Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

Persuasive objective evidence for not only the existence of the biblical Jesus but for his actual resurrection as well would make history and change my world.No bated breath here.

Only if you already believe.Consider the magician who steps into the sword cabginet. He tells you this is gonna be magic. His assistant runs swords through at all angles. We hear screams. She opens the cabinet--and it is empty. After she closes the cabinet and withdraws the swords, she reopens it to reveal our triumphant magician. He tells you it was magic.Do you believe it was magic? How can you be so perniciously obtuse as to deny the evidence of the empty cabinet?Because you already don't believe in this magician.You consistently call many of us here deluded for not being persuaded by something that would only persuade those who already believe in the magic. When you get frustrated enough by it, you call us pernicious, twisted, satanic...That doesn't make your magic more credible either.

Well, 1 out of 3 ain't bad; out of 2, really, since your second point merely restates your initial unwarranted assumption.Could you tell me what scientific work demonstrated that the universe has not always existed? You've stated it as a scientific fact (a warning flag for anyone who understands the least bit about science), so there must be a plethora of evidence to support your statement, taking mere seconds on Google.I guess I have to dock you on the third point as well, unless you can demonstrate a scientific consensus on just what comprises the universe and what it means for it to exist. So maybe 0.3 out of 2.0.You're just looking around, saying, "Whoa! Look at me, I exist! There must be a god!" People did that long before any notion of science. You're whistling in the dark, abusing science to justify the same conclusions drawn by primitive peoples. More than made up--tarted up and rouged with the trappings of pseudo-science, trolling the boardwalk for suckers...

Um, no. I'll take it up with you. You're the one misinterpreting his remarks. He has flatly declared that no supernatural agency was required for the Big Bang. I guess the discussion should end here, given your faith in Dr. Hawking...So let me confirm that you accept Stephen Hawking's views on cosmogyny as final. Is that right?Because, you know, what the great man said:

quote:

---

"There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno Gods required."

---

quote:

---

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

---

Hawking doesn't say there was nothing before the Big Bang--he says we have no way to know anything about those conditions. Sure, he's saying time began with the Big Bang, and the universe as we know it, as we can know it, began with time.He's said that multiple times in multiple ways. How many would you like?You're simply filling the unknown with what you prefer to believe. Don't blame Dr. Hawking.

Actually, in that lecture he is tracing the intellectual history of modern cosmosyny. That's why most of my previous quotes that contradict yours came from the same lecture--I just read further into the account.You are cherry-picking narrative bits in order to misrepresent a contemporary, complex view.Hawking has flatly declared that no supernatural or other external agency was required for the Big Bang, so he doesn't even seem to be the appropriate authority to whom you should fallaciously appeal.So I won't trade any more Hawking quotes with you. If his actual words in context don't enlighten you, certainly I cannot. Read the lecture again.

So you agree that an appeal to Dr. Hawking's authority is pointless, since the two of you are diametrically opposed on the very issues on which you cite him for support.Got anything else?Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Good. We can cut out Dr. Hawking as the middleman (since he's useless to your argument). Yes, in several ways.I don't "believe" in any theory. That's way-you're-wrong number one.I do think the BB theory is the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. Unlike you, I understand that the math breaks down at T=0, and the theory cannot say anything valid about it--most especially, it cannot reveal the state of affairs prior to T=0, and it doesn't point to energy requirements from outside the universe.That's way-you're-wrong number 2.

I don't know. Neither do you.Could you define this state of affairs that you call "nothing"? What makes you think it could exist?Why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? I don't know. Neither do you.You've latched onto your own intuitive understanding of physicists attempting to explain complex mathematical/theoretical models in plain language, always an inadequate approximation, and used your human sensory experience of space and time to make arguments about theology. This led you to declare that Hawking's work supports your theology when it doesn't, as he has made clear.If these cosmological concepts move you, and make you feel as if a supernatural force was necessary, well, good for you. I don't care one way or the other.But the BB doesn't give you scientific grounds for that, and your theo-logic is based only on a feeling.

Which science would that be?

You can say that a thousand tiimes, and it still won't be true.In the above quote, it's not even a scientific matter: as a simple fact of plain text, there are hypotheses that do not stipulate either your existential tautology or a "source" for energy and mass.So why bother? You've proven unable to report scientific theories accurately, and you're only using them as a platform to insist on the supernatural anyway. Invariably, ineluctably, your statements and replies will boil down to "Because God."Just say so upfront and don't be cute. Stop abusing science like a redheaded step-child. Pisses me off.

i haven't read the book, just the quote and kbertche's comment.Is mischaracterizing this:"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."as"Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing"worthy of consideration?No. I wouldn't consider doing it. It's dishonest.

*duplicate*Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

I defer to your ruling.

There is a bit of pathos in watching you pace this circle round and round...Why is an infinite regression required? I'm quite comfortable with the idea of an origin point for the universe sans extrinsic cause, supernatural or otherwise. You state this requirement as though it were established by science or logical proof, but you neglected to show your work. The problem of infinite regression arises when you postulate a supernatural being as creator of the universe. Science doesn't do that; the infinite regression problem belongs to you, not scientists.By the way, some scientists theorize multiple dimensions because the math shows the possibility, and observation does not yet confound it.They show their work. Theologians can't run from the logical and scientific difficulties of supernatural belief. That they are reduced to lurking in the obscurities of theoretical astrophysics is mere bathos.But if you especially like multidimensonal gaps for your God, rather than the shrinking ones here in this space-time, sure, tuck him in. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Who said it did?