
For a hypothesis to be a truly "scientific hypothesis" it must be possible to design experiments that can test and either confirm or refute predictions which have been made using the hypothesis.
One of the ways that popular science (SciPop) attempts to be rigorous and hold itself accountable is through use of something called the scientific method. It's a systematic approach to investigation.
If we're supposed to accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumption, lets compare how many assumptions have been made between the popular science paradigm (SciPop) and Matty's Paradigm.
Truth is absolute, unchanging. Popular science (SciPop) is in continual flux. They're mutually exclusive. The scientific method is designed to make finding the truth impossible, even by accident.