Now... The big bang isn't necessarily provable or disprovable, if you take the view that our perceptions are just that: perceptions, and not necessarily the reality behind it.
Maybe the issue is with the scientific method being used as confirmation and a posteriori rather than a priori, or vice versa but either way for the "wrong" purpose.
If one takes the view that this is all a simulation would this explain the Planck length, in that our "curiosity" has outgrown the anticipated parameters of our existence?
That is not to in any way posit a creator, but that this "reality" we experience and describe is but one simulation of many, just another scenario with different starting variables, with the resolution set by the system running it.