Your last post had only three problems that I could see.

1) You assume that a physical theory should consider its existential import. This is, in fact, an impossible desire. Every theory we have is an approximation of reality. Some approximations are better than others, but all of them that we use tell us something the way the world works. This is the same thing with an empty universe. To one first approximation model, the universe IS empty. Therefore it is instructive to consider what the universe is like as empty space and time. The universe couldn't care less if you or I existed and the consideration of whether or not I'd be able to think about these issues if the universe was empty is a moot point. I don't care if no one is around to ponder the unponderable... that's not the question I'm answering at that point. The only question I'm answering is the question of how does an empty universe behave, and we know how to answer this question.

2) You want to assume that the universe has to be without cause and unending. There are ways to work this idea into the Big Bang model, however, there is no evidence yet to say whether you are right or wrong. You state this idea as though it were fact when it is in fact a belief. Just be careful about mixing those in the future.

3) Your "alternative" redshift model isn't an alternative that is viable. That's because there just isn't a mechanism that has been outlined that behaves in the way we need. I am glad people have abandoned tired light, but actually tired light makes more sense than this plasma interaction business. I can understand the mechanism for tired light, even though it doesn't occur. I have yet to see a good explanation for how the intergalactic plasma would take every wavelength photon and monotonically shift it to another location in the spectrum by scattering or absorption/reemission. This is completely ignored by the advocates of the idea, I can only assume because they have no idea how it can be done either.

Well, we have a mechanism that is independently confirmed by many different means and remains the only decent explanation for observed phenomenon. Everybody admits that the Doppler Effect would cause the redshifts in the way we see them, but for some reason not one of the "alternative" modellers cares to grapple with the simple thought that such could be the mechanism. This is simply a case of arrogant denial, not wanting to concede that the scientific community can come up with the answer to the question. Get with the program!

It may be that in the future there will be a replacement for the Big Bang. However, what will drive it is not a problem with the redshift-distance relation. It will be from an unsolved area of the paradigm. The explanations will fall into place from the reinterpretation. This is how we replace paradigms. Einstein considers the fact that spacetime curvature could cause gravity, but realizes that his theory has to conform to Newtonian observations of mechanistic gravity and should explain some of the problems at the forefront of gravitational dynamics. The model you present, heusdens, does something entirely different. It says that a new paradigm must be out there, it must look like this, here's some unrelated information that sort of looks like what I'm talking about, now how can you believe in the Big Bang?

And you expect me to be convinced by such an argument?