There are natural formation theories, divine creation theories, and theories that the universe is the creation of our own minds.
Natural formation theories generally take the form of expansion from a primordial point. These are currently popular because the inconsistencies have not had time to air out; older theories have sagged under the weight of evidence. Newer theories always have the advantage of being able to invoke insufficient data to support (never to refute!) the various aspects of the particular theory.
Divine creation theories are little different from natural formation theories except that they add a divine intelligence to the mix.
Self-creation is very different. In this model, driven by the philosophical view known as solipsism, we have it entirely backward. We exist, and the universe may well exist only in our respective minds. It is not as wacky as we might think. The mainstream view in psychology is that we each create a world, objectively indistinguishable from our "real" world and with an unlimited history, within seconds and often several times per night when we sleep. Oddly, this is the model with the fewest internal problems; we even have very solid evidence we are proficient in doing just that.
Theories are ideas waiting to die. Pretty much all earlier high level theories are well and truly discarded by now. For a millennium and a half the theory that the universe was composed of four elements (earth, air, water, fire) was much more widely accepted by learned men than the Big Bang theory - or anthropogenic climate change, for that matter - is accepted now. Ditto for Aristotle's theory that the heavenly bodies were set in nesting celestial spheres, or that life was spontaneously generated from lifeless materials. The list goes on and on. In 1850 if you believed in gorillas you were a crackpot; in 1900 if you did *not* believe in gorillas you were a crackpot. When I was in school our 8th grade science textbook mocked the "crackpot" theory of plate tectonics (and stated we would begin running out of oil in 1960). The pernicious concept of "scientific consensus" - equivalent to judicial bias - still poisons too many minds.
I favor the Buddhist view, as attributed to Bertrand Russell (an atheist): “The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.”