that's not what big bang theory says but nevertheless, you are saying between myth and math you would go myth. Right?
Please tell us how math explains the origin of the original mass and energy of the universe. Where did it come from ... in order for it to go BANG! But to answer your question; my options aren't limited to the choices you've provided in your query. So, neither.
Hint: It doesn't. If it did, the big bang would be a law, rather than a theory. Again, you have to take the premise on faith.
You keep dancing round this. In order to get an explanation that can tell you "the origin of the original mass and energy of the universe", will it be a scientific theory or law to explain how the universe actually works, or will you use myth. Myth or Math ? An answer that begs more questions than it answers. So not myth, not math, so mythmath maybe? No you don't have to take anything on faith. Incomplete scientific theories require more discovery, not faith.
Asked and answered. Again, please explain to us, mathematically or otherwise, where the matter and energy originated, when (supposedly) nothing was in existence. Why did it go BANG anyway? So basically, there was nothing in existence. Then suddenly, out of nowhere, out of nothing at all, BANG!! A huge universe just appeared. Yep, sounds like faith to me. You have to accept the premise of the theory on faith...if and until you conduct your discovery and prove that origin was a big bang. Until then, the theory is an educated guess. Good luck trying to mathematically explain how a universe full of matter and energy can just pop into existence from complete and utter nothingness--not deep-space--but absolute nothingness. The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories https://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/...ularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/
On the one had, fundamentalists believe that they know the complete and unerring truth about where the universe came from. They are certain everyone who doesn't agree with them is 100% wrong. They believe it is impossible for them to be wrong and they are utterly uninterested in investigating any further to determine if their view is correct or not. That is an incredible level of arrogance and hubris, but that is their "belief". On the other hand, I believe that the current consensus theory best explains what we observe. And that it is incomplete, probably wrong in several if not all areas, and I hope that we keep trying to prove and disprove testable, falsifiable hypothesis. As an agnostic I believe that there is a miniscule but non-zero chance that the fundamentalists are correct. The fundamentalists of all 10,000 or so religions that have existed in the span of humankind and mostly all claim that only they can be correct. If fundamentalist christians want to put forward and falsifiable hypothesis to investigate further I'm all for it. Do you seriously think those are the same kind of belief? And I'll ask you a third time, which of those ways of thinking do you ascribe to? The lengths to which you've gone to avoid answering this question straight up are answer enough. It's clear that you realize the first set of "beliefs" is completely irrational and indefensible. But for whatever reason you insist on clinging to them despite the fact that you are so ashamed of them that you won't embrace them, so you dance around and try oh oh so hard to avoid confronting the question head on. How does that work out for you? Seems mighty uncomfortable, why not just embrace the religion of love and helping make the world a better place that Jesus taught and toss the fundamentalism you can't defend in the trash heap where it belongs? BTW, instead of arguing semantics maybe try to actually listen to what I'm illustrating with gravity. Read the wikipedia article (the fact that you use wikipedia to "prove" anything aside), near the end you'll see that even this "law" has some problematic aspects making it still a work in progress. What part of the fundamentalist explanation of creation is a creationist humble enough to admit is still a work in progress again?
Again, I'll respond a third time. You're question assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes that there are only two answers to your question. Your assumptions are incorrect. You've relegated your question to only receive two possible answers; an either this, or that question. My answer is neither this, nor that. It's like me asking you: "are you drunk, or high?"
Except I asked, you didn't give an answer. that's a dodge, not an answer if not this (science) or that (God myth) then what might be the other more myth?