But why torment ourselves to refute the errors of philosophers, when it is sufficient to produce their mutually contradictory books, and, as quiet spectators, to watch the war? For those thinkers are not less numerous, nor less celebrated, nor more sober in speech in fighting their adversaries, who say that the universe is being consumed by fire, and that from the seeds which remain in the ashes of the burnt world all is being brought to life again. Hence in the world there is destruction and palingenesis [recapitulation] to infinity. All, equally far from the truth, find each on their side by-ways which lead them to error.
In another section Basil criticizes ideas akin to multiverse:
Because there are among them some who say there are infinite heavens and worlds.
There is nothing new under the Sun. Its all been said before using other words and other languages. The modern cosmologists are just like the ancient cosmologists. A difference is that the modern cosmologists rather subtly justify their claims using field equations, e.g. "Einstein's equation allows for this understanding . . . " What kind of hogwash reasoning is this? Who is Einstein? God? Using the solution of a clever equation to provide a model of origins is quite frankly insane.
Another difference between ancient and modern cosmology is the fame and money aspect. Ancient philosophers were not granted an equivalent of billions of dollars to test their speculated events and concepts. And I doubt they had the sort of worship as some of the modern cosmological gods have enjoyed in recent years.
Big-Bang and Big-Crunch is what happens when you mix spacetime metrics (which allow for past and future) and delusions of grandeur. They have taken their ideas too seriously.