• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?

mystery secret riddle

  • Please log in to reply
442 replies to this topic

#91 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:00 AM

Exactly, religion does nothing of the sort. Thanks for posting the definition.
  • Agree x 1

#92 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:00 AM

Theists do not believe the quantum fields are nothing nor do they believe God is nothing.  There is always something outside the physical to fully give it meaning.  Something has always existed but it is not caused, 

 

Science is a process, not a position and its subject is the physical.  It does not investigate the non physical but religion does.Saying that Religion can't is not a scientific statement and I assume you think you  are saying something true.

 

Religion does not investigate the non-physical, it merely makes up stories about it, including the story that the non-physical exists.


  • Agree x 3

#93 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:20 AM

Religioln does investigate using tools appropriate to the subject.  What nonsense.


  • Disagree x 1

#94 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 06 August 2014 - 04:33 AM

This is just getting sad.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Agree x 1

#95 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 06 August 2014 - 04:28 PM

Religioln does investigate using tools appropriate to the subject.  What nonsense.

 

Such as maths, and instruments such as optical and radio telescopes?

 

I remember that bit in the bible. "And Moses took up his radio telescope readings and did shew them to people, saying, "Verily, I have detected the Cosmic Microwave Background." And the people wondered and saw that it was good."



#96 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 August 2014 - 06:40 PM

The religious have and are involved in all these subjects and use all these tools where appropriate.  You dont use some tools on some subjects because they are not a tool for the study.  It is obvious.


  • Ill informed x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#97 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:02 PM

http://www.scienceda...40807145618.htm

 

The black hole at the birth of the Universe

 

Date:
August 7, 2014
 
Source:
Perimeter Institute
 
Summary:
The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it? Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It's a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics and is it testable?
 
 
140807145618-large.jpg
Before the Big Bang.
Credit: Image courtesy of Perimeter Institute
 

The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it?

 

Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It's a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics and is it testable?

What we perceive as the big bang, they argue, could be the three-dimensional "mirage" of a collapsing star in a universe profoundly different than our own.

"Cosmology's greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself," write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan.

Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity -- an unfathomably hot and dense phenomenon of spacetime where the standard laws of physics break down. Singularities are bizarre, and our understanding of them is limited.

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," Afshordi says in an interview with Nature.

The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.

So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.

Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional "wrapping" around a four-dimensional black hole's event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole.

In our three-dimensional universe, black holes have two-dimensional event horizons -- that is, they are surrounded by a two-dimensional boundary that marks the "point of no return." In the case of a four-dimensional universe, a black hole would have a three-dimensional event horizon.

In their proposed scenario, our universe was never inside the singularity; rather, it came into being outside an event horizon, protected from the singularity. It originated as -- and remains -- just one feature in the imploded wreck of a four-dimensional star.

The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound "absurd," is grounded firmly in the best modern mathematics describing space and time. Specifically, they've used the tools of holography to "turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage." Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles and -- crucially -- produce testable predictions.

Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don't know how a four-dimensional "parent" universe itself came to be.

But our fallible human intuitions, the researchers argue, evolved in a three-dimensional world that may only reveal shadows of reality.

They draw a parallel to Plato's allegory of the cave, in which prisoners spend their lives seeing only the flickering shadows cast by a fire on a cavern wall.

"Their shackles have prevented them from perceiving the true world, a realm with one additional dimension," they write. "Plato's prisoners didn't understand the powers behind the sun, just as we don't understand the four-dimensional bulk universe. But at least they knew where to look for answers."

 

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Perimeter InstituteNote: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Razieh Pourhasan, Niayesh Afshordi, Robert B. Mann. Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big BangarXiv, 2014 [link]
  2.  

 


  • like x 2

#98 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:57 PM

 

Religion does not investigate anything by any definition of the word.

You have made a statement and the burden of proof is yours.  Evidence???   :|o

 

The Word defined.

in·ves·ti·ga·tion
inˌvestiˈgāSHən/
noun
noun: investigation
  1. the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.
    "he is under investigation for receiving illicit funds"
    synonyms: examination, inquiry, study, inspection, exploration, consideration, analysis, appraisal; More
    probe, review, (background) check, survey
    "we cannot determine the cause of the fire without further investigation"
    • a formal inquiry or systematic study.
      plural noun: investigations
      "an investigation has been launched into the potential impact of the oil spill"

 

 

 

This in re for example means you can't apply double standards in reaching conclusions which you were defrauded to do a number of times as can be any religious fanatic trying to play scientist. Give it up


Edited by addx, 08 August 2014 - 08:01 PM.


