Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

Hi Pressie, She already exists so what would her poofing into your presence prove about spontaneous creation.You are completely willing to accept as fact that the universe poofed into existence, from an absence of existence.God Bless,

Hi Omnivorous, Hawking is not all knowing and therefore is not infallible.
I am not all knowing and therefore I am not infallible.I thought you believed in the Big Bang Theory, am I wrong?1. An expanding universe rules out a static universe which has lasted eternally into the past.2. The universe does exist today.3. Since the universe does exist and has not existed eternally into the past it had to have a beginning to exist.Which one of these statements false?God Bless,

Hi ringo, If you are going to quote me get your quote right. The supernatural power supplied the energy that supplied the energy and mass to produce the universe.I did not say any thing about the supernatural power not being able to produce the supernatural power. The supernatural power would have to be an eternal entity with no beginning and no end. Remember the law energy and mass can not be created.I said the mass and energy that produced the universe could not produce itself. That would be the same as Brian Greene's branes and Steven Hawking's instanton. Energy and mass produced out of non existence. I suppose you have a better explanation of how the energy and mass could begin to exist from non existence. If you were not dead serious your statement would be laughable. You actually believe your garbage.You could prove me wrong by presenting a mechanism whereby the universe could begin to exist out of non existence.God Bless,

Hi Omnivorous, So why does the universe exist rather than nothing?God Bless,

Hi Cat, You have never tried to explain which of the first 2 things listed is wrong. You have tried on the 3rd one. There is nothing implied about a point in time in #3. Time is inside of the universe and is determined by the earths rotation in relation to the sun.So you have to invoke Stephen Hawking's imaginary time which is just that his imagination at work. How can the universe exist at all points in time when time is a part of the universe which is controlled by the earth's rotation in relation to the sun?I know you have bought into imaginary time as a place for the universe to exist in. But that is impossible as time is a part of the universe. I would agree that since time is a part of the universe it is finite in the past and began to exist in the universe whenever that was.I just believe that existence is eternal and the universe as we know it had a beginning to exist in that existence.The universe has not always existed as it would all be one temperature and thus dead. The universe does exist today which requires the universe to have a beginning to exist.God Bless,

Hi Omnivorous I know the universe exists.
I know the standard Big Bang Theory requires the universe to have a beginning to exist.
I understand there is a law that energy and mass can not be created.That means what ever provided the energy and mass that makes us the universe we see today would have to be a supernatural entity. I prefer to use an absence of anything, or non existence, but nothing is the same.The Big Bang Theory is supposed to have started nano seconds after T=0, the point the theory breaks down and can not tell us what was in existence.We are required to believe that all the energy and mass in the universe existed on top of itself, in a place that the theory can not tell us even exists. Some have said it was the size of a pin point.But if there was an absence of anything (nothing) there would be no energy there, mass, space, time, or vaccum. Thus there would be non existence.Since we only know existence it is very hard for most people to understand non existence. I try to keep my imagination completely out of the equation.
In Message 46 I said:

quote:

---

Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.
Scientific fact: The universe had a beginning to exist.
Scientific fact: The universe exists.

---

I don't think you have a problem with the third statement.You want to argue about the first statement but you have not stated whether the universe is eternal or not.You seem to not to want to believe the universe had a beginning to exist.Could you tell me which you believe and support your reasoning with evidence.Now as far as me misunderstanding what Stephen Hawking's said. Here is the quote I used from his lecture of 1996 where he said:

quote:

---

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

---

The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Here is another quote from the same lecture.

quote:

---

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.

---

In this lecture he also proposes imaginary time, so the universe would have a place to begin to exist the only problem with that is he put it inside of the universe.I bolded Stephen Hawking's statement about the universe having not existed forever. I also bolded where he said it had a beginning.I understand Stephen Hawking to say two things in those quotes.1. The universe has not always existed.
2. The universe had a beginning.Which of those two statements have I misunderstood? The standard BBT requires the universe to begin to exist.Since we are on equal footing as to what caused the universe to begin to exist my hypothesis is just as viable as any you may present. They all require assumption after assumption to present anything.But if we remember the law that says energy and mass can not be created.We would be compelled to conclude that a supernatural (something that is not natural) entity existed to supply the energy and mass that formed into the universe as we know it today. Or we would not be here and the universe would not exist.God Bless,

Hi Cat,Why can't there be non existence?God Bless,

Hi Straggler, Why?If you have followed my posts in this thread you know I believe a supernatural power existed prior to T=0.I believe the law that states energy and mass can not be created requires a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass that makes up our present universe.There is no other alternative for a source for the energy and mass that make up our universe.Hartley/Hawking proposed an instanton that if it existed would create a universe just like ours. That particle has never been found, and there would have been no vacuum for it to exist in.Cavediver puts it this way. Message 311

quote:

---

All I am saying is that at a particular early time, space is the size of a pea. At that time there is no extra empty space - it is not that everything has been squashed into one small pea-sized corner of the Universe. Space itself is the size of a pea. So anything in space must be confined to that size.

