Big Bang cosmology invokes a very elegant and complex theory to give the most plausible naturalistic answer as to how the universe came to be.
As a rational, thinking human being, you may believe that this is the most reasonable explanation as to how we arrived here. You could very well be right.
However, if you feel that invoking this theory confers you with the logical high ground regarding the inception of the universe and all of its resident life forms, here are just a few things to remember:
Information is distinct from matter, and has never been observed to arise spontaneously from it.
Arbitrarily substituting randomness for causality is not somehow more scientific. Actually, it goes against our empirical observations regarding cause and effect.
Hypothetical ideas like inflation, dark matter and dark energy, while not seen, must be accepted to make this theory work. As they are observable only by their effects, we must take it by faith that they exist. Dark matter is estimated to make up 25% of the universe and dark energy is estimated at 70%. I would contend that this displays a great deal of faith, but that is perfectly acceptable. We all need to have faith in some explanation for our being here.
If you had lived in a time period where it was generally accepted that the earth was flat, you might have taken the word of the scientists of the day, on faith. If you lived when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth, you could be excused for believing that as 'fact' as well.
What I am asking is that we recognize our hubris for what it is and admit that we do not 'know'. Fact is, when it comes to origins, we do not have the facts. As we were not there in the beginning, we must remember that a large percentage of what we pretend to know is actually theory and supposition. I believe we should put aside our prejudices and attempt to intelligently, objectively examine all of the evidence, drawing a clear line between the empirical and theoretical during the process. To effectively do that, we must first be prepared to leave the cozy comfort of our own echo chambers.
We also need to distinguish palatability from plausibility, as our personal preference for a concept has no bearing on its validity. We need to assess the concept of a Creator on purely scientific grounds, and not just dismiss the theory as objectionable because we do not wish to be accountable to anyone.
I can only speak to my own experience. I started from a position of random, undirected beginnings and then examined the evidence for a created, directed universe. I personally found the latter hypothesis to be the smaller leap of faith... but only after forcing myself to objectively examine it.
Your mileage may vary. My challenge is only that you honestly and impartially examine the option.
sticking to my theoryThis is science!
Put in very simple terms, 'nothing'* exploded very long ago and as a result of time and random chance we now have chickens, eggs and the rest of the universe. Essentially, everything we experience is the end result of this gigantic inflationary event.
Of course it's much more complex than that. I'm not trying to downplay or discredit the science involved. What I'm trying to do is remind us that we have had to make ad hoc additions to the Standard Model of particle physics to resolve the contradictions to the Big Bang theory. These additions have never been directly observed and are purely theoretical. However, they 'must' exist to make the model work. It is somewhat reminiscent of the 'deferent' and 'epicycles' used in the Ptolemaic system to maintain the (then consensus), geocentric cosmology.
What we are looking for is the most logical answer that fits the available facts. We can become blinded by the elegance of a theory to the point where we forget that it is, in fact, still a theory.
* Most current 'nothings' are actually comprised of something. In Aristotle's definition:
"Nothing is what rocks dream about".