#99 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:05 PM

 

http://www.scienceda...40807145618.htm

 

The black hole at the birth of the Universe

 

Date:
August 7, 2014
 
Source:
Perimeter Institute
 
Summary:
The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it? Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It's a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics and is it testable?
 
 
140807145618-large.jpg
Before the Big Bang.
Credit: Image courtesy of Perimeter Institute
 

The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it?

 

Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It's a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics and is it testable?

What we perceive as the big bang, they argue, could be the three-dimensional "mirage" of a collapsing star in a universe profoundly different than our own.

"Cosmology's greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself," write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan.

Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity -- an unfathomably hot and dense phenomenon of spacetime where the standard laws of physics break down. Singularities are bizarre, and our understanding of them is limited.

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," Afshordi says in an interview with Nature.

The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.

So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.

Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional "wrapping" around a four-dimensional black hole's event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole.

In our three-dimensional universe, black holes have two-dimensional event horizons -- that is, they are surrounded by a two-dimensional boundary that marks the "point of no return." In the case of a four-dimensional universe, a black hole would have a three-dimensional event horizon.

In their proposed scenario, our universe was never inside the singularity; rather, it came into being outside an event horizon, protected from the singularity. It originated as -- and remains -- just one feature in the imploded wreck of a four-dimensional star.

The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound "absurd," is grounded firmly in the best modern mathematics describing space and time. Specifically, they've used the tools of holography to "turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage." Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles and -- crucially -- produce testable predictions.

Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don't know how a four-dimensional "parent" universe itself came to be.

But our fallible human intuitions, the researchers argue, evolved in a three-dimensional world that may only reveal shadows of reality.

They draw a parallel to Plato's allegory of the cave, in which prisoners spend their lives seeing only the flickering shadows cast by a fire on a cavern wall.

"Their shackles have prevented them from perceiving the true world, a realm with one additional dimension," they write. "Plato's prisoners didn't understand the powers behind the sun, just as we don't understand the four-dimensional bulk universe. But at least they knew where to look for answers."

 

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Perimeter InstituteNote: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Razieh Pourhasan, Niayesh Afshordi, Robert B. Mann. Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big BangarXiv, 2014 [link]
  2.  

 

I find this interesting but it does nothing to address our topic.  Nice graphic. 


  • Disagree x 1

#100 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:18 AM

It seems to me that the question is unanswerable at the moment, but science is beginning to generate testable hypotheses which may produce a clearer picture in future. The question is obviously one of the most fundamental you could possibly ask, with the potential to undermine most historical religious origin stories. At the very least the anthropomorphic personification of the creative event, is likely to fall. If the mathematically described instability of the vacuum, as described by researchers such as Krauss, Vilenkin, Hawking et. al., turns out to be valid then we are certainly in a blind uncaring universe.


  • Agree x 2

#101 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 11 August 2014 - 11:48 PM

The question is fundamental asked by Leibniz.  It is a question equally an issue for Atheists and could destroy their entire world view.  I have already gone through the Krauss / Vilenkin debacle with you but it comes down to whether there is a material nothing.  This means that the material is caused.  There has always been something but not a caused something which the physical is..



#102 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 12 August 2014 - 07:22 AM

The question is fundamental asked by Leibniz.  It is a question equally an issue for Atheists and could destroy their entire world view.  I have already gone through the Krauss / Vilenkin debacle with you but it comes down to whether there is a material nothing.  This means that the material is caused.  There has always been something but not a caused something which the physical is..

 

Are your delusions adopted consciously or unconsciously? You haven't, "gone through" this with anybody; you have taken an ill tempered, abusive part in an attempted discussion but,since you chose to ignore what everyone else was saying, your participation was superficial. Your supposedly logical arguments are all false and have been shown to be so, over and over. 


  • Agree x 1

#103 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 145
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 12 August 2014 - 04:51 PM

The question is fundamental asked by Leibniz.  It is a question equally an issue for Atheists and could destroy their entire world view.  I have already gone through the Krauss / Vilenkin debacle with you but it comes down to whether there is a material nothing.  This means that the material is caused.  There has always been something but not a caused something which the physical is..

 

But what caused a god?

 

If you can claim that a god is "uncaused", then a universe can also be uncaused.

