: I am sure someone has posted something like this here allready.

: But, I'd like to repost it if I could.

: I would like anyone to disprove my brief theory on the : "Supernatural"

: It's quite simplistic really. First we have to take into : account, one theory and a law of nature: The law of conservation and : the "Big Bang" theory. Once you take these to things into account, : the question arises, how did all this matter come into being? : Well, either it was always here or it was created. In saying matter has : always been here, we go arwy from the Big Bang theory. In saying : that it was created in this massive explosion that started : the Universe, we go awry from the Law of Conservation. : Therefor, if the Big Bang theory is correct, then it is : in fact, a proof of the existance of something beyond : our natural laws. Something had to "Create." : Now, is that "Somthing" the traditional Judo-Cristian "God"? : Well, i don't know for sure about that. But it was "Something" that : operated outside our natural laws. Hence, "supernatural".

: Please post your comments,

: thanks, : Hyperiongate.

***There is no evidence which shows that matter at some time did not exist, therefore the only logical conclusion is that the universe cycles or recycles everything, and this could be done in a way simular to the cyclic theory of the big bang, however, this does not mean "all" matter in the universe, for there has also been no end or limit to just how far the universe extends, thus there most likely are big bangs occuring every now and then in the vast reaches of the infinite universe.

***The basis of conventional science is always extended by the outragous fanatics who propose the "impossible" which is then accepted by the "conventional" scientists as possible.

***Please point out any ilogical thinking, for I am sometimes swayed by too much sceptisism. Thanks, Phil.