It actually implies (ie logically necessitates) nothing of the kind. The Big Bang suggests a beginning, which is at best compatible with the idea of a conscious beginner, ie, a creator. A beginning could have taken place as a natural event, as a result of a mindless cause without such a creator.
The observations leading to the theory of a Big Bang relate to the part of the universe accessible to human investigation - but no one can be sure that this is the whole universe. If it is not, there may be other parts which are not expanding, or which had their own Big Bang before or after ours.
Perhaps our Big Bang, in short, was no more than a local event, in relation to the whole no more significant than the formation of a new galaxy in relation to the observable universe, or of a new star in relation to an existing galaxy.
The Big Bang theory, moreover, arises from extrapolation into the remote past of trends observable now, and they may not always have existed. Is it not possible that even what is accessible to us actually pulsates, alternately expanding and contracting, and that we are able to observe only one period of expansion in a possibly infinite series of cycles?
Of course, we can only speculate, and the suggestion of a creation is one speculation - for some of us an implausible one - among others.
Reading, BerkshireReuse content