 

Given that there's no evidence for a god other than primitive writings, much of which are patently contradictory and wrong, and there is AMPLE evidence of a universe, I side that the universe is the thing that came from nothing.  Not a god.


  • Agree x 2

#104 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:45 PM

 

The question is fundamental asked by Leibniz.  It is a question equally an issue for Atheists and could destroy their entire world view.  I have already gone through the Krauss / Vilenkin debacle with you but it comes down to whether there is a material nothing.  This means that the material is caused.  There has always been something but not a caused something which the physical is..

 

Are your delusions adopted consciously or unconsciously? You haven't, "gone through" this with anybody; you have taken an ill tempered, abusive part in an attempted discussion but,since you chose to ignore what everyone else was saying, your participation was superficial. Your supposedly logical arguments are all false and have been shown to be so, over and over. 

 

More and more name calling.  You want to do this again?  Krauss and Vilenkin are not on the same page no matter how Krauss lied about it. 



#105 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:49 PM

 

The question is fundamental asked by Leibniz.  It is a question equally an issue for Atheists and could destroy their entire world view.  I have already gone through the Krauss / Vilenkin debacle with you but it comes down to whether there is a material nothing.  This means that the material is caused.  There has always been something but not a caused something which the physical is..

 

But what caused a god?

 

If you can claim that a god is "uncaused", then a universe can also be uncaused.

 

Given that there's no evidence for a god other than primitive writings, much of which are patently contradictory and wrong, and there is AMPLE evidence of a universe, I side that the universe is the thing that came from nothing.  Not a god.

 

The cosmos we know of is not uncaused.  There is much more evidence for God than you are talking about.  And you have not answered it.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Disagree x 1

#106 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 13 August 2014 - 10:00 AM

These topics will all become pointless if they are all allowed to become yet another rehearsal of SH's obsession with proving that his god exists and only his religion has it right. We've heard it all before in every ultimately identical topic. Before we know it we'll we going through the same old proofs and disproofs; the same tedious crap from W.L. Craig, and the same misinterpretations of cherry-picked fragments of science.


  • Agree x 2

#107 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 13 August 2014 - 10:27 AM

There's zero direct evidence for a personal god, just conjecture. 


  • Agree x 2

#108 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 August 2014 - 07:29 PM

Again this is a cause and effect cosmos and you are the ones talking about God.  :)  The cosmos cannot explain itself no matter how many names you continually call others.  You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2

#109 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 14 August 2014 - 08:50 AM

Again this is a cause and effect cosmos and you are the ones talking about God.  :)  The cosmos cannot explain itself no matter how many names you continually call others.  You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

If all you had to do was arrange words into the shape of an answer, you would be winning, because saying, "it was god," would be fine. For the rest of us here there is a requirement for a coherent evidence-backed argument, and that looks like the proposals of science.



#110 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 August 2014 - 09:32 AM

 You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Because there is no God? (My guess is as good as yours or anyone's, so do not think ignorance proves anything either way)



#111 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 145
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:12 PM

SH:  >>> Why is there something rather than nothing? 

 

This is a loaded question.  There doesn't need to be a why.  Maybe this is the part that totally leads you down the wrong rabbit hole, the one filled with unicorns, yetis, and gods.



#112 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 145
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:17 PM

BTW, "why" implies intention.  "Why" is not a question that should ever be asked of the universe.  If you ask "why" questions of it, you're barking at a tree that isn't there.

 

With our universe, "how" is the only question that matters.

 


  • Agree x 1

#113 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:31 PM

 

Again this is a cause and effect cosmos and you are the ones talking about God.  :)  The cosmos cannot explain itself no matter how many names you continually call others.  You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

If all you had to do was arrange words into the shape of an answer, you would be winning, because saying, "it was god," would be fine. For the rest of us here there is a requirement for a coherent evidence-backed argument, and that looks like the proposals of science.

 

Arrange your own words and give the answer to the question science can't answer.  You talk about science but you can't use it.


 

 You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Because there is no God? (My guess is as good as yours or anyone's, so do not think ignorance proves anything either way)

 

 You need faith to answer your guess?


  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#114 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:36 PM

SH:  >>> Why is there something rather than nothing? 

 

This is a loaded question.  There doesn't need to be a why.  Maybe this is the part that totally leads you down the wrong rabbit hole, the one filled with unicorns, yetis, and gods.

There doesn't need to be an answer?  And how do you know that?  You even know trying to answer this is wrong!  How do you know it is wrong?  :laugh:

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#115 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:39 PM

BTW, "why" implies intention.  "Why" is not a question that should ever be asked of the universe.  If you ask "why" questions of it, you're barking at a tree that isn't there.

