Paraphrased from my online thesis Equilibrium
Conventional wisdom has concluded the universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause-and-effect, so ever since humans began to reason it's been assumed existence, itself, must have been the product of creation.
Nothing requires no justification, its existence is commonly considered to be essentially natural and intrinsically logical, so most popular theories of cosmic origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time, some transformation must have occurred and the physical presence of the cosmos resulted. But strict adherence to the premise of causation would require any original creative force to have also been sired by yet another predecessor similarly predated by an endless procession of ancestry. The chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that is inherent to any cause-and-effect approach to the phenomenon of existence implies no logical beginning unless it includes a spontaneous spawning force not derived from causation. But that, itself, would only invalidate the premise, for if anything could exist without causation, why couldn't everything else?
If existence began with creation, then once upon a time there must have been an after with no before. Sounds silly, but then such is the premise of creation.
Isaac Newton's infinite and eternal 'static' universe was cast into disfavor by cosmologists only a century ago. Albert Einstein initially agreed with the premise until his General Relativity (GR) Theory required the cosmos to become spatially finite. Then Edwin Hubble's red shift convinced Einstein to reconsider eternity and abandon his cosmological constant in favor of the 'Big Bang' model of cosmic creation. Thus an infinite and eternal universe became both finite and temporal, born just ten billion years or so before Earth.
Academia provides three basic reasons for rejecting an infernal cosmological model. They believe it fails to satisfactorily explain the intergalactic red shift, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and the reconversion of energy back into matter when stars eventually burn themselves out. There are static model theories that attempt those explanations but they aren't considered mainstream.
Theories on both sides of the issue are just that - theories; best guesses, opposing interpretations of predominately cosmological data processed into equations to arrive at conclusions. We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light or radiation traversing vast distances over billions of years. There are few research facilities of sufficient size and even fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of electromagnetic radiation, itself, that alters wavelength or luminosity after eons of time and travel. It is only conjecture that CMB is the echo of creation. Conversion of energy back into matter in an eternal cosmos remains unexplained, but nature is certainly cyclical, and not understanding something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
There are many incongruities in the cosmic expansion model, too. Expansion math (which breaks down in the face of relativistic exploration) relies heavily on hypothetical dark energy and matter. Black holes twelve billion light years away are too big to have formed only two billion years after creation. The explanation for galaxies clocked faster than light speed relies of the validity of the self same expansion cosmologists seek to verify. And something is wrong when results from different analyses of light versus CMB cast serious doubt on the currently accepted premise the expansion is actually accelerating.
The sound of galloping hooves doesn't mean zebras are stampeding. The Big Bang hypothesis relies entirely on the observed red shift being caused by the Doppler effect of cosmic expansion. Einstein initially contested the premise because gravity's effect on light was sufficient to explain the observation. Light passing through a field of gravity loses energy, and since its velocity must remain constant, a longer wavelength results. This is called Gravitational Redshift. Forget stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids, how many mass-laden ambient particles would a beam of light encounter in a multi-billion light year trek? If you place a white billiard ball in a tank of cranberry juice, the deeper it sits, the redder it appears. And that same space dust would affect luminosity as well as wavelength.
The flaws of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled with additional hypotheses and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results, but there is one obvious and incontrovertible reason to reject the hypothesis of cosmic creation. It's a rather simple axiom:
Before a thing can change, act or be acted upon, it must exist (reside in the realm of reality).
If being is required in order for change to occur then cause-and-effect is a function of existence, something derived from the nature of being. No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative, and since existence is the source of cause and effect, it can't be the result of it.
Under the influence of nature's sleight of hand and lost in the complexities of esoteric equations, Einstein, Hubble and the entire discipline of cosmology seem to have overlooked this one simple axiom. It's not exactly rocket science; it requires no esoteric equations, no orbiting telescopes or expensive particle accelerators; you don't need a degree in math, physics or cosmology, or even a high school education to understand it. In the publish-or-perish ivory tower of academia, hypotheses featuring multiverses, extra dimensions and cosmic expansion into an entropy death are where the real money is - with some strings attached. Beautiful equations can describe fantasy just as easily as fact, but without the capacity to parse differentials with any degree of integrity, no lowly layman would dare debate the sanity of such sophisticated scholarly branes.
It is the duty of science to make sense of nature, apply logic to data to arrive at valid conclusions. No matter how beautiful the equation and how accurate the data, if an interpretation violates a principle of logic or a basic law of nature to embrace an illogical premise, it becomes nonsense.