The hypothesis of the existence of dark-energy, required for the current popular big-bang model, is about the same level as suggesting God has some sort of input. Both exist for the purpose of explaining what doesn't quite make sense. As good of an argument that it may sound right now, fifty years from now discoveries could potentially be made that disprove the Big Bang theory.
A few years ago, for example, a galaxy as mature as the milky way, and with 8 times the mass, was discovered 13 billion lightyears away (by our current method of measurement), in other words, we are seeing the image of a galaxy from 13 billion years ago. The age of the universe, according to the Big Bang model, is only a few hundred million years older than that, and that was before galaxies like this one should exist.
In addition, the method which has been traditionally used to measure the distance of objects is flawed. Distance for the last little bit of human history has been measured using the red shift; that is, the more distance an object had, the greater the shift towards the red spectrum of light (which is a lower frequency). The assumption is that the redshift is created by a sort of doppler effect (when a car wizzes by, you can hear the change in the sound frequency, this is because the frequency of the sound waves changes based on the cars location and speed in moving towards and away from you). This assumption of the doppler effect has a lot of evidence going against it, especially considering that celestial objects that are attached together have two different redshifts which would suggest far greater distances. There are other examples of factors which could cause a redshift, and this includes the Compton effect, which would be that the redshift is caused by the bending of light around particles; this would also explain how two attached celestial objects can have two very different red shifts. The evidence collected to support the Big Bang model, is dependent on the redshift existing solely as the result of the doppler effect.
I am not attempting to prove the existence of a creator; actually, if the evidence supporting the big bang theory is false, then the steady state model has more weight to support it. A steady state universe implies no creator, or event of creation; a more friendly theory for true atheists.
What I am suggesting is not to believe everything you hear about cosmology. Our knowledge of the celestial realm is still very primitive. Theories are changing very rapidly, and the Big Bang model is not the only viable model, just the most popular one because it meshes well enough with Western tradition of a God who created the universe; it is more familiar and easier to swallow than to say there was no beginning, and there will be no end, no first and no last.
I am also not suggesting no divine powers, or greater powers exist. We don't know the extent of intelligent forces in the universe. As far as I'm concerned, it's still all a mystery, and as I haven't put my faith in religion, I won't put my faith in philosophical/pseudo-scientific models from humans with a limited perspective. Remember, there were periods in history when the thought of a world that wasn't flat was ludicrous; even after the Roman period where they were certain that the world was round, and already had predicted its width based on the measure of objects travelling over the horizon.
You can admire our scientists for coming up with such great theories, as the old great thinkers of many different eras. I just suggest not to throw your faith in them just because the idea sounds like a good one.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
