Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[ManofYesterday]

Again, you are quoting a source that almost everyone here has read (at least in this thread), and you are ignoring more recent sources.

You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true.  Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false.  The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.

Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang, and given a link for you to read.   You, in turn, have done nothing at all to engage with any of the new content you've been posed with.  You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).

You need to roll up your sleeves and engage in the content being provided to you, and MAKE SOME IDEAS OF YOUR OWN in response to them.  There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them.  And your response to all this huge amount of intellectual struggle and exploration is:

"Hawking.  Shut up!  You don't know anything.  Do you even PHYSICS, bro?!?!?!"

You are smart enough to put together grammatical sentences (mostly).  Why don't you turn some of your intellect toward learning new things, and then come back and engage in a more informed, and therefore more interesting, discussion?

Again, you are quoting a source that almost everyone here has read (at least in this thread), and you are ignoring more recent sources.

It doesn’t matter how recent a theory or hypothesis is. What matters is if it is logically coherent and has good evidence.

You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true.

That the big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.

Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false.

By saying something can only be false, you’re saying that it is necessarily false, but the statement, “I’ve read and talked to most cosmologists” is logically possible and therefore can be true. I think what you mean to say is it’s implausible.

The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.

I’ve read numerous books and texts in physics, listened to talks and conferences for physicists, and I’ve taken college-level courses in physics.
But let me stop you right here. All you’ve done up until this point is commit the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. It doesn’t matter what I’ve read or haven’t read. What matters is the arguments that I’ve presented. When are you going to get to those?

Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang

 
Quantum Mechanics doesn’t change the definition of a singularity nor does it state that the big bang is not a singularity. Nor does it state that the universe is past-eternal. Secondly, I don’t care what Alex says. I care what actual physicists say. More specifically, I care about the arguments and evidences presented by credible physicists (because there are also fringe/hack physicists).

and given a link for you to read.

Just because there’s a bit of information at the end of a link doesn’t mean the information is any good. I’ve read and looked at everything that has been "linked" to me. What link are you talking about specifically? The Sean Carroll video that talks about the multiverse that there is no evidence for? The article crying about William Lane Craig? Which link? Be specific.
 

You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).

Yes, most cosmologists think the big bang is a singularity and they also agree with me that a singularity is a point of infinite space-time curvature, density, heat, etc.

There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them.

Yeah, go read them and come back here. I’ll be waiting.

One last thing though. Two last things actually. Notice how you didn’t engage in any of my arguments? Yeah, I noticed it as well.

Hey Alex: I’m still waiting for evidence of your credentials. Hack.