I grew up believing the Biblical view of the origin of the universe - God spoke the universe and all things in it, into existence in 6 literal, 24 hour days. When things like the "Big Bang" or "Darwinian Evolution" were mentioned by the Christians around me, those athiestic belief systems were always rebutted with phrases like, "those things don't make sense," or "the big bang couldn't have happened because it's impossible for something to come from nothing," or "it takes more faith to believe in the big bang than it does to believe in creation."
These answers sufficed for a while, but my skeptical mind began to think a bit deeper. I believe it was my junior year of highschool in a Bible class at church when the 'creation vs. evolution' discussion came up. And the question that came into my head may be the same one that you have-- 'why is it that the athiesm is supposedly false because they believe in things that are scientifically impossible, such as the big bang, but here I am believing in a God who has no beginning and no end and spoke the universe into existence in 6 days?' another way to put it - 'how come we give the athiest gets flak for believing in outlandish, seemingly impossible things, when I believe in outlandish seemingly impossible things myself'
This, honestly, sent me for a tail spin - and it wasn't until a couple years later than I recieved a sufficient answer. I want to quickly explain this to you, because you may have the same question I did, and I hope an answer to this question will be as faith affiriming for you as it was for me.
We should talk about the different sides of this debate.
-- The "naturalist" view of reality: The athiest would hold a naturalistic view of reality. To be a naturalist, means that you only believe in... well.. the natural. You do not believe in anyone, or anything beyond what is observable in this natural universe. Naturalists would not believe in a heavenly realm beyond this natural universe, or any eternal being outside of this natural universe because that does not fit within the laws of NATURE. Those things would be super(beyond)natural.
-- The "supernatural" view of reality: Of course, one who believes in the supernatural believes that there can be a realm or a being that exists outside of, beyond, above, or 'super' this natural realm. The supernaturalist believes that the natural, physical realm, and the supernatural spiritual realm coexist in one reality. Those who call themsleves Christians and believe the Bible are supernaturalists, or, reality is bigger than just this physical, natural universe.
Alright-- so let's figure this problem out-- how come the Christian (the supernaturalist) is allowed to believe in crazy, outlandish, physically impossible things like an eternal God and creation, but the athiest (the naturalist) is given flak for believing in crazy, outlandish, physically impossible things like the big bang??
Now that we have gone over the defintions above, the answer is quite simple - the naturalistic view does not allow any room for anything physically impossible, anything outlandish, anything against the laws of nature, but the supernaturistic view of reality does.
In order for the Big Bang theory to be true, at some point, living beings had to begin to exist. This is a problem, because according to the Laws of Nature, it is impossible for life to simply pop into existence. The conclusion that 'life cannot come from nonlife' was unequivocally met by Francisco Redi in the 1600s by the well known maggot experiment that you may remeber lerning about in highschool. According to the Laws of Nature, life cannot spontaneously generate. The fact that life cannot come from nonlife, is not an arguable opinion, but a scientific fact; a law of nature.
The athiest (the naturalist) self admittadly has a problem with the fact that they cannot explain what caused the big bang, and where life came from. Their view of the origin of the universe and all things does not fit in the laws of nature. But it has to. They do not get a 'get out of jail free card' they MUST explain the origin of life within the laws of nature with no free passes, because they are naturalists.
On the other hand, the supernaturalist is allowed to believe in a creation story that breaks the laws of nature, we get to believe in an eternal God that breaks the laws of nature, we get to believe in the miracles of the origin of the universe, because the model of reality we believe to be true (supernaturalism) accounts for those things. Creation does not need to fit in the laws of nature, because we believe in a being who is outside of, beyond, (super)natural.
Here is the bottom line: for the naturalist to explain the origin of the universe and all things in it, they need a miracle, they need life to begin somehwere, but they can't have that miracle. In their view, the laws of nature are the cap. Why? because there is nothing outside of, beyond, above (super) this natural realm. If they believe that life began to begin, then they are really no true naturalist at all. They have broken a law of nature, they are reaching beyond, outside of, the natural to explain life. Which makes them a... well... (super)naturalist.