The universe is eternal and cyclic, given an eternity of elements combining and recombining, anything that can possibly happen, happens....there you go, claims are easy to make.
Are you paying attention abaddon?
Because
This is for you too.
That is a prime example of the lazy belief that if you can simply just offer anything....... like an oscillation model….. against p2 then you can magically believe that you have defeated the argument.
Well…………
Reasoning doesn’t work like that. We need to compare the models and determine which better explains reality. In this case which model has a more reasonable representation of our universe?
So………..
The oscillation model flat out fails on these three accounts…..
1) There is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the accelerating expansion.
2) If a collapse was possible the radius of entropy would necessarily increases from cycle to cycle. Thus you would still have a beginning if you reason it through. Thus you are not creating an eternal past but simply kicking the can down the road.
3) It flat out fails the BGV.
Now I have shared this counter for years now. And every time I present the problems of that model..... the presenter goes COMPLETELY SILENT. They never defend their reasoning. They don’t try to rescue the model. They just go silent only to bring it up again at some future date. That is NOT how reasoning works. I have clearly demonstrated that the SBBM is by far more reasonable than your Santa. Thus you have not defeated p2. Grow up and find a new model already or defend that Santa, but don’t think for a minute you have even scratched the surface of the reasonability of the KCA with that fantasy.
Also
Your predicted silence will once again indicate that your attempted defeater is a failure.
Also……………
Your attempt to make the universe eternal…..demonstrates that you understand the important understanding that an eternal thing has no cause, and thereby is prime candidate as the first cause. Hence the motivation to present an eternal model of the universe in the first place.
So thank you for that admittance. And thank you for that failed model. For in principle its failure to reasonably challenge the SBBM strengthens the SBBM.
Try again?