Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

This sums up the reasoning of unbiased truth seekers. I commend you for your honesty but am unwilling to agree with your conclusions.(Not unable, mind you...simply unwilling.)We talk of anonymous witnesses...which is true to a large degree. These witnesses were not anonymous to the people of their time, however.I believe you said that people who want and need to believe will support the arguments in favor of the resurrection---which is true---I totally agree.Aside from following evidence and being unbiased and critical, I feel that there are other reasons why many do not believe.In conclusion, I wont say that either side is any better than the other.It seems to have been mean't to turn out this way.Often, when following an argument, I look not only for logic from either side but pay close attention to the emotions generated and ask myself why these emotions are so strong.(From both sides of the discussion)

All we can conclude is that He chose to believe--and defended his decision by arguing that there had to be an answer.

And yet....Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Why is it that people have no difficulty imagining an eternally existing universe yet so many have trouble imagining an eternally existing God? They always ask "who created God"?My theory is that people can construct a theory that explains eternally existing matter...yet cannot explain in any way shape or form what and Who God is. Theologians use scripture, but the secular "experts" have attempted to show how flawed scripture is---thus rendering it questionable as a source.As a believer, I basically believe that In The Beginning God created the Heavens and The Earth.Its much less taxing on the conscience, however, for a person to attempt to explain (and/or) construct theories on how it all began---or eternally existed---without God.Coming from a human source, the wisdom essentially boils down to humans---by virtue of their ability to figure it out---having explained the Beginning. Thus, it seems to me that in so doing that, we have claimed the ability to explain---or at least theorize--all past, present, and future. Does anyone understand where I am going with this?

Its kinda the same way with God. We can preach about the effects of the Holy Spirit
( love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) as well as transformed lives---but we can't explain Who or What God is directly. If we say God is Love, our critics point to examples of what they claim to be other sources of love, such as human empathy,will, and emotion.I would assert that life in general is impossible without God, but of course how could i prove it?

I thought I'd jump in to this conversation as it is becoming rather philosophically, if not scientifically intriguing,. First of all, do we all still agree with the idea that matter can be neither created nor destroyed? Belief in a Creator would seem to negate this fact---as a Creator would initially create, causing either matter or energy to appear out of nothing. This can be philosophically acknowledged though not scientifically at this time.

Because in my mind at least this crosses over from monotheism into pantheism. If you have an omnipotent Creator, the idea of infinite energy seems superfluous...at least to me. Because a Creator would have to initially create.Which came first? The Creator or the creation?

One of the major stumbling blocks that I see in this thread is the effort to support Faith & Belief based arguments through self contrived "scientific" argumentation.We all know that I CANT is a theologian and that this particular topic is in the Faith & Belief section of the Forum. If logical scientific arguments are presented, however, standard protocol is to provide reasonable evidence for such arguments. I agree with Admin in this regard and see the problem. In defense of I CANT, I imagine that he is sincerely attempting to present a logical argument in defense of the universe having a supernatural cause but finds his tires spinning when crossing over from Faith/Belief (and in his mind logic) to the more disciplined scientific methodology required for reasoned argumentation. Forum Guidelines stipulate

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Perhaps we should examine I CANTS source of reasoning. Many of us Theological types have a sincere interest in "enlightening" others of the reality and majesty of God, Creator of all seen and unseen. We even go so far as to pray for wisdom and the ability to express the "truth" in a way so as to enlighten others. Perhaps at times our fervent belief in Gods infinite wisdom coupled with our belief that our prayers for enlightenment be fulfilled may blind us to how the discussion is actually progressing. This simple fact requires us (we theologians) to switch gears in this Faith&Belief discussion.Since we are discussing "The Beginning" and what occurred BEFORE all that we know and experience as life began, we would need to seek insight either through the Bible(Logos) or through Rhema wisdom. The problem is, Rhema wisdom (which we believe to be Gods direct input of wisdom) still requires Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines at least as far as EvC discussions go.I have a high level of respect for the arguments presented so far. Message 495 gives a reasonable argument that "The universe didn't come from some place or time. It's existence itself". As a monotheist, I see this as more of a pantheistic statement and would argue that insofar as time, space and existence are concerned, time and space can be combined (spacetime) but to throw existence into that mix is stretching my beliefs and worldview. Thus again the question: Is a Creator required for our consensus on a model? This sums up Belief over Evidence, and the problems associated with such type of thinking.Arguments (models) can be presented either way.Im still reading some of the responses so I wont directly participate until I have grasped each of your arguments and proposed theories.Edited by Phat, : clarification Edited by Phat, : No reason given.