Wortfish wrote:

zoon wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature -,.......

Like others here, I would be interested to know what signs of God's existence you have in mind?

Oh...you know....eclipses, flagella, molecular codes, finely-tuned physical constants....that sort of thing.

Naming a bunch of things doesn't actually demonstrate that they are signs of god's existence.
You need to actually demonstrate that.

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Any idiot can just make up a null-hypothesis and demand everyone else disprove it otherwise it's true by default.

You don't have to disprove it...that would be impossible. But you can show that your explanation is better and the more plausible.

Still not geting how the burden of proof works I see.

Wortfish wrote:

I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.

Well, I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail.

You keep asserting this, but completely failing in actually showing it.

Wortfish wrote: It would have to somehow overcome entropy...etc....etc...

Stop trying to use sciency terms to make it seem you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

Wortfish wrote:We CAN show this idea to be ex recto nonsense.

Then why do you consistently fail to do so?

Wortfish wrote:

Look, my proposition is falsifiable, we just have to wait another 1.18 billion years. So until it is falsified, we must believe it to be true. That's basically what you're proposing we do. Take your pet theory and accept it to be true until we disprove it. Why your pet theory over mine? Mine is simpler than yours, I only postulate the universe and it's eternal nature, nothing extra.

No. We don't have to wait. If it is logically flawed or incoherent, your hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand.

Again, blind dismissal in lieu of actually adressing the scenario.

Rumraket wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.

Well, I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy...etc....etc...We CAN show this idea to be ex recto nonsense.

Then do it. Show it to be ex recto nonsense.

That isn't the point. You claimed that your idea was unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore, it was a proposition that could not be refuted. However, we can show it to be flawed and utterly implausible.

Remember that all the same methods you would use to reject my infinite cycle, can be used to reject God. In other words your God can't possibly be true because it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy etc. etc. Hoisted by your own petard.

Except that God is not a hypothetical infinite cycle of dying and rising universes. But, if you want me to debunk your prosposition, here goes:

1. An infinite cycle of universes means that the past would have to be...infinite. That is clearly nonsense since whatever is infinite is endless and so the present universe would never be reached. Indeed, everything would have to be in the past, and there could be no present or future universes in such an absurd and illogical scenario where endlessness has already ended.

2. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken because it can never be absolutely perfect. Nothing in the natural world is absolutely perfect. An infinite cycle of universes is only possible if such a cycle is absolutely perfect. Hence, we should expect the cycle to fail at some point and the sequence of events to be broken.If the number of past cycles is reckoned to be infinite, then this must have already happened but, the fact that our universe exists, means that the cycle cannot be true.

3. The law of entropy is a major consideration. More specifically, entropy density (the concentration of entropic disorder) would have to zero for the cycle not to run out of usable energy. There are some physicists who propose how entropy density could be driven to zero with each cycle by factoring in dark energy, but this has yet to be confirmed using computer simulation and other experiments which is how we would test it. But we are able to do this without waiting billions of years.

So, the first two objections are sufficient to dismiss your proposition. The third requires us to do some more tests.

So any evidence of god yet. Other than randomly pointing at stuff and claiming god?

We had a meteor shower last night. In times gone by this would probably be seen as some sign from god but it's just one of those annual celestial events we understand now. Now if god cause shit like this to happen, why does it happen predictably, following understood processes like gravitational orbits instead of just when he feels like putting on a show?

Same with your eclipses. We know when they will happen, what coverage there will be, how long they'll last, where they will be best observed etc etc. In less enlightened times, the sun disappearing during the day would have been easily ascribed to some sort of divine message. Not so any more. At least to the non superstitious.

So anyways, that evidence.

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.

Well, I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy...etc....etc...We CAN show this idea to be ex recto nonsense.

Then do it. Show it to be ex recto nonsense.

That isn't the point.

It is. You don't get to support your position with blind assertions and expect us to blindly accept them.
Put your money where your mouth is Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote: You claimed that your idea was unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore, it was a proposition that could not be refuted. However, we can show it to be flawed and utterly implausible.

Unless you do, you cannot make that claim. It's just a blind assertion and what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Wortfish wrote:

Remember that all the same methods you would use to reject my infinite cycle, can be used to reject God. In other words your God can't possibly be true because it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy etc. etc. Hoisted by your own petard.

Except that God is not a hypothetical infinite cycle of dying and rising universes.

Hey, we're back to special pleading again.

