Neither explanation means a damn thing. The human mind can not understand existence and creation because we are bogged down in an illusory sense-world of matter moving through space and time.

In his book *Reality is not What it Seems” renowned physicist Carlo Rovelli posits that time does not exist, particles of matter are not “things”, and space is made out of a finite number of granules. If Rovelli is correct, any question about creation, causality, location, motion or even existence itself is meaningless in an ultimate sense.

I would think that before we humans concern ourselves with the nature of ultimate reality, we should attempt to learn of what we ourselves consist. Without conscious awareness our selves would have no existence, but no one seems to understand the nature of awareness or how it arises.

"On one hand we have this vast universe filled with incalculable mater.This matter explodes and creates the stars and the planets." That's not the Big Bang Theory in any way shape or form. That being said, the scientific understanding of the origin of our Universe has tons of obsevational and experimental validation. None of the human creation myths has any observational or experimental validation. Seems pretty definitive to me.

Which sounds more plausible?

The god hypothesis is non-falsifiable by design, so you can never prove nor disprove it.

On the other hand, the current understanding of science, while incomplete, has tons of evidence in its favor.

It's not really difficult to chose between the two.