The vast majority of physics courses do nothing to delve into the nature of spacetime. Unless you take courses specifically in relativity, or sometimes upper division courses in quantum or astrophysics, it's not even going to come up.
Lol.
Spacetime is one of the basics of physics, my dude. Literally nothing in physics works without it, because gravity affects essentially everything. Everything that exists and has mass warps spacetime.
I'm well versed in spacetime, to answer your question.
Because I'm literally relaying what I was taught in university, and a position that I already proved to you exists via numerous papers on the subject
No, what you showed was there is discussion on the matter, as is par for the course in science. I can pull hundreds of practicing doctors in their fields of science that dispute evolution, even though we know evolution is a fact, and is scientific consensus.
Those links were not peer reviewed papers, they were people voicing potential hypotheses. You should know the difference.
Invoking the supernatural to explain something that philosophically can only occur outside of the natural realm is perfectly reasonable and isn't a "God of the Gaps" at all
Lol!
You cannot explain something by invoking the supernatural. That's what you're not getting; the supernatural isn't an explanation at all. Explanations make sense in the natural world; the supernatural exists outside of it. This is not a logical position to hold. Are you arguing just to argue?
It's a textbook god of the gaps argument: we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, therefore, god did it (in this case, god= a supernatural force, being, higher power, whatever).
That's the DEFINITION of god of the gaps:
en.wikipedia.org
You just tried to claim that any mention of the supernatural is a logical fallacy, and thus think you can forbid the other side of the argument from even existing. That's pure circular reasoning - you're a priori discounting any role for a supernatural God solely by declaration, not by evidence or logic.
This is word salad.
By definition, evidence is something that exists in reality. If you are attempting to invoke the supernatural as a cause for the universe's existence, you have to provide tangible evidence for that. Something we can measure, something tangible.
Currently, you have words. That's great. But it's not evidence. Hitchens had a great quote about this:
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