 

With our universe, "how" is the only question that matters.

 

 

Is this a commandment given by you?  By what authority and why should anyone believe your assertions.
 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#116 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 15 August 2014 - 07:01 AM

 

 

Again this is a cause and effect cosmos and you are the ones talking about God.  :)  The cosmos cannot explain itself no matter how many names you continually call others.  You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

If all you had to do was arrange words into the shape of an answer, you would be winning, because saying, "it was god," would be fine. For the rest of us here there is a requirement for a coherent evidence-backed argument, and that looks like the proposals of science.

 

Arrange your own words and give the answer to the question science can't answer.  You talk about science but you can't use it.


 

 You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Because there is no God? (My guess is as good as yours or anyone's, so do not think ignorance proves anything either way)

 

 You need faith to answer your guess?

 

 

 

 

BTW, "why" implies intention.  "Why" is not a question that should ever be asked of the universe.  If you ask "why" questions of it, you're barking at a tree that isn't there.

 

With our universe, "how" is the only question that matters.

 

 

Is this a commandment given by you?  By what authority and why should anyone believe your assertions.
 

 

It is obvious to everyone else here that asking, "why?" implies an entity with purpose and intention, which is to say, it begs the question. Science asks "how?" and the fact that it does not yet have an answer is not a licence for superstition to fill in the gaps with fantasy. It is a source of constant bemusement to non believers that, even after centuries of seeing their "god of the gaps" answers failing when a new discovery is made, religions continue to resort to this silly tactic. Why not just relax and say, "We don't know the answer yet." 


  • Agree x 3

#117 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 15 August 2014 - 08:24 PM

 

 

 

Again this is a cause and effect cosmos and you are the ones talking about God.  :)  The cosmos cannot explain itself no matter how many names you continually call others.  You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

If all you had to do was arrange words into the shape of an answer, you would be winning, because saying, "it was god," would be fine. For the rest of us here there is a requirement for a coherent evidence-backed argument, and that looks like the proposals of science.

 

Arrange your own words and give the answer to the question science can't answer.  You talk about science but you can't use it.


 

 You haven't answered the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Because there is no God? (My guess is as good as yours or anyone's, so do not think ignorance proves anything either way)

 

 You need faith to answer your guess?

 

 

 

 

BTW, "why" implies intention.  "Why" is not a question that should ever be asked of the universe.  If you ask "why" questions of it, you're barking at a tree that isn't there.

 

With our universe, "how" is the only question that matters.

 

 

Is this a commandment given by you?  By what authority and why should anyone believe your assertions.
 

 

It is obvious to everyone else here that asking, "why?" implies an entity with purpose and intention, which is to say, it begs the question. Science asks "how?" and the fact that it does not yet have an answer is not a licence for superstition to fill in the gaps with fantasy. It is a source of constant bemusement to non believers that, even after centuries of seeing their "god of the gaps" answers failing when a new discovery is made, religions continue to resort to this silly tactic. Why not just relax and say, "We don't know the answer yet." 

 

Science asks "why," questions all the time.  What kind of Science are you talking about!!!!
"Why,"  does not necessarily imply purpose and intention though it can.  Science also asks "how," questions.  How questions can also include why questions.  That we can’t explain things does not nake questions such as this topic superstitious.  Be as bemused as you wish but you do so out of your own ignorance of an answer.  You certainly are not occupying the superior position just because you don’t have a clue..
 



#118 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 17 August 2014 - 08:03 PM

My ignorance of an answer is shared by everyone else on earth so it's not exactly an embarrassing position to be in; it's certainly better than the delusion of having an answer.

 

If your understanding of English was a little better you would spot that I didn't say that the question was superstitious, I said that superstitious answers are unjustified.


  • Agree x 1

#119 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 August 2014 - 01:14 AM

OK so you can't answer the topics question but you sure do have enough knowledge to claim you know you can't know.  You also know no one else can know!  And, how do you know that ? :wacko:



#120 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 19 August 2014 - 03:01 AM

John can claim to not know that the supernatural exists because none of us has evidence that the supernatural exists. The natural world exists and we have evidence that the natural world exists. Your Christian religion provides evidence for neat stories; your religion provides no evidence for the veracity of the stories. Your religion highlights some of the mysteries; your religion does not provide modern answers to those mysteries.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mystery, secret, riddle

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users