Any claim is a scientific claim once the argument has nouns, associated with reality, in it.
Logical arguments are sentences without nouns and are just made up of adjectives and verbs.
Numbers are adjectives.
Mathematical operators are the verbs.
Ex: The internally logically consistent statement: 1 + 2 = 3
“1” of what?
“2” of what?
“3” of what?
1,2,3 are adjectives describing the quantity of the “what”, the noun.
“+”, “=” are the verb operators that you are doing with the nouns.
So yes, you can have an internal logically consistent argument, like A+B=C.
But once you restrict the identity of A, B or C to a noun associated to reality, then it becomes a scientific question.
Ex: “1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks” is a scientific conclusion to check against reality because rocks are associated within reality;
“1 fairy + 1 fairy = 2 fairies” is not a scientific conclusion to check against reality since “fairies” are not associate within reality.
If we can not falsify it or confirm it, the results of the internally logically consistent argument about reality is not something to hold as a justified true belief about reality until you can conclude either way.
Also, to be outside of reality is to not exist.
Our universe is not all of reality, it is just the detectable part of reality at this moment.
That is how we determine the difference between fantasy and reality claims. Fairies vs Rocks
The big bang is not when “time started”. Its just the tentative reference point on the number line of “zero” to reference time to because we can’t explore beyond that point yet. Its just the reference point to measure the amount of time that has passed since that point for the age of our universe.
Existence is necessarily temporal and to be detectable within reality in some way.
Ex: Einstein, mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist. His presentation was internally logically consistent, just like religious arguments for the supernatural. However, we were not justified in believing the conclusion to be a justified true belief about reality until we actually were able to detect that gravity waves exist in 2015. Once we were, conclusively, able to have reality demonstrate the results of the claim, that is when we are to update our model of reality. Not a moment sooner.
Justified belief about reality is to have that claim demonstrated within reality in some detectable way to us.
Ex: There could be a meteor coming to destroy our planet. We know that meteors exist in reality, we know that they can actually strike planets. However, until we actually discover that specific meteor, we are not justified in living as if that meteor is actually there and not justified in updating our model of reality yet. We are justified in looking for it though.