Wortfish wrote: But, if you want me to debunk your prosposition, here goes:

1. An infinite cycle of universes means that the past would have to be...infinite. That is clearly nonsense since whatever is infinite is endless and so the present universe would never be reached.

This is still a non-sequitur, no matter how many times you mindlessly chant is a mantra.
I've already demonstrated to you that the present is relative and that your 'argument' is therefore fatally flawed.

Wortfish wrote: Indeed, everything would have to be in the past, and there could be no present or future universes in such an absurd and illogical scenario where endlessness has already ended.

Still blind assertions Wortfish. You need to actually demonstrate how everything would have to be in the past.

Wortfish wrote:
2. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken because it can never be absolutely perfect.

How do you know this?

Wortfish wrote: Nothing in the natural world is absolutely perfect.

Again, how do you know this and based on what metric?

Wortfish wrote: An infinite cycle of universes is only possible if such a cycle is absolutely perfect.

Demonstrate, don't assert.

Wortfish wrote: Hence,

Once again there is no hence, since your premises are unsubstantiated assertions.

Wortfish wrote:we should expect the cycle to fail at some point and the sequence of events to be broken.

You have provided no sound basis to reach that position.

Wortfish wrote:If the number of past cycles is reckoned to be infinite, then this must have already happened but, the fact that our universe exists, means that the cycle cannot be true.

You really love non-sequiturs based on blind assertions don't you?

Wortfish wrote:
3. The law of entropy is a major consideration.

And only applies to closed systems. You'd first need to demonstrate that the universe as a whole is a closed system before you can apply the law of entropy to it.

Wortfish wrote: More specifically, entropy density (the concentration of entropic disorder) would have to zero for the cycle not to run out of usable energy.

And guess what? One of the leading hypothesis is that the energy of the universe is 0.

Wortfish wrote:There are some physicists who propose how entropy density could be driven to zero with each cycle by factoring in dark energy, but this has yet to be confirmed using computer simulation and other experiments which is how we would test it.

That a part of a theory has not been demonstrated doesn't make it impossible.

Wortfish wrote: But we are able to do this without waiting billions of years.

Then put your money where your mouth is Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:
So, the first two objections are sufficient to dismiss your proposition.

Except they aren't as I've just demonstrated.

Wortfish wrote:The third requires us to do some more tests.

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
This is still a non-sequitur, no matter how many times you mindlessly chant is a mantra.
I've already demonstrated to you that the present is relative and that your 'argument' is therefore fatally flawed.

Really? In Rumraket's model, the present cycle is to be regarded as the present universe that is 13.77 billion years old.

Still blind assertions Wortfish. You need to actually demonstrate how everything would have to be in the past.

Endlessness never ends. You accept that, right? So, if the past is endless/infinite, then that means it never ends in the present and so everything becomes part of the past and time does not flow into the future. This isn't rocket science.

Wortfish wrote:
2. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken because it can never be absolutely perfect.

How do you know this?

Because everything has a tendency to wear down. In the example of the stack of dominoes, even the conditions would have to be absolutely perfect for the effect to continue forever (assuming you have an inexhaustible supply of dominoes). At some point, as happens, a domino fails to fall because of some tiny imperfection or unpredicted event at the quantum level. A cycle of dying and rising universes, with all the enormous factors to be considered, is bound to fail at some point. If the cycle is presumed to be potentially infinitely recurring, then it must have already failedand the cycle broken.

Wortfish wrote: Nothing in the natural world is absolutely perfect.

Again, how do you know this and based on what metric?

https://phys.org/news/2014-05-d-stellar ... lapse.html:

"Nothing in nature is perfect. As we learn from this model, even small asymmetries can have a dramatic effect on the process of stellar collapse and the subsequent supernova explosion."

Repeat after me: "NOTHING IN NATURE IS PERFECT".

Wortfish wrote:we should expect the cycle to fail at some point and the sequence of events to be broken.

You have provided no sound basis to reach that position.

Well, for the cycle to repeat the expansion of the new universe would have to conform to the criteria needed to prevent it from imploding or expanding too fast. Given what we know, getting that right every cycle is totally implausible.

And only applies to closed systems. You'd first need to demonstrate that the universe as a whole is a closed system before you can apply the law of entropy to it.

So what is the other source of energy? The multiverse?

And guess what? One of the leading hypothesis is that the energy of the universe is 0.

Not referring to zero energy but to entropic denisty.

