Is that your attempt at humor? Pick one and discuss how it supports Kalam. Grab a quote or two from the article.
Is that your attempt at humor?
Because….That is more than what you asked for and now you want to move the goal posts.
The field goal is still easy. Only about 5 yards further than the easy extra point you were asking for.
Beginning to end………………BGV
“Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
…………………………
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.”
Vilenkin went on the paraphrase…...
”It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Or years later from his paper presented at Hawkings 70th birthday ……
abstract…..
“One of the most basic questions in cosmology is whether the universe had a beginning or has simply existed forever. It was addressed in the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking [1], with the conclusion that the initial singularity is not avoidable. These theorems rely on the strong energy condition and on certain assumptions about the global structure of spacetime. There are, however, three popular scenarios which circumvent these theorems: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and an “emergent” universe which exists for eternity as a static seed before expanding. Here we shall argue that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”
beginning
“I. Introduction. Inflationary cosmological models [1, 2, 3] are generically eternal to the future [4, 5]. In these models, the Universe consists of post-inflationary, thermalized regions coexisting with still-inflating ones. In comoving coordinates the thermalized regions grow in time and are joined by new thermalized regions, so the comoving volume of the inflating regions vanishes as t → ∞. Nonetheless, the inflating regions expand so fast that their physical volume grows exponentially with time. As a result, there is never a time when the Universe is completely thermalized. In such spacetimes, it is natural to ask if the Universe could also be past-eternal. If it could, eternal inflation would provide a viable model of the Universe with no initial singularity. The Universe would never come into existence. It would simply exist.”
Conclude…………
“…….3 Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.”
next....
In the ….disturbing implications of a cosmological constant
Basically these guys were saying the either dark matter doesn’t exist or else…..
The other “……possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own …”
But dark matter does exist……which was in one of the others I cited…..
“We propose a comprehensive theory of dark matter that explains the recent proliferation of unexpected observations in high-energy astrophysics. Cosmic ray spectra from ATIC and PAMELA require a WIMP with mass Mχ ∼ 500 − 800 GeV that annihilates into leptons at a level well above that expected from a thermal relic. Signals from WMAP and EGRET reinforce this interpretation. Limits on ¯p and π 0 -γ’s constrain the hadronic channels allowed for dark matter. Taken together, we argue these facts imply the presence of a new force in the dark sector, with a Compton wavelength m−1 φ > ∼ 1 GeV−1 . The long range allows a Sommerfeld enhancement to boost the annihilation cross section as required, without altering the weak-scale annihilation cross section during dark matter freeze-out in the early universe.”
That was very brief but then again you were moving the goal posts. Thus that was good enough for now. Because I don’t trust you won’t childishly move the goalposts again. So if you want to discuss one further in depth then let’s look at either of the “Vilenkin” papers I cited….bc I like Vilenkin. The other two fit better with fine tuning anyway.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
or
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf
