I'm going to skip over most of what you wrote, so let me focus o n just these two paragraphs.
That post was not very long. Why would you do this? It is certainly your right, but it kind of makes justifying the typing out of a sufficient explanation of things hard to do.
What is the evidence for infinity?
Philosophical and theoretical.
Well, math suggests there is as I've explained, plus we know about sequencing when it comes to cause and effect. Now, the only thing we don't know that's pertinent here is whether this cause and effect goes back into infinity. If we knew the answer to that with any certainty, then our hypothesis would no longer be a hypothesis.
Math is not an actual natural thing. It is a symbolic and representative thing. I may say I have one apple but the number one does not exist outside of intelligence. Saying an infinite number of apples is possible in mathematics is no help whatever in getting an actual infinite number of actual apples. Math does not ever indicate actual infinites exist outside of the thought world of mathematics it's self. Infinity is almost always a boundary in math (an asymptotic condition) and cause it to blow up.
Cause and effect can't possibly go back infinitely. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causation. If there was you would never get anything to look for the cause of. An infinite regressions of causes is a logical absurdity that would never create anything. Things must have an uncaused first cause to exist and the characteristics of the effect dictate the characteristics of the first cause. I have been through the proofs on why many times even in just this thread. Do you have any background in causation philosophy or math? This is very basic stuff.
OTOH, we really have no objective evidence a god or gods exist, and because of this, many scientists won't even call a supposed theistic causation a "hypothesis". IOW, there has to be some objective evidence or maybe it's just a guess. However, I'll give the theists the benefit of the doubt here and call it a "hypothesis".
We do have mountains of evidence that God is the best explanation for. We do not have objective proof but the evidence gets very close. What a scientists thinks about a theological matter has no more significance than a golfers would. However most of the fathers of the fields of science themselves were Christians and most scientists throughout history believed in deity. In fact one of the greatest motivators of science was the faith that a rational being put rationality into the universe that rational beings could access. The greatest scientist of all time wrote more on theology than science. However the experts on natural law have no more relevance to the supernatural than cable repair men would.
You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that this model is not the most favored model that most cosmologists lean to as surveys have clearly indicated. Just because it's your favorite doesn't make it theirs.
And, as I repeated on another post, if you believe "God" always was, then you do believe in infinity.
That is absolutely wrong. The most prevalent model by huge margins is the BBT and it in no way posits anything beyond one finite universe. No one has not lived in a cave for the past 50 years could doubt this. The most prevalent theorem is Vilenkin's. If fact is no longer a common ground by which you will settle issueS then this whole conversation is meaningless.
What is the currently most accepted model for the Universe?
The current best fit model is a <A href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FLAT">flat ΛCDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is
accelerating, and the
age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.
Back to top.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of <A href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm#CO">observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these
prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the
Steady State:
- Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
- Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
- Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
- Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the
angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
Back to top.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
Did you notice all those finite dates in the BBT? All those egg shell, multiverse, oscillating universes, and bubble universes science fiction speculations are classified as non-standard cosmology for a reason.