That a part of a theory has not been demonstrated doesn't make it impossible.

True. But it can be shown to be implausible.

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate it.

That's why I suggested we conduct tests.

monkeyboy wrote:
Same with your eclipses. We know when they will happen, what coverage there will be, how long they'll last, where they will be best observed etc etc. In less enlightened times, the sun disappearing during the day would have been easily ascribed to some sort of divine message. Not so any more. At least to the non superstitious. So anyways, that evidence.

So what is your explanation for the precise distance and relative size difference between the Earth, Sun and Moon that allows for the total eclipse of the star? Coincidence, Natural law?

Yes, it's just a quirk, a coincidence. The distance is changing as the moon moves further away from us at a rate of about 3.78 cm per year, so it's not as "precise" as you let on, and it won't hold. It's a just quirk of the "moment", speaking in terms of cosmological time.

So anyway, about that evidence...

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
This is still a non-sequitur, no matter how many times you mindlessly chant is a mantra.
I've already demonstrated to you that the present is relative and that your 'argument' is therefore fatally flawed.

Really? In Rumraket's model, the present cycle is to be regarded as the present universe that is 13.77 billion years old.

False, you keep pretending I haven't already pointed out to you that:
1. Present is a relative term. Evident from the fact that you still haven't answered the question: When is the present?
2. Our local representation of the universe, not the universe as a whole, is around 14 billion years old.

Wortfish wrote:

Still blind assertions Wortfish. You need to actually demonstrate how everything would have to be in the past.

Endlessness never ends.

Welcome to the tautology department of tautology.

Wortfish wrote: You accept that, right?

It has nothing to do with my acceptance, it's the definition.

Wortfish wrote: So, if the past is endless/infinite,

Again, you can only talk about the past by selecting an arbitrary point on the timeline.
Again Wortfish: When is the present?

Wortfish wrote: then that means it never ends in the present and so everything becomes part of the past and time does not flow into the future. This isn't rocket science.

It shouldn't be and wouldn't be if you did not keep ignoring the fact that the present and therefore the past and future are relative.

Wortfish wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
2. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken because it can never be absolutely perfect.

How do you know this?

Because everything has a tendency to wear down.

How do you know this?

Wortfish wrote: In the example of the stack of dominoes, even the conditions would have to be absolutely perfect for the effect to continue forever (assuming you have an inexhaustible supply of dominoes). At some point, as happens, a domino fails to fall because of some tiny imperfection or unpredicted event at the quantum level. A cycle of dying and rising universes, with all the enormous factors to be considered, is bound to fail at some point. If the cycle is presumed to be potentially infinitely recurring, then it must have already failedand the cycle broken.

How do you know a perfect cycle or chain doesn't and cannot exist in the universe Wortfish?

Wortfish wrote:

Wortfish wrote: Nothing in the natural world is absolutely perfect.

Again, how do you know this and based on what metric?

https://phys.org/news/2014-05-d-stellar ... lapse.html:

"Nothing in nature is perfect. As we learn from this model, even small asymmetries can have a dramatic effect on the process of stellar collapse and the subsequent supernova explosion."

Repeat after me: "NOTHING IN NATURE IS PERFECT".

You haven't adressed the point, you have to have a standard of perfect to make that claim.
Such a standard would necessarily be subjective.
Therefore you appeal to authority quote is moot.

Wortfish wrote:

Wortfish wrote:we should expect the cycle to fail at some point and the sequence of events to be broken.

You have provided no sound basis to reach that position.

Well, for the cycle to repeat the expansion of the new universe would have to conform to the criteria needed to prevent it from imploding or expanding too fast. Given what we know, getting that right every cycle is totally implausible.

You have not demonstrated that we 'know' this.

Wortfish wrote:

And only applies to closed systems. You'd first need to demonstrate that the universe as a whole is a closed system before you can apply the law of entropy to it.

So what is the other source of energy? The multiverse?

Shifting the burden of proof again I see. Still won't work Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:

And guess what? One of the leading hypothesis is that the energy of the universe is 0.

Not referring to zero energy but to entropic denisty.

And back again to the disengenuous word games.

Wortfish wrote:

That a part of a theory has not been demonstrated doesn't make it impossible.

True. But it can be shown to be implausible.

Which you've consistently failed to do.

Wortfish wrote:

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate it.

That's why I suggested we conduct tests.

No, you keep blindly asserting that your position is correct based on an argument that's built on fallacies and blind assertions.

