This is the telltale sign that something is ad hoc – something is proposed that does not flow from the model and is created purely to address problems in the model. From your source, it identifies the issues the observations that the Big Bang theory fails to address.
Provide a mechanism for explaining those three puzzles — the temperature uniformity, the lack of high-energy relics, and the flatness problem — that the Big Bang has no solution for.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith … 46f1191d07
Nobody also seems to even question what would cause an inflationary event and why would it only occur once? And does the Big Bang theory predict this?
Also I’m not saying something should be dismissed automatically if ad hoc things are presented. But, a theory is suspect if there’s a multiplicity of ad hoc additions.
Ironically, they must invoke extranatural explanations (curved wrapped universe, inflation) that have no evidence to support them.Inflation and curvature relate to the universe and are therefore ‘natural’. I recognise that you can’t very well use the term ‘supernatural’, since science doesn’t recognise it.
I define natural as something as part of our 3 dimensional space-time that is empirically detectable. Since cosmology invokes things that are not detectable and outside of the 3 dimensional world, I use the term extranatural. Yes, I think it is synonymous with supernatural, but I want to avoid the religious implications for now. Though obviously we’ll have to get to this at some time.
As we look at areas dealing with cosmology, we see the cracks of the assumption of naturalism leading to beliefs that lack any evidentiary support.No, we actually see theories being constantly tested and refined, holding up remarkably well as an explanation of both the early universe and what we see in the cosmos today.
Any model can hold up if ad hoc explanations are continually added to it.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1092422#p1092422