That's just our own minds applying their own adaptive heuristics to the universe, though. We're used to dealing with systems that have a history, because that's what allows us to avoid the tiger lurking in the dark. But there's no particular reason to think that kind of evolved thinking should be scale free, through time and space.
Why is a universe that has always been in existence, cycling through different states, any more sensible than one that pops into existence only to ultimately fizzle out? Both require the presupposition of some kind of uncaused system. Gathering evidence pointing toward one or the other is key.
I do think that the Big Bang maps better to Western religious cosmogony (matter was created ex nihilo) and Big Bounce to philosophical materialism (matter is the fundamental substrate of the world), but that shouldn't bias a scientist against the Big Bang.
In this territory, a lot of arguments of the form "This does seem to be the obvious conclusion based on our human thought ,but that is a mere delusion/illusion" - the implication is that someone has an ultra-insightful way to see through the illusion. They don't ; they just seek a little bit of self-edification and ego-stroking by suggesting as much. Arguments of that style are incredibly weak "It only VERY POWERFULLY SEEMS SO" is actually an admission that an unbiased person would reach the conclusion being rejected. The scientific community clung to the steady-state model of cosmology for nearly a century before embracing Big-Bang theory - this was due to philosophical attachments rather than any sort of evidence - these sorts of motivations are still at play today. They mocked and derided those who advanced alternatives until the evidence became so overwhelming that it could no longer be denied.
Why is a universe that has always been in existence, cycling through different states, any more sensible than one that pops into existence only to ultimately fizzle out? Both require the presupposition of some kind of uncaused system. Gathering evidence pointing toward one or the other is key.
I do think that the Big Bang maps better to Western religious cosmogony (matter was created ex nihilo) and Big Bounce to philosophical materialism (matter is the fundamental substrate of the world), but that shouldn't bias a scientist against the Big Bang.