"Sometimes answers to deep philosphical questions of "why" really do have simple answers."
Therefore, I assume, your answer of:
"> If there was a Big Bang, why were there elements that would allow for the BB in the first place?
No idea. "
And, your inability to see beyond the superficial aspects of the seen, and logically inferred, does nothing to dispel the possibility, or the reality of an alternate universe, a a spiritual dimension, or any of the other alternates that have been proposed from the same scientific community of physicists that power so many of the current trends of speculation on the beginnings of the universe.
Cynicism does not wear well on the human condition.
BTW, are you insinuating that my questions are ill-thought-out or vague? Shame on my illiterate self.
Guess what: "No idea" and "I don't know" are both quite simple, wholely accurate*, and at the same time, the most magnificent answers possible.
* (well, they can be, unless you're asking a Dem about the illegal things they've done)
> your inability to see beyond the superficial aspects of the seen, and logically inferred,
Why do you think I have an "inability" here?
>are you insinuating that my questions are ill-thought-out or vague?
Yes, indeed. For example, post 85:
"I have yet to find a single engineer who is able to answer the question: Why?"
"Why?", by itself, is an astonishingly vague question. As such, no answer is appropriate except "because." Every "why" question will have a "because" answer. But what follows *after* "because" is determined by what follows after "why."
> Cynicism does not wear well on the human condition.
Bah.