Supported or unsupported assumptions nevertheless remain assumptions.
Would it be fair to say that much, if not all, of the support for the assumption of the Big Bang Theory relies, at least to some degree or another, on physics?
Well, so far two experiments have resulted in neutrinos being found to travel faster than the speed of light. If that is upheld and proven to be accurate, than Einstein was wrong that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, and physics relies on that pretty heavily, right? So if the speed of light is not the fastest speed achievable, than much of the support for any assumption that relies on physics for it's proof is bound to be inaccurate. If that is the case, how supportive actually is the support?
Personally, I don't care in the least what would truthfully explain what and how. I am here and that is all that matter to me.
I just like pointing out to those who say that since there is no proof of the existence of God that a God does not exist, even though in their belief structure there also lacks irrefutable absolutes and for them to believe what they believe, regardless of how they attempt to validate it or justify it or define it or rationalize it, it still comes down to a leap of faith for their belief to exist, just as in the case of those who believe in a God or intelligent design or moon men being behind the creation of everything.