@TheMiddleWay Don't understand what you are talking about. 1) Semantics. I purposely used the term "not unproven" rather than proven because cosmological Inflation is, of course, theoretical and has its criticisms and open questions in relation to its incompleteness, as it should. However, predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests for years. To claim there is "not a shred of evidence," in light of the evidence, is absurd. 3) Cosmological inflation cannot be dependent upon mere space dust. That wouldn't even fit the theory. Name your source. 3) Are you denying Hubble's law? Are you denying any evidence of the Big Bang? Are you denying background radiation? Are you denying the Freedman equation? Are you claiming the universe is static? Are you a science denier? 3) Semantics. The term metaphysics is, of course, used by philosophers, not by scientists. Translation: a physics hypothesis is metaphysics to a philosopher. Yes, Schrodinger "suggested" that. So what? A physics hypothesis is not proven science, nor has it ever been claimed as such by scientists. It can't be. To claim this would be denying the scientific method itself. In which case a scientist, by definition, would not be a scientist.

@TheMiddleWay I have never objected to the assertion that a scientific theory is unproven. Of course, it is not. But rather your assertion that there "not a shred of evidence" and your assertion that this is all nothing more than mere philosophy. However, I have apparently confused you with my double negative "not unproven" which, as I tried to explain, was to avoid any use of the word "proven" which does not apply to any of the Inflation theoretical constructs or models and to assert that Cosmological Inflation has not been disproven. Would you have been more comfortable with "for which there is (substantial) evidence" ? I still maintain that assertion in spite of the disappointment of the 2014 BICEP2 experiment which hoped to provide confirmation of (the holy grail of) gravitational waves. Yes, a successful experiment would have been cause for celebration, but such a failed experiment does not undo all previous observational evidence any more than the controversial "Climategate", which was very misleadingly covered in the media, undoes all previous evidence on climate change.
BTW, I have never been very happy with the sensationalistic title editor of Space.com. But unfortunately, we live in an age of sensationalism. If you really want sensationalism you could point to a Forbes science article of Sep 28, 2017 that claims that Cosmological Inflation Theory isn't even a theory. Yet, it embraces the "Big Bounce". Go figure.
As to the observational evidence, this is not simply answered. You could do a search on scholarly articles for cosmological inflation theory and observations and get numerous hits, but most of these articles are not free to the public. However, I could refer you to:
a) Spergel, D.N. (2006). "Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Implications for cosmology". WMAP... confirms the basic tenets of the inflationary paradigm...
b) Linde, Andrei (2014). "Inflationary cosmology after Planck 2013".
c) and the assertion that "cosmic inflation is on a stronger footing than ever before" in the article by
Guth, Alan H.; Kaiser, David I.; Nomura, Yasunori (2014). "Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013". Physics Letters.

You seem to be saying at times that just because something is a scientific theory that there is no evidence for it. "Not a shred" (Would you say that about the Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Gravity?) You save yourself when you say "there is no evidence SPECIFICALLY SINGLING out the big bang." This statement is true, of course. There are other theoretical models that can still accommodate the data. But there is still evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It is not a mere philosophical assertion.

Frankly, I am still puzzled by your conflagration of the terms "actual physics" and "philosophy". First of all, I am not really familiar with the use of the term "actual physics" as if it somehow stands in opposition to some other kind of physics. But beyond that, at one point you seem to refer to a theoretical construct as just philosophy and at another point refer to the same theoretical construct as actual physics just because of something a physicist said. Certainly, you don't think that just because a physicist is engaging in dumbed-down popularized speculation that they are engaging in "actual physics"? If so, then you and I have simply not been talking about the same thing. As for Stephen Hawking, yes, I know he was creative, brilliant, we all loved and admired him, and he became a cult figure. However, in his inner circle of physicists, he was often heavily criticized for his oversimplified popularization of complex and controversial scientific concepts. Once when there was a vote taken among his colleagues on the most influential physicist of our time and he received...exactly one vote

@TheMiddleWay
I don't get it. It is as if you have a different and your own definition of the word "evidence".
If you don't consider confirmation of Inflation Theory predictions by observation data to be evidence, then what the heck you consider to be "evidence"? (We are way past "unproven" here. We are simply talking about evidence.) "Not a shred"

The first article says exactly what I have been saying, and says it even stronger than I have, or would. In fact, it is exactly the kind of article I would refer to you to make my point:

"Inflationary cosmology is elegant and can claim significant predictive successes."
"A theory whose predictions have been verified to great accuracy by cosmic microwave (CMB) anisotrophy experiments."

The article simply discusses some of the conceptual problems and alternative paradigms. Of course! So what? It's a theory.

The second article is simply Liddle's article in which he discusses some of the shortcomings of the observational evidence, but goes on to say things like:
"Before continuing on to the properties of perturbations in the Universe, there’s a final point worth bearing in mind concerning inflation as a theory of the global Universe. As I’ve said, there now seems little prospect that any observations will come along which might rule out the model."
And in his summarizing outlook says that the " present situation is extremely rosy for inflation...which stands as the favoured model for the origin of structure."

This second article is also one I could use to make my point...in even"rosier" language than I would use.

I can also refer you to this Katherine Freese presentation:
[www-personal.umich.edu]

Note the summary. The predictions of inflation are right:
( i ) the universe has a critical density
(ii) Gaussian perturbations
(iii) superhorizon fluctuations
(iv) density perturbation spectrum nearly scale invariant

Now there is some discussion as to which model of Inflation may prove to be the most promising pending further observations. So what? They are still models of Inflation.

There also alternative paradigms, and Penrose has his place. Yes, of course! So what? That's what makes science exciting.

If you wish to refer to other articles that make my point for me, you are more than welcome.

And yet you call this mere philosophy.

Aristotle believed in an infinite Universe over 2,000 years ago. Science will NEVER prove him wrong.

@TheMiddleWay Hey! Haven't seen you around - hope you're well... I see you're still 50/50 on god which has not one single shred of evidence to support. Talk about house of cards and sandcastles in the air...

@TheMiddleWay It's on your profile...

Yeah, and only one dog, right? You are right and everyone else is wrong all of your opinions are the total truth and anyone that thinks differently can go to hell.

@yuvid1 You apparently don't understand the definition of Universe