Fred Hoyle, a prominent twentieth-century astrophysicist, popularized the term “Big Bang” yet remained a staunch opponent of the theory throughout his life. His persistent opposition, particularly as empirical evidence in favor of the Big Bang accumulated, raises an important question about the role of philosophical commitments in shaping and sustaining his scientific positions. Adopting a historical-analytical approach, this study examines Hoyle’s writings and the relevant scientific controversies to investigate the influence of his metaphysical presuppositions on the development of steady-state cosmology and his opposition to the Big Bang. The analysis shows that his preference for a universe without a temporal beginning, his criticism of explanations dependent on specific initial conditions, and his opposition to theological interpretations of the universe’s origin played significant roles in shaping his cosmological outlook. These preferences influenced his adoption of the steady-state theory at a time when competing models also faced serious scientific and empirical difficulties. As radio astronomical observations expanded and the cosmic microwave background was discovered, Hoyle continued to pursue explanations within cosmological frameworks that did not require a temporal beginning. His arguments and theoretical revisions in response to these findings reveal the enduring influence of metaphysical presuppositions on his research trajectory. At the same time, his investigations into the origin of the elements and nuclear processes within stars made substantial contributions to astrophysics. The study concludes that Hoyle’s metaphysical commitments influenced not only his choice of cosmological theories but also the direction of his scientific research.