I think universe is eternal.

What do you mean 'just a theory' and 'not enough evidence'? All evidence and physics points this way. Saying 'it can be incorrect' is the same argument Believers use to assert God's existence, which is neither here nor there. Unless you have a refutation or better theory, it is a pointless statement to make.

@Deleted User Not true. The theory has to be proven, it has to be correct.. Can you prove it to me?

Can you disprove the big bang?

I yet never seen a prove.

Because it's been accepted by most credible scientists.

See Chopin the argument?

@Firefly I can show you evidences like cosmic microwave background, observations of black holes, and expansion of the universe, then apply mathematics to form a theoretical model.

@Deleted User You have to involve thought process to link things.

What if you use an incorrect one?

Even with correct data

The result is wrong

It's possible. Nothing in science is final.

What if most scientists never learned the correct one?

What I really need is a better theory to disprove the First Mover argument.

Not a hope or a prayer.

The best argument is to ask for the evidence of the first mover.

If we don't see him thats it

No prove

Otherwise is just imaginary logical combination in abstract.

Matter is different from imagination

It is a logical deduction based on the scientific theory that motion and time had a beginning.

What kind of thing can activate matter into motion?

Matter is always in motion and always been and always will be.

That is how far we know

Without logical imaginary theory

Maximum in the past we look at the far reaches of the universe and we see matter.

Additions to it are more subjective.

They rationalize what we see.

And project the past and future.

But that is just a vision.

That's not very convincing. At one time the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun was considered 'additions of subjective'. It depends on observations whether a theory is imaginary or not. You cannot just close your eyes and ears if the observations become awkward.

My observation is no single thing start moving after the first mover.

Because I never seen him.

You're right. It is a projection into the pasts, but based on observations.

So my observation is correct?

My observation is current.

Your observation is refined by theory

Of a Catholic priest

Kind of. We can observe cosmic background radiation, which is a thumbprint of the past. It is not correct to say that it is pure projection.

Looking into a telescope is looking into the past, etc.