What is interesting is to see that no objective theory is alone capable of forming the predictions required to test the theory in experiment.
For example take Newton's theory and consider an apple that is dropped. According to the theory the apple will fall. Now we must construct an experiment. So we will drop the apple and see what happens. But to do that we must make sure of some things. First there must be light in order to be able to see the apple. Second we must position ourselves so that our eyes are pointing toward the apple so that the reflected light will enter our eye. The color (spectrum) of the light must be in the visible range. But then the objective theory will state that the light will reflect off of the apple into our eyes and along the optic nerves to the brain where its momentum and energy will do something to the brain. But it does not predict experiencing will occur. It requires another principle to do that.
What is necessary is another principle that says something like "If you position a head with eyes and there is sufficient illuminations....etc... then an experience of the object will occur". This principle is assumed in all science and without it the possibility of experiment is not there (Ok you could use your other senses but the point is the same). Since all of the theory itself is based on experiment this shows that the objective view is incapable of explaining science itself.
However it is also true that once this is admitted, science is possible and when we do the science we find not just the big bang but also evolution and we also find, by looking in the mirror for example, or by drinking a few beers, the association of the objective existence of our evolved bodies with our consciousness. These facts are real.
This could have been otherwise but isn't. Logically this could in the future become otherwise but should it, the physical and neurological scientific theories would be invalidated. All scientific theories have the possibility of this invalidation as inherent in them.
Therefore belief in the big bang to the extent that the big bang is understood as a fact of an empirical natural science does not contradict the implication of being conscious but in fact is based on it. I suggest also the obvious fact that the big bang is a fact deduced from the empirical physical science of nature.