String cosmology vs. Big Bang cosmology

String Theory vs. Big Bang Cosmology
Andrew T. Felts

With the popularity among materialists with the theory of Darwinian evolution in biology it is no surprise that materialists are attempting to stamp out the design hypothesis at its source in physics with string theory. There are multiple versions of string theory, so for clarification this article is specifically addressing M-theory, which unifies the other 6 string theories.   According to string theory our universe is composed of multiple dimensions curled up into small geometric patterns called Calabi Yau spaces; along with multiple dimensions M-theory predicts that atoms are ultimately composed of vibrating string and membranes(also called branes for short), which are 2-D strings, and our universe is one of many universes(multi-verse theory), and these extra universes are represented by membranes floating in higher dimensional space.  Also M-theory predicts that we are living on a giant membrane inside of a higher dimensional space(more than 3 dimension & time).  According to some string theorists these higher dimensional branes collide and cause multiple Big Bangs, so our universe could potentially extend infinitely into the future as well as infinitely into the past according to M-theory rather than having a finite beginning as predicted by the Big Bang model in cosmology.
(Watch this video for a simple explanation of string cosmology)
There are some basic philosophical issues with this cosmological model from M-theory. First, provided M-theory is true, then time as we now know it would not exist because without a finite beginning any moment in time would be indistinguishable from any other moment in time since time would be infinite, however since the other higher dimensional branes would be colliding for a potentially infinite amount of time, then the problem arises of how time has come to be finite out of universes where time would have to be infinite for the other universes, so that the branes continue to collide forever.  Second, in order for these branes to collide for an infinite period of time, all of these extra dimensions & universes would have to be self-caused, but if that is true then how would the universe exist since it would have to cause itself to exist before it exist, which is self-contradictory.
Physicist have also tested this model of an infinite universe, and it was published in the article: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete by Arvind Borde,Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (note: the download for the article is free).
Based on the calculations in their article due to the rate of expansion that Hubble observed, which helped to predict the Big Bang theory, our universe must have a began at a finite time in the past, which the article refers to as a boundary since it prevents our universe from extending infinitely into the past. If you want to view the more technical response with intricate multi-variable calculus, then view the article.  The article also offers a rebuttal to the cyclic model, which is present in M-theory, and string cosmology, which is refuted because of the boundary created by the rate of expansion of the universe.
In conclusion I just want to point out the main two reasons why I view string theory as evasive in answering questions.  First, string theory tries to evade the singularity, which was mentioned in the video, where the universe literally came out of nothing, but that would refute materialism, so string theory creates a framework, so that matter can exist forever, although there is no real reason to accept this except for materialists who want to omit the possibility of a designer. Second, string theory gets rid of the fine-tuning argument with its cosmology since a string theorist could argue that our universe was bound to get here because eventually when the branes hit they were going to make a perfect universe after colliding an infinite number of times, which is true, but this doesn’t answer any of the other critiques that I mentioned, rather it merely tries to dodge the question and close out possibilities such as design based on metaphysical views rather than confront the claims of design with science; ironically these design skeptics in physics are using pseudo-science to refute the theory of Intelligent Design, which they call pseudo-science.