I have to ask, is arguing with brick walls fun for some people or do they actually think what they're engaging in is potentially productive?

Imperfect hydrogen atoms? Imperect electrons? Imperfect photons? Imperfect argument!

RS

Wortfish wrote:1. An infinite cycle of universes means that the past would have to be...infinite. That is clearly nonsense since whatever is infinite is endless and so the present universe would never be reached. Indeed, everything would have to be in the past, and there could be no present or future universes in such an absurd and illogical scenario where endlessness has already ended.

I'm intrigued, do you think this is reasoning or logic or something? The conclusion does not follow.

Here's an infinite set with an end point, integer numbers in (-∞,0]. Yes, there are infinite sets with end points. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is another example.

Reading between the lines this is a poorly recalled version of Bill Craig's "an infinite set cannot be traversed" shtick, which pins the non sequitur in the word "traversed" which he never defines. By not including that word, the error becomes more glaring.

Wortfish wrote:2. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken because it can never be absolutely perfect. Nothing in the natural world is absolutely perfect. An infinite cycle of universes is only possible if such a cycle is absolutely perfect. Hence, we should expect the cycle to fail at some point and the sequence of events to be broken.If the number of past cycles is reckoned to be infinite, then this must have already happened but, the fact that our universe exists, means that the cycle cannot be true.

You assume your conclusion. Rumraket's example is one in which the universe is an endless cycle, you then assume that there are no endless cycles, which therefore includes the universe being an endless cycle.

This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Wortfish wrote:So, the first two objections are sufficient to dismiss your proposition. The third requires us to do some more tests.

You can't seriously expect people to be impressed by a non sequitur and circular reasoning.

Either that, or he's a troll, since he keeps regurgitating the same over and over.

Wortfish wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:
Same with your eclipses. We know when they will happen, what coverage there will be, how long they'll last, where they will be best observed etc etc. In less enlightened times, the sun disappearing during the day would have been easily ascribed to some sort of divine message. Not so any more. At least to the non superstitious. So anyways, that evidence.

So what is your explanation for the precise distance and relative size difference between the Earth, Sun and Moon that allows for the total eclipse of the star? Coincidence, Natural law?

Let us suppose we can't explain it (although coincidence or spurious correlation are possible natural explanations).

Why on Earth would that make it evidence for a god?

I mean, the god you believe in can manifest himself to speak directly, carve tablets of stone commandments in human language, order people to build arks, not eat fruit, create a human body for himself and live among humans performing clear miracles for decades and so on, can't he?

So, such a god, capable of manipulating the heavens and speaking human languages decides to leave a message "written in the stars", and does this by making the moon roughly the right size to occasionally block out almost all of the sun... why exactly? What does that message say? Why didn't he literally write the message with stars, so it's permanent, indelible and unambiguous?

How, in your mind does this assumed mindset of god (that he wants to leave clear evidence of his existence) and assumed set of powers of god (completely unlimited) lead to making the moon some approximate size?

tuco wrote:

This looks like fun.

Thommo wrote:
I'm intrigued, do you think this is reasoning or logic or something? The conclusion does not follow.

Here's an infinite set with an end point, integer numbers in (-∞,0]. Yes, there are infinite sets with end points. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is another example.

Reading between the lines this is a poorly recalled version of Bill Craig's "an infinite set cannot be traversed" shtick, which pins the non sequitur in the word "traversed" which he never defines. By not including that word, the error becomes more glaring.

You are making a classic mistake, confusing a potential infinity with an actual infinity. Aristotle dealt with this nonsense if you bother to read him. More broadly, you fail to distinguish between an infinite set and an infinite chain/cycle. An infinite set is not a real/actual infinite whereas an infinite chain would be real/actual. To traverse an infinite chain/cycle you would need an infinite amount of time. That is not so with an infinite set of numbers which exists in intellecto only. Basic stuff.

You assume your conclusion. Rumraket's example is one in which the universe is an endless cycle, you then assume that there are no endless cycles, which therefore includes the universe being an endless cycle. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

I don't assume there are no endless cycles. I merely point out that if the cycle is not absolutely perfect, it will break down at some point. If it is assumed to be infinitely recurring (at least potentially), then it will have already broken down. The only conclusion we can draw is that, if the cyclical model is true, it has a beginning and an end - it won't endure forever.

Wortfish wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I'm intrigued, do you think this is reasoning or logic or something? The conclusion does not follow.

