I am not replacing existing theories.

You really are misreading me, time and time again, Bkuehlhorn.

A writer has the responsibility to write well, but the reader has the responsibility to read well.

I am describing a model. I do not understand why you can't get that in your head. No model needs to undermine another model.

--

Alright, last attempt, this time providing you the religious storyline of the Big Whisper. Yes, the Big Whisper has the same religious storyline as the scientific storyline.

Of course they are not identical in terms; they are identical in storyline only.

It starts with the question what God used to create creation.

Since there is nothing else around, God could have only used God godself to establish creation.

A: God produced creation from nothing.

B: God fully transformed and became creation.

C: God used some of God for creation.

These are the options. If you have an additional option, I gladly hear about it. But the additional option will not eradicate the other options.

The Big Whisper storyline is C.

God created nothing but Heaven's Gate. While investigating Heaven's Gate, parts of God ended up falling through Heaven's Gate. Matter got established with parts of God falling through Heaven's Gate.

Today, we then have two parts of God, neither of any perfect state. We have matter and that what remained immaterial.

That's it, Bkuehlhorn. The zero is placed in the middle of the storyline.

God created nothing but Heaven's Gate. Everything else is a natural result.

I doubt you are able to use your brain, probably reject it immediately like you do with everything I present.

If you want physical evidence about what is not physical, then you are asking the wrong question.

One cannot describe water well when forced to declare everything as solids. Everything said will then automatically be frozen because that is the only solid state for water.

Stop demanding that water is described as a solid so I can stop the freezing cold in my replies to you.