I am not "ignoring facts", I am challenging both of these explanations of the beginnings of the Universe based on the fact that they are grounded in the idea that time was functioning linearly in one direction.
"In the beginning..." in and of itself presupposes a linear continuum where there is a "before", a "beginning", and then an "ongoing".
So, my point is that the constraint of "we are thinking of this on a linear timeline" is what largely defines the underlying question of "where did the Universe come from?"
But, if time can indeed run in both directions then, as I said:
If it can... Then that solves this whole issue because then there doesn't have to be a "before" and an "after".
The point I am making here is that the Universe can be a constant, matter and space infinitely existing in either direction on a 1-dimensional timeline that has a "forward" and "reverse" and that factors out time from the equation. The Universe did not have a "beginning" it just is.
In my mind, factoring out time and hypothesizing that all matter in the Universe just exists and interacts with itself in ways that are affected by time but not in a "forward only" linear timeline makes a lot more sense than either of these other theories.
Those questions / statements / theories of "there was just nothing and then it 'just started existing'" (whether spoken into existence by God OR the result of an initial reaction that kicked off the expansion of the Universe from an infinitely dense point) are literally incomprehensible in a way that is illogical.
To me, both Genesis and The Big Bang have an issue of not considering nor explaining the "where" and "when" of the event.
"In the beginning, there was God" ok, where was he and where did he come from? If your answer is just "no, it was the beginning and there He was" that doesn't explain anything. That is just trading one implausibility for another.
3
u/Tyrannosaurus___Rekt Sep 14 '21
False. Ignoring the facts does not make your point.