This study examines the Big Bang Theory from an epistemological and theological perspective, seeking to challenge attempts to invoke the theory as evidence in support of atheism. It proceeds from the premise that physical laws and scientific theories are incapable of explaining the origin of existence from nothingness. Owing to their methodological nature, such laws and theories describe the processes through which the universe evolves and develops, rather than addressing the ultimate cause or purpose underlying its existence. The study argues that the Big Bang Theory neither inherently disproves nor establishes the existence of a Creator; rather, it remains neutral with respect to the question of divine existence. It surveys a number of philosophical interpretations concerning the origin of the universe and then advances an epistemological critique, emphasizing that the theory remains a scientific hypothesis rather than a matter of absolute certainty. Particular attention is given to the concept of a state characterized by "zero volume and infinite density," which, according to the study, appears to conflict with fundamental rational principles such as the law of causality, the principle of affinity (sinkhiyyah), and the principle rejecting an infinite regress of causes. The study further examines the claim that intelligence and life could not have emerged from simple particles in the absence of a designer, and calls for a clear methodological distinction between scientific explanations concerned with how phenomena occur and philosophical explanations concerned with why they occur. It concludes by referring to Pascal's Wager as a philosophical argument in favor of belief in a Creator. Methodologically, the study employs both demonstrative rational inquiry and descriptive analysis. It focuses on identifying the paradoxes and epistemological ambiguities that, in its view, characterize certain scientific and atheistic interpretations, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The significance of the study lies in its attempt to offer a novel methodological framework for critiquing discourses that claim exclusive access to truth without recourse to self-evident rational principles, while proposing an epistemic standard by which scientific theories may be assessed in light of foundational rational criteria.