Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

A while ago my cat died. My kids were heartbroken. We buried her in the garden under a tree. Several days later the earth had been disturbed and the body had gone. Recently my kids (and their friends) are convinced that they have seen the cat frolicking in the park and following them to school.Is there evidence that my cat has been resurrected from the dead?

Stick with the scenario as it actually happened. It's a real situation. It doesn't require your hypothetical additions.We have the absence of a body and some eyewitness testimony. We now also have a written record of the events.Does the notion that my cat has been resurrected qualify as an as evidenced proposition? Or not? Can you explain your answer.

Do you consider the resurrection of my cat to be evidenced?We have the absence of a body and eye witness testimony. We also now have my written account of the events in question.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing?Including any God.If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question.

So you reject the resurrection of my cat as a fantasy. Despite the missing body. Despite the fact we have direct access to the eye witnesses in question (which is far more than can be said of the resurrection you do believe in). Despite the fact that I have provided you with a written account of the events.Things which you call "evidence" when it suits you are simply discarded as irrelevant when it doesn't.The scribing of oral traditions decades after the events supposedly happened, written by people who weren't themselves witnesses and whom we can never quiz directly. Embellishment, fantasy and mythologising are hardly things restricted to children and you would presumably accept as being rife in other religions created by adults.So explain to me why you don't accept that there is evidence of my cat resurrection and remind us of the evidence you put forward pertaining to that other resurrection.

Call me a sceptic if you will....But an account written in an appealing writing style wouldn't normally be considered an evidential basis for concluding that a dead person had come back to life.

I don't think writing style is a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead person actually came back to life.

The conclusion that a dead man came back to life cannot sensibly be made based on writing style.

Do you agree that writing style is not a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead man came back to life?Because up until now you seem to have been saying that the writing style in question is indeed evidence in and of itself. Now you tell me that isn't what you are saying. Which is it?If someone today wrote a recent account of a dead person coming back to life and they wrote that in a similar/identical style - would you believe that too?

The inclusion of incidental components in the narrative and what you describe as straightforwardness are all aspects of writing style.I ask again - Do you agree or disagree that writing style is not a sensible basis on which to conclude that a dead man came back to life?Everything you say suggests you do think writing style is an entirely valid reason to draw such a conclusion. But when asked specifically you say that is not what you mean. But "straightforward style of narrative" and "inclusion of incidental facts" are aspects of writing style.So your actual position on this comes across as desperately confused.

There you go again Is writing style a sensible basis on which to draw the conclusion that a dead man came back to life?You obviously think it is. So why not just say so? I suspect because when put explicitly even you think it sounds slightly ridiculous to do so.But that is what your argument boils down to....

This law you speak of - "energy and mass cannot be created" - In your mind where does that law derive from? Was that law in place prior to the Big Bang or was that law itself created as part of the creation of our universe in your God scenario?

Why does God exist rather than nothing at all?Dont worry about any subsequent creations (e.g. Our universe).Why is there God rather than nothing?The question of whether God can solve the issue of his own existence is not answered by talking about the things God subsequently creates.God - "Why do I exist rather than nothing?"
Answer - ............Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Firstly - How do you know that this law applies prior to T=0?Secondly - In your mind is the same true of all the laws of physics or just this particular one? For example - Does the second law of thermodynamics apply prior to T=0 as well as after, in your mind?

If God does exist and he is pondering the question "Why do I exist rather than nothing" I doubt he will take much solace in your answer that he exists because we do.I will try againImagine God in the situation you keep referring to of "before T=0". He is sitting there pondering his own existence. "Why does anything, why do I, exist rather than nothing?" he asks himself.How would God go about finding the answer to that question do you think?