Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?

Hi Percy, Seriously, I did understand Pressie to say I was addressing him.Perssie said:

quote:

---

(By the way, I object to you calling me your best friend.

---

What part of that statement did I not understand?God Bless,

Does it? There is no point in time where there was no point in time such that you can ever say 'time did not exist, at that point in time'. It would be, for obvious reasons, gibberish. My point exactly. Therefore your statement that

quote:

---

That means time could not exist until the universe began to exist.

---

Is gibberish. Or as I said:If time did not exist there was no time in which one can exist in, in order to wait 'until' time existed. If time's existence starts at the Big Bang, then there was no before it.

​

Therefore, there are no points in time, when there are no points in time. There are no points in space where there are no points in space.

​

If we are working in a General Relativity sense. If we presume time did not begin at the Big Bang then we enter the world of mathematically consistent theories, mathematically inconsistent theories and religious speculation. In General Relativity: Time and Space and Energy {aka the Universe} just exist as a four dimensional entity. It doesn't have anything that happened before it as the four dimensional object does not sit within a temporal dimension.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Pressie, To you the Supernatural Power that supplied all the energy and mass that is now our universe may be a spook,But that Supernatural Power is my best friend. He has saw me through times in my life when I needed a friend. He has provided me with talents that have sustained my life for the past 76 years. He also made provisions that I can spend the balance of eternity with Him. I know Him on a personal basics, I talk to Him and He gives me the answers to life's problems. I don't expect you or anyone else here that is not born again to understand anything I have written in the paragraph. But that is OK and if you are offended at my personal belief in this Supernatural Power so be it. I have had too many experiences in this life where that Supernatural Power interceded in my life for me to doubt His existence.It is much easier to believe in the Supernatural Power that has existed eternally in the past than to believe 2 branes bumped together in non existence and caused the universe to exist. Or that an instanton appeared in non existence and caused the universe to exist.Now those things are magical and spooky to me.Not only that but they are impossible as non existence is simply that, non existence.God Bless,

Hi Mod, What would be the mechanism that caused time to begin to exist at the Big Bang. So when there was no point in time and no points in space there was non existence.I don't know if you can visualize non existence or not. Non existence would mean there would be no quarks, no vacuum, no space, no time, no place for anything to exist, there would be an absence of any thing.That would mean the singularity (at which a function takes an infinite value) could not exist as it would be absent in non existence.What mechanism would you propose to solve that problem?I propose an eternally existing Supernatural Power I call God that could provide the infinite energy and mass that forms our universe today.God Bless,

There is no mechanism. There is no cause. Nope, there was never a when there was no point in time and there is not a place where there are no points in space. There was never non-existence. It's simple really, you made up the problem so I can dismiss it with equal ease.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Let's consider your response, ICANT. I provide you three links with answers to the question what is gravity. You then provide a link in which one person says that there is no answer.At best you've demonstrated that one source does not know the answer. You have not dealt with sites giving answers to your question. This follows up yet another post in which you cited a website with completely bogus information about dark matter.I'm out.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Mod, So what existed at T=0?I can tell you what did not exist there.
There was no universe.
There was no space-time.
There was no energy.
There was no mass.
There was no vacuum.
None of these things existed until T=0^-9 according to the standard model.
There was also non existence there as nothing exists outside of the universe according to the BBT.Yet 1 nano second after T=0 the universe existed and was expanding according to the Big Bang Theory.T=0 had to exist for T=0^-9 to exist.T=0 had to exist for there to be a duration measured as 0^-9 which is a nano second, which equals to 1 billionth of a second.So the universe had a beginning to exist at T=0^-9 according to the BBT.Since Space-time, energy, and mass are a part of the universe they had to have a beginning to exist at T=0^-9.So what existed at T=0?If the BBT is correct there was non existence at T=0. So let me get what you are telling me straight .The universe began to exist at T=0^-9with space-time in the universe as well as all the energy and mass that can be observed as well as that that can not be observed.. Therefore there is no point in time the universe did not exist nor no point in space the universe did not exist. Yet the universe can not exit in time or space as they are in the universe not outside the universe for the universe to exist in.This sounds like the cat chasing his tail, or circular reasoning.

Hi NoNukes, Sorry you didn't like the information from Nasa's child website.You need to be a little more specific than just post links. Because I could not find any answer to the question what is gravity?So could you be specific and post quotes from the links that support your assertions.God Bless,

Everything. Wrong. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed likewise.But seriously, think about it. You are saying the universe existed for a billionth of a second before it existed. Gibberish. Wrong. You started wrong. Let's try again: The universe exists and time is bounded, at least in the past. Correct. The universe exists. It is in four dimensions. It does not not exist. This is not circular reasoning, its ontology.My point is that there isn't a Gap of Non-existence to squeeze your God into. You'll have to find somewhere else, or try to butcher a different cosmology model.Edited by Modulous, : 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?

quote:

---

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"?

---

Of course the question is fundamentally mistaken. It's not a question of imagination it's a question of intellectual honesty. If God has the features that - supposedly - require a creator then it is natural to ask "who created God" rather than ignore the inconvenient question. And that is where that question comes out.So the real question again comes down to why are people fooled by the intellectual dishonesty (and sometimes plain dishonesty) of apologetics. I think it comes down to pride, and an unwillingness to admit that a belief of personal importance is not rationally defensible.

Turnabout is fair play.The problem is that many supernaturalists proclaim that there must be something that exists BEFORE the universe. They propose God. Then they deny that the argument they used can be used again to say 'there must be something that exists BEFORE God'.Then they argue 'But God does not existing within a temporal frame, he transcends time and space.', while being unable to accept that's what I'm saying about the universe. I don't propose eternally existing matter. In the model in discussion, matter has only been around for about 13 billion years. I don't know why adding an extra entity that requires an explanation can possibly be regarded as less complicated. By adding God into the discussion, not only are you not solving any of the problems you claim to {you just push them back} but you are raising more and more questions.

It does not matter whether I like it or not. Your claim was that you could not find an answer to 'what is gravity' and not that you could find claims that we don't know what gravity is. Accordingly, your post does not back up your claim.The theory of general relativity completely describes what gravity is. On each of the links you can find an answer to the effect that gravity is a curvature of space time created by mass. In addition, at least one poster other than myself has already provided a similar answer in response to your posts. I'm sorry that you don't like that answer. But it is an appropriate response to your question.General relativity explains why such curvature results in the effects associated with gravity such as the apparent force between two masses. Thus those answers are an indication of what gravity is that is not based on simply describing the effects of gravity. What I intended to show was that you could not find the answer even if it were placed in front of you. I think you've just admitted exactly that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT,My apologies. I lost track of the fact that I'm moderating this thread. I believe my original response to Pressie was meant to be as Admin, but I accidentally posted as Percy, and then you replied to that post. Please ignore my posts as Percy.--Percy

Your response to my post as Percy (which I meant to post as Admin) did not address anything about Pressie at all. If what you said had anything to do with the topic then, since I won't be responding to it, you might want to try to work it into the discussion.