---

Son Goku puts it this way. Message 75

quote:

---

The existence of the Big Bang is a different issue, one completely supported by physical evidence. We now know, to a high confidence interval, that the universe was super hot and very small 13.7 billion years ago. Before this point we are encapable of tracking what went on, due to the appearance of exotic new physical effects we do not understand. A singularity is the mathematical warning sign that this exotic physics has appeared.

---

In another place Son Goku said: Message 275

quote:

---

ICANT writes:

​

At T=0+ expansion began which created space, time, gravity and everything that it took to create all the things that we see in the universe and the things we can not see.

This is wrong. Nothing is known about T=0 or the short period after it. The earliest thing we know is that the universe was expanding and was hot and dense.

​

The reason we know nothing about T=0 is that it is proven that General Relativity has a singularity there and is unreliable.

---

So from a place that the math does not work the universe expanded into what it is today without any source of energy and mass for it to form from. I am supposed to accept this explanation for the Universe existing.I don't think so. I will stick with a supernatural power that supplied that energy and mass that was required.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, What difference does it make where the law is derived from?The energy and mass could not be created prior to T=0 nor after T=0.That is why a supernatural power is required to supply the energy and mass that was used to create the universe you and I see today.If you go back to some of my earliest posts in the last 8 years you will find where I have always said the universe has always existed in some form, just not in the form we see it today. That means the energy and mass have always existed eternally in the past.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, I thought I was referring to a supernatural power that supplied the energy and mass that was used to create our universe.That supernatural power would not be natural as it would have to exist outside of the universe.I do call that supernatural power God. You can call it anything you want.It makes no difference what we call it. It had to exist to supply the energy and mass needed to create our universe.If that supernatural power did not exist we would not exist.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, Because it applies after T=0. Why wouldn't it apply.Oh I know you believe that the universe would be a frozen mass by now.If you have a supernatural power that can supply enough energy and mass to produce everything we see in the universe today that entity could add energy any time it was or is needed.A supernatural power could cause a previous universe to melt with fervent heat (which Peter tells us will happen again in the future and science agrees with him) and then have it produce a universe just like we have today. Oh I forgot that is the bounce theory.That supernatural power could provide a vacuum where two branes could collide and create a universe just like we live in. Oh I forgot that is string theory.That supernatural power could provide a vacuum where Hartley/Hawking's instanton could pop into existence and create a universe just like the one we live in.Existence has to be in order for T=0 + a nano second to ever exist.You have a favorite example you like to use about the universe being like a balloon. I have been told by you and others that the universe at the earliest point we know anything was expanding like a balloon.
But no one seems to remember the balloon has something to expand into. I noticed one poster raised the question into what the universe is expanding?If you had a balloon that could get really large inside of a room and you could keep causing that balloon to expand after awhile the room would be full. If you could keep causing it to expand it would not be long before the windows would break open, then the doors, But if you could add enough air the balloon would eventually burst the room. So that balloon has to have existence in which to expand.The universe has to have existence in which to expand or it would be the same size it was at T=0.The existence of the universe requires a supernatural power to exist.I will continue to call that supernatural power God.God Bless,

Hi Omnivorous, The one that tells us the universe is going to collapse.Oh I know that everyone does not believe that.God Bless,

Hi AZPaul3, Then you should not have any problem showing where the energy and mass came from that our universe was formed from.It had to exist as it could not be created.
Or it had to be supplied by a supernatural power. And if there was no water no pond would exist. And if there was no existence neither would exist.Just as if there is no energy and mass source the universe will not exist. You probably right.The distance between most galaxies and our galaxy is red shifted according to what we see.But we could very well be in a contracting stage and the blue shifted light from the galaxies just has not reached us at the present.The Andromeda Galaxy is blue shifted now. And we will collide one day. And we could be a brain in a jar sitting on a shelf in some lab. Can energy and mass be created from and in non existence? Remember your pond having to have water to exist.So without a source for energy and mass the universe would not exist.Alan Guth proposed inflation could be used to cause the universe to create it's own energy and mass.But the universe does exist.That requires a supernatural power to supply that energy and mass.Every hypothesis that has been put forth requires existence to exist and a source of energy and mass for the universe to exist.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, Why are you trying to make a supernatural power into a natural power?A supernatural power would be the one who constructed the laws that govern the universe.Why would that supernatural power make itself into a natural power subject to the laws it made?You have just as hard a time understanding supernatural power as you do non existence.God Bless,

Hi Tangle, A good question.Don't expect a good answer as the common belief here is that there is nothing outside of the universe. It is self contained.But I like you seem to believe the universe has to be expanding into something. I'll call that something existence. Because if it was not expanding into something it would still be the size it was at T=0. If there was no existence to expand into the universe could not expand. That means the universe would not exist.God Bless,