Quote (Ezzcrits @ 7 Aug 2010 21:59)
The energy came from a different parallel universe.
However we dont know that or have any means of knowing such a thing.
If we are to use that argument, would must realize that it is also fundamentally flawed by what is it that its trying to explain. Where would the mass have came from in that parallel universe? Another one? Then it would be sufficent to say that all universes are in a perpetual cycle and would thus have no logical origin. Since we could and do not have the means of knowing such origins, then you could make the same assertion which will be self defeating.
I dont see why it is so hard to believe that everything just exists with no beginning, and thus would be infinite and have no end to existance. Has anyone stopped to consider that possibility?
On such philsophical grounds, "before" existance, nothing existed. Then since the concept of time did not exist either, then the idea of nothing
before existance, would also be self defeating by definition since time is an illusion within existance itself. Therefore one might conclude that existance has always existed, and there is no origin.
If the big bang is out to explain how the universe has emerged the way that it is, i would be much more inclinded to believe it. Though all i've learned about the big bang is that it is used to explain the origin of the universe and everything in it; not the state that it is currently in. So maybe I dont know what the big bang is really all about
This post was edited by Toothfariy on Aug 7 2010 10:54pm