Hello all,
I am no expert scientist, as will no doubt be revealed in the next few sentences, nonetheless I feel I may have some valuable input.
This conversation is a less french, more online, repeat of 1812 (or 1802, depending on your sources) conversation between Napolean, and Pierre-Simon Laplace, Laplace was a mathematician, geometry expert and physicist, and all round genius and man of science. as Quoted in A De Morgan Budget of Paradoxes. when questioned by Napoleon for not including a creator in a model of the universe (it's much more complicated than that, but it was for all intents and purposes a working model of the universe), he famously said that the model works perfectly well, without that assumption.
So it's fair to say that for at least the last two hundred years, man has contemplated the hypothesis that the universe has no creator, or that other hypothesis should be considered in the search for truth. As I said, no scientist, so I refer you to both Pierre-Simon Laplace and to ydaoPs' post above for information on how hypothesis work.
Now, if we delicately skirt round the subject of man made organized religion, in order to prevent a devastating flame war that rips through the thread like an outback summer. We simply have the hypothesis, you have proposed that there is a creator to the universe, which is deism (see link 1 and the forum definition of God on the stickies) which Science itself cannot fully disprove, because of the nature of the claim you make (see link 2). But by the same merit, you cannot yet, prove a creator, therefore you have to throw your hypothesis in with the other hypotheses and leave it to the chaps in white coats, to decide which is most likely correct, the phrase coined by Richard Dawkins is 'we're working on it'. If you are prepared to make the case for deism then fair enough, the case for the Theism is a different one entirely, as it proposes a God that also intervenes due to various powers that allow departure from the natural order.
However, what you cannot do, is decide that your case for deism, is anymore valid that than the other hypotheses that scientists see fit to explore, my basic understanding of it, is that until it's been proved conclusively, or all other hypothesis disproved you cannot simply claim one hypothesis over another on the basis that yours is unfalsifiable, because that leaves out all of the other hypotheses and possible hypotheses that science has yet to test. I am certain you will agree with me, that this is a question worth spending time on.
As a final caveat, if (make that a big IF) there is a deistic creator, our exploration of all the possible hypotheses as to the origins and working of the universe will not be pointless, scientific progress in space exploration and learning of our universe is generally good for the species because we find out lots of useful things on the way. Space exploration alone has lead to GPS, better weather predictions, better disaster response, increased detection of resources, improved electronics, understanding asteroids, nuclear fusion developments, and huge leaps in medicine (keeping astronauts alive is really, really difficult). Space exploration wasn't aiming to uncover our origins, part it's part of the process and a fine example of unintended benefits.
One last point (I promise) the jump from deism, to theism, is huge, scientifically and morally. If anyone is here to prove a Theistic god, then claiming the yet undecided origin of the universe as evidence of such is a tough place to start.
Thanks,
Ben
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism
http://www.venganza.org/
