It is on the basis of this assumption, which is anything but a proven axiom
It is supported by everything, across many lines of evidence, we have discovered leading up to and since its establishment as a theory. The evidence for the theory being correct and the evidence against it being fundamentally wrong are so overwhelming it would require truly extraordinary evidence to overturn. For all intents and purposes, it can safely assumed to be true by now. Absolute certainty only exists in mathematical-logical abstractions and thought experiments, not our empirical study of the actual world from our limited fallible position. It is an unrealistic standard that really is only useful for special pleading that the evidence should be abandoned in favour of one’s baselessly asserted pet theory.
Also, I doubt that you actually know what “axiom” means.
The idea that the universe has a "beginning", an exact state from which everything was "created" inevitably means, if we are to pursue the idea logically, a "creator" or a "higher meaning". This in itself opens up for a Semitic anthropocentric view of nature, as well as a linear view of history.
Wrong on all counts.
The world having a begining does not in any way imply a creator or a higher purpose. Indeed, I firmly belief that Existence and the first principles (which, mind you are beyond our current knowledge) are ultimately simply brute facts and that the origin and evolution of the Universe spun from these brute facts without direction, based on chance and necessity.
As for our modern scientific cosmology being anthropocentric? This is beyond absurd. Human existence is absolutely miniscule both compared to the strange even of just eucaryotic evolution and the mind-boggling size even of just our own galaxy. We now know that exoplanets, even Earth-like ones in the habitable zone are far from being rare as once thought, and indeed, it is now theorised that the Earth is not actually the ideal planet for life.
As for this view of nature being Semitic … *rolls eyes*
A "cyclical" approach means that the starting point is our planet with its abundance of living organisms, and that it moves in a circle in its constant evolution, and not linearly with a clear "beginning" and an "end"...A consistent cyclical attitude cannot be based on a "Big-Bang" theory, as its course has no definite beginning or end.
Okay, but do you have any extraordinary evidence for this model?
National Socialism is the only political ideology which in modern times derives from the Aryan biocentric-cyclical worldview.
No, “ancient myths we have appropriated into our ideology” is NOT evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence.
In any case, how does anything of this relate to the question of whether Mather and Smoot’s discoveries “contain anything significant to white humanity”?