Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

No God. You're arbitrarily defining something "outside" the universe as "God". That's not a reason to think that a God exists. It's just a misunderstanding of what the universe is.

What if your neighbour said that a complete stranger had also seen your cat - but he couldn't show any evidence that that stranger ever existed? Because that's more like what we have with the Bible - a lot of second-hand, hearsay accounts with no real witnesses to cross-examine.

No. There didn't. That speculation doesn't answer anything. The same applies to any "supernatural power" that might have created it. By your reasoning, your creator requires a creator and that creator requires its own creator and so on, ad infinitum. It's a useless concept.

I didn't rule it out. You did, when you said, "The pure energy that became the mass of the universe had to come from somewhere. It can not produce it's self." You said that God can not produce Himself. That's a completely meaningless statement. And by the some logic, there would have to be something outside that entity to establish the rules that that entity is subject to. It's turtles all the way down.

I did. I copy-pasted it directly from Message 82. I know you didn't mention that - because it's the fatal flaw in your fairy tale. That's made up, as per the topic. It has no basis in reality. That law began at the beginning - i.e. at the Big bang. It says nothing about how the Big Bang could or could not happen. When there is no explanation (yet), the scientific approach is to say, "There is no explanation, yet." The religious approach is to make up a fictional explanation. You could prove me wrong by presenting a mechanism whereby a "God" could exist.

Faith does not depend on evidence. Yet people who claim to have faith are constantly trying to come up with evidence for their faith. Seems like weak faith to me. You should just admit that there is no evidence for the resurrection and have faith that it happened.

Then it isn't faith; it's pseudoscience. Does he recognize a talking snake as myth?

The wording is unfortunate. Hebrews 11:1 is not using the word "evidence" the way we use it. A better translation would be, "Faith is a substitute for evidence when you don't have any evidence."Edited by ringo, : Added a word for clarification.

So, did C.S. Lewis take the talking snake literally or not? If you're going to cite him as an authority, you should at least know whether or not he agrees with you.

By that logic, the US Constitution applied before it was written because it applied after it was written.

The position is that gravity can create a universe and the Law of Gravity describes how it does it.

That's kind of a circular question. Maybe God/Jesus "would" know better than we do what we "should" value - but how would we know? What's the difference between "recognizing" a better way and inventing it ourselves?It comes down to taking His word for it that His way is better. Worse, it comes down to taking the word of His self-proclaimed representatives among us. If unicorns could fly, wouldn't we have to re-examine what we know about aerodynamics? Maybe so, but I don't see why it should be high on our agenda today.

If there is indeed a "scale" of good and evil, there must be some place near the center that is a bit wishy-washy, a bit iffy, depending on the circumstances. A three-legged table may be "evil" if you're trying to balance fine china on it, but surely it's still "good" enough for firewood.

A natural power.

Natural powers are the only ones that are known to exist. If a power is needed to answer a question, existing powers come miles ahead of non-existent "super" powers.