Why are some people opposed to the Big Bang Theory?

Since the French Enlightenment, science has been associated in certain ways with material realism, which holds that matter and energy are eternal and self-existent, and that they have existed, can exist, or will exist.

The universe was thought to be static in a steady state consistent with the philosophy of material realism prior to Hubble's discovery of the red shift early in the 20th century. Hubble's Law made it evident that the current universe had a beginning, and the implications of the empirical observations of an expanding universe led to the development of the Big Bang Theory.

The notion that the universe began was consistent with the theistic stance that "In the beginning God created." Many scientists found it repugnant that the Big Bang Theory suggested the possibility of God or other supernatural beings being involved in the universe.

In his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawkins endeavors to demonstrate that the scientific findings of an expanding universe can be rationalized without mentioning a single, point in time beginning; this rationalization aligns with Hawkins' atheistic worldview.

The Big Bang raises questions about the nature of matter as eternal and self-existent, and the idea of a beginning is consistent with the idea of God creating. Because of these philosophical positions, some people oppose the idea of a beginning of the universe of the Big Bang. Material realism is the underlying philosophy of much of science.

(Note: The idea that matter and energy are eternal and self-existent is further called into question by the 1997 supernova experiments, which suggest that the universe will also have an end.)

In addition to those who find the Big Bang Theory difficult to understand or accept in the absence of a more intuitive explanation, some people are against the theory because they disagree with scientific evidence or because their religious beliefs contradict the idea that the universe began with a single event.