The big difference is, that science describes the big bang, as. "Our best current model." And not all scientists accept it or are forced to accept it. Where religion describes creationism as, our only model forever.

Please justify your assumptions about the nature of time.

. . . a very good read :

[goodreads.com]

Maybe there was/is no beginning to the universe but instead it exists akin to a Mobius loop, having no beginning or end but continuing forever in an endless loop. The universe could have expanded and collapsed a billion billion billion times previously and will do so again a billion billion billion more times.

But if science sounds like religion to you then you don't understand science. I would recommend reading Astrophysics for People in a Hurry by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

The fact that our species doesn't have or hasn't had scientific understanding to discuss this issue leads us to create ''our father which art in heaven." It's soooo calming, isn't it? Garban (just below) is correct...there's a difference between ''beginning'' and ''creating."