>Ive also never even insinuated that anything has been proven
>

"The math works."

>But the fact that cosmic background radiation and universal
>expansion exist, totally obviates the concept of faith because
>that is evidence. Faith, by definition, requires a total
>absence of evidence.
>

That is evidence of a quality of the universe, not the singularity. Without the singularity there is no big bang, there is no us. We can use cosmic background radiation in the model that suggests there was no big bang. You can pick and choose how you arrange, or connect the building blocks, the point is they come *after* they have been provided, ultimately proving nothing at all. That gap of information represents faith, because without that gap, there would be no big bang. The big bang is built on something which is completely absent of evidence. That is exactly the same as saying that life would not exist if god didn't create it.

"problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity."

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,"

Scientists have a really funny way of saying "We don't know."


>Im also not sure why you keep using the concept of math. Im
>fairly certain you understand none of the math in either
>model. So why would you champion one over the other?

I know how the math works. It explores relationships in the physical universe, relationships are inferred and theories are developed. Physicists seek to prove their theories with math. It is the observable and verifiable hypothesis.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,"


>
>My idea on this new model, just like every other, is "we'll
>see". It will be tested, just like the Big Bang was tested.

Right.