Here's an infinite set with an end point, integer numbers in (-∞,0]. Yes, there are infinite sets with end points. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is another example.

Reading between the lines this is a poorly recalled version of Bill Craig's "an infinite set cannot be traversed" shtick, which pins the non sequitur in the word "traversed" which he never defines. By not including that word, the error becomes more glaring.

You are making a classic mistake, confusing a potential infinity with an actual infinity.

That's not a classic mistake, or a mistake at all.

What you're referring to is a 4,000 year outdated conception that has as much bearing on the modern world as the idea that atoms were "earth, air, fire and water" - another conception of the same people and school of philosophy at the same time.

You won't find "actual" or "potential" infinities anywhere in the modern, highly sophisticated logic that has studied infinities, their properties or their formalisations.

Wortfish wrote:Aristotle dealt with this nonsense if you bother to read him.

Aristotle also dealt with how men have more teeth than women as well, if you bother to read him. The question is why that appeal to authority means so much to you.

These ad hoc and pre-scientific constructions are no more valid than declaring the mind to be made of Id, Ego and Superego.

Wortfish wrote:More broadly, you fail to distinguish between an infinite set and an infinite chain/cycle.

Define "chain", by all means, but don't introduce concepts and pretend that not having "dealt" with them is a problem until you can show it is.

Wortfish wrote:An infinite set is not a real/actual infinite whereas an infinite chain would be real/actual.

By all means define the difference between real/actual and not real/actual and then show your working as to how that applies to a chain (once you define a chain). There's no semantic content to what you've said so far.

What happened was that you said something, I pointed out why what you said was wrong, and you pretended you said something else. You did not mention traversal or define what you mean by a chain. I even pointed that out and what the problem with "traversal" was before you replied, pretending it was what you had said.

Wortfish wrote:To traverse an infinite chain/cycle you would need an infinite amount of time. That is not so with an infinite set of numbers which exists in intellecto only. Basic stuff.

You haven't defined "traverse". You haven't stipulated your assumption that you can only traverse a finite distance in a finite time. You have again jumped to your conclusion that an infinite amount of time isn't possible, although needing infinite time to traverse an infinite history, which is an infinite amount of time is sufficiently vacuous one wonders why you would bother.

Yes, that is basic stuff. Get your basics right and I'll be happy to go into more detail.

Wortfish wrote:I don't assume there are no endless cycles. I merely point out that if the cycle is not absolutely perfect, it will break down at some point.

You don't "point it out", you assume it. And that assumption is precisely that there can be no endless cycles.

If you can't even see that's what you're doing, it will be very hard to help you out of the muddle you seem to have got yourself into.

Wortfish wrote:If it is assumed to be infinitely recurring (at least potentially), then it will have already broken down. The only conclusion we can draw is that, if the cyclical model is true, it has a beginning and an end - it won't endure forever.

That is just you rewording your assumption. Not providing a reason to think it is true.

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Then do it. Show it to be ex recto nonsense.

That isn't the point. You claimed that your idea was unfalsifiable and untestable.

No I didn't. I said any idiot can make up some bullshit idea, declare it to be true by default and then demand other people falsify it or they have to believe it. I did what you did, and then showed why that would be idiotic. I didn't say my idea was unfalsifiable, In fact I suggested a way to falsify it: Wait 1.28 billion years and see what happens.

Wortfish wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Remember that all the same methods you would use to reject my infinite cycle, can be used to reject God. In other words your God can't possibly be true because it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy etc. etc. Hoisted by your own petard.

Except that God is not a hypothetical infinite cycle of dying and rising universes.

I don't care that God is not an infinite cycle of dying and rising universes, the key attributes you brought up were perfection and infallibility. Those are the criteria you brought up as being the properties that meant my universe model "can't possibly be true".

"I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail." - Wortfish

Those are your very own words.

Guess what you think your God is? Perfect and infallible.

How does that dry anal tearing feel?

1. An infinite cycle of universes means that the past would have to be...infinite. That is clearly nonsense since whatever is infinite is endless and so the present universe would never be reached.

You are laboring under the misapprehension that the universe in my model BECAME infinitely old. It didn't. It always was infinitely old. There was never a time when it was not infinitely old. There was never a cycle where a finite number of cycles had preceded it. It doesn't have a beginning, and the number of cycles stretches back an endless number of times.

Indeed, everything would have to be in the past, and there could be no present or future universes in such an absurd and illogical scenario where endlessness has already ended.

