Alfven-Arp type cosmologies actually attack observational problems. But every alternative cosmology (except mine) goes for the core logic of a well defined beginning ... that is, some primary point of development which is different from any other ... so offering a "hitching post" to which one might affix one's theoretical ruminations.
There are actually only a few basic alternatives (given that time is linear). These are:
I often wonder if anyone actually realizes this:
There is a state A which by some process(es) becomes a different state B. We reason out the steps from A to B in concepts and if our theory seems possible we collect numbers to see if it, in fact, works out quantitively. Only then can we say that we have a viable theory (not necessarily the correct one ... just viable).To prove a "no beginning - no end" universe requires the use of "beginning-end" universe logic. It's the only type of logic there is. All else is "feeling".
Run this past the anti-bigbangers
There is the second law of thermodynamics. There is a direction to the actions of the universe toward development ... permanent, non-reversible development. Things fall into gravitational wells and don't come out. To assert that we are just in a "phase" of development which has this quality ... or ... to say that we just happen to be in a "finite developing zone" amidst an infinitude of alternately developing and disolving zones ... runs afoul of one of Newton's fundamental tenets.
Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy #3
"The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." - I. Newton
This means that what we observe must be ascribed to all things everywhere and everywhen till some "new contrary data" comes within our experimental or observational purview. Then, we make the smallest modifications necessary to accomodate the new information. At present there is no justification whatsoever for challenging the second law of thermodynamics. And that is what one must do to hypothesize anything other than a permanently developing, one-way universe, i.e.the expanding universe.
This does not mean that universal expansion is correct ... only that is matches up best with "development". If one could show a model of a universe which developed and at the same time remained static overall (hunh?) ... well, I guess I would have to take notice!