Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?

it came from nowhere. it doesn't matter where the energy came from just that it was there to support evo theories and actually all of evolution itself.It seems like those supporting the Big Bang just answer the how and why questions but seem to avoid the source of their how and why theories.So where did the energy come from? WHERE!!!!!

I don't think that is known.Simple as that, one of many big, important unanswered questions. So?

daaaaaBEAR We cannot say where energy came from for this simple reason.We have no idea what energy is.All we are able to deduce is that this energy is a number which is conserved in any interaction we observe.We know that mass and energy are equivalent as a change in one brings about achange in the other.Since we have not yet understood what energy is per se we cannot begin to do anything but take the physics of mass energy{and all that this entails} to find out what we can say about the origin of the universe.Theory shows that our models can be taken back to a brief moment after origin {10^-43 sec after} before which time the laws of physics are unknown.This is because it violates a law in physics that requires the product of position and momentum of particles as well as theie product of energy and time to be known
greater thn a certain limit.This limit is an inherent part of the wave nature of matter in the universe. We do not know the source of how and why. Science can only determine the rules of the game.We cannot avoid that which we cannot answer,however, we can put limits on what that answer must entail to produce what we observe,and magic is ruled out so far.This message has been edited by sidelined, 02-05-2005 13:03 AM

of human knowledge on this question:We don't know.

Nothing beats a honest concise answer. Welcome back Eta

Why pontificate on the one question that I think I'll wager will never be answered.I don't care if we get a working theory of quantum gravity and then a TOE I think this question shall still be unanswered.Whatever we do, the initial singularity in all likelihood erases priors.PSYes, I think I'll be back a little more. I've taken a year off work to think.Mainly thinking about fundamental constant variations actually.

That seems like the general reply. That's why there HAS to be a creator, because everything needed a "something" to begin it. A random mass or whatever appearing by itself without supernatural influence is ludicrous.....But it seems like evo's just have a problem with the word super.The Genesis account may be faulty from an evo's perspective but from mine I see the accuracy, even the scientific accuracy, of the Bible leaving no room for error in the first book. If human knowledge can't explain how the Big Bang got its energy then either its faith or a weak assumption. If its faith then we're on the same level, just the wrong base.This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 02-06-2005 01:09 AM

"We don't know" does not mean "it must have been created". There are many possibilities that do not involve a creator, and maybe we haven't even considered wahtever is the real possibility yet.And, of course, if everything needed a "something" to begin it, what began the Creator? I know, you're going to say everything except the Crator needed a "something" to begin it, and you're not going to have any rational reason why you're inserting that exception.

I've never understood why christians can't see the flaw in that "everything needs a creator argument"In the same way John Harshman asked this over at talkorigins:Sign in - Google Accounts

quote:

---

That one has potential if asked in the right way. How about, "If the CSI in life, especially intelligent, human life, requires an intelligent designer, can we infer that the designer also contains CSI and was also therefore designed?"

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 06 February 2005 09:53 AM

getting into none cosmological things isn't on topic

It isn't faith: after all if I said I don't know if God spoke to the Pope you wouldn't call that faith would you?It isn't an assumption: If I say that I don't know why your car won't start you wouldn't call that an assumption. I actually don't know and I'm not willing to make an assumption about the answer.So it is neither faith or an assumption. It is an open question, the kind that scientists love and the religious seem to be unable to grasp the concept of.

Well, that just is a testament to your lack of scientific knowledge and is not an endorsement of the Bible.You can only see the accuracy of Genesis because of your limitations. When you know more than you can see why it is so very wrong as a literal scientific document.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 02-06-2005 12:26 AM

The Bible isn't a scientific document and it was never meant to be. It's a message of salvation for our fallen world.but speaking of limitations, no one can obviously convince an evo of anyting because of limitations: If there's no way to know what happened before the Big Bang, then you can't affirm the Big Bang theory or plainly deny that there is a possibility (not a given) that there was a creator or some other supernatural force that intitiated the universe.

You will never see me say that the Big Bang denies a Creator.What I can affirm, however, is that Universe was once in a hot dense state and we see the evidence for this. I can affirm the Big Bang. I also affirm this is neither pro or con a Creator.

You can affirm the Big Bang but how can you affirm how the Big Bang got its energy? If it's not possible to affirm it scientifically then on by what method do you use it to support all preceding theories?