Why? Explain why? You just assert these, you don't actually show why any of these conclusions must be true about my model.

Don't just claim "everything would have to be in the past" and so on. SHOW it with deductive logic. Make logically valid deductive syllogisms and PROVE your claims.

Let's list them so we are clear. The statements you need to prove using valid deductive logic are:
A. Everything would have to be in the past.
B. There could be no present universe(s).
C. There could be no future universe(s).

Have fun.

2. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken because it can never be absolutely perfect.

Let's add this one and all the remaining to the list of statements you need to prove.

D. Any chain or cycle is liable to be broken.
E. Any chain or cycle can never be absolutely perfect.
F. Nothing in the natural world is absolutely perfect.
G. An infinite cycle of universes is only possible if such a cycle is absolutely perfect.
H. We should expect the cycle to fail at some point.
I. We should expect the sequence of events to be broken.

If the number of past cycles is infinite then this must have already happened but, the fact that our universe exists, means that the cycle cannot be true.

We can forget about this one, because the conclusion demonstrably doesn't follow from the premises. It's demonstrably invalid.

Premise 1: The number of past cycles is infinite.
Premise 2: The past cycles already happened.
Premise 3: Our universe exists.
Conclusion: Therefore the cycle cannot be true.

That conclusion doesn't follow from those premises as is plainly obvious.

Moving on:

3. The law of entropy is a major consideration. More specifically, entropy density (the concentration of entropic disorder) would have to zero for the cycle not to run out of usable energy.

Disregarding the nonsensical terminology here ("concentration of entropic disorder", ROFL) you make up on the spot, what you're trying to say is that the universe would have to return to a high-entropy state when it starts over. Yes it would, and it does so in the model. That is a property of the universe in my model, it has that capacity. At 15 billion years of expansion, it resets.

God has the capacity to make something like that happen. So does my universe model. How does God do it, where does He get the skill and power? We don't know, He just has that ability by definition. Same for my universe model. It just has this ability by definition.

There are some physicists who propose how entropy density could be driven to zero with each cycle by factoring in dark energy, but this has yet to be confirmed using computer simulation and other experiments which is how we would test it.

Computer simulations and experiments? How does God factor into those? Why would those be required to substantiate anything about my model (the ability to reset entropy), but not be required to substantiate anything about your God-model?

I know what you're thinking, but you should stop thinking that and instead start thinking: Shit, I'm guilty of special pleading again.

Just for fun, here's a for-layman summary of actual infinities:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

In modern mathematics
There is no distinction between actual and potential infinity found in modern mathematics. Instead, infinite sets (which would satisfy the outdated definition of being actual) are assumed to exist in the axiomatic approach of the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory together with the axiom of choice.

That's right, there's no distinction in the much more rigorous modern understanding, because it wasn't a useful division to draw. The structure of the infinite turns out to be much richer than Plato or Aristotle ever dreamed. But as far as Aristotle's "actual infinite" is concerned there are logically rigorous objects (sets, just like the examples that were given, please note) which meet Aristotle's definition anyway.

It might be worth pointing out that ZF set theory does not prove that these objects exist, it axiomatises them. The key point is that axiomatisation does not result in their disproof at all. In some sense this is all a red herring, since we don't establish what exists in the world by proofs anyway. If you want to know there's a table in the dining room you don't knock out a lemma before lunch, you go and look.

-----

As for traversal, we might normally define a chain as being a set together with a total order relation on that set (note, both the negative integers and the reals between 0 and 1 are chains by this definition) and we might intuitively guess that "traversal" means to get from any one point in the set to any other by iteration of a single operation, e.g. "+1".

In that case the negative integers are traversable, negative integers being, by definition additive inverses of successive iterations of "+1". Of course, perhaps we could make the good old Bill Craig blunder of thinking that negative integers means affine negative integers, which would be the set [-∞,0], in which case no matter how many times you add +1 you will never get from -∞ to any standard negative integer, including 0.

There are however two parts to this blunder:-

(i) The definition of traversable is arbitrary, we could also allow "super-operations" of infinite repetitions of a single operation, i.e. we can get from -∞ to 0 by iterating +1 ∞ times. So in order to disallow this you have to assume your conclusion that such an infinite is not allowed.
(ii) This set does not correspond to what people say about an eternal universe. This set represents a universe that had a beginning infinitely long ago, not to a universe that did not begin.