Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

Einstein died nearly a decade before the discovery of the CMB in 1964. It was growing evidence of an expanding universe at the end of the 1920's that led him to drop the cosmological constant. A little more specificity about your meaning would be helpful. One guess I have is that you mean the infinite size of the universe could be greater than the infinite time, to the point that there will always be some usable energy somewhere. But that guess seems wrong since there's not space on the one hand and time on the other, but only spacetime.Dr Adequate also addressed this issue, but I fear we may be losing the connection to the topic. Digressions onto poorly understood and easily confused topics are what often happens when pursuit of the main topic becomes difficult, and I'm hoping to prevent such digressions from swallowing the main topic. I was hoping this thread would address these questions (and I'm going to express this in very lay terms):

• If everything has to be created by something already in existence, why isn't this also true of the supernatural being proposed as the creator of the universe?
  ​
• How does the universe having a beginning imply the existence of a supernatural being?

Not if I can help it.Thanks for the additional details. In my judgment there have been only non-answers and evasions so far.

I meant that there have only been non-answers and evasions in response to the "existence beginning to exist" explanations. Some of those explanations have been very clear, others have been brief or cryptic. These latter explanations were likely clear enough to those with some familiarity with the subject, but not to others, and taken together with all the other explanations I can see them causing more confusion than clarity.

Hi ICANT,My first reaction is that what people have been explaining to you is either becoming garbled and confused in your mind, or you're getting them all wrong on purpose. Whether it's due to your level of comprehension or is purposeful makes no difference, because in either case it would be pointless to continue with more explanations.My second reaction is that I should at least respond to the simple errors. No, you have not been assured that "there is nothing outside of our universe." Different models have been discussed. Modulous makes one model pretty clear in Message 495, saying that *if* you define a model where the universe is synonymous with existence, then nothing can exist outside the universe (you didn't reply). NoNukes lists four different models that have been offered in Message 503.But rather than discuss any particular model you have instead constructed within your mind some confused combination. You're unlikely to have success convincing people to switch to your nomenclature. At the moment branes are theoretical, not supernatural, and if evidence for branes is identified then they will be considered natural, not supernatural.When you say whatever created the universe must be supernatural you're saying it with all the same absence of evidence as when cavemen peered out into a storm and declared that whatever created lightning must be supernatural.Please, no replies to this message, except to correct my mistakes. If I've misdescribed or misrepresented someone's views or any scientific idea then please let me know.

Yes, I think you're right. Way back in Message 286 I asked ICANT, "Are you arguing from theology, or from physical evidence?" He didn't respond to the question, only saying that he was addressing the opening post, and restating his position.Arguments from a theological position belong here in the religious forums, and arguments from a scientific position belong in the science forums, but I will register no objections if ICANT wants to argue scientifically here in this religious thread. But if ICANT is going to make scientific arguments, then he must in turn accept scientific rebuttals.The argument that, "I've shown that science has no consensus answer at this time, therefore it must be supernatural," makes no sense scientifically. If ICANT wants to make scientific arguments here then he must accept this.

It would be fine if you confined yourself to the theological. That's not a theological statement. It's scientific, plus it's just a bald declaration.I'm ruling gravity and the origin of the universe off-topic in this thread. This means your next message, Message 510, is also off-topic.