Why does the Universe exist?

I'll take that as a compliment. Thankyou.

Only thing that concerns me is folk who apply gender to atmosphere (gaseous substances) and dirt (elements/compounds) that form the surface of the planet.
No Penises or vaginas in either - Why apply them?
And I'm the nutjob, eh?
Ok, have a wonderful everything.

Affirmative, that program is currently running

Again Mark you gotta forgive an old guy

Chill Mark not biting you azz just wondering why you got concerned with his metaphor...I was really curious, just that.

Even though I am a Christian, I don't reject science,evolution or big bang theories. I am not a bible literalist of creationism, just a bible moralist. But I do reject the assumption that we don't have any spiritual connection with our universe. Yes I prefer the word "spirituality" I hate the word "religion" because it has been tarnished by layman concepts that don't make any sense. I mean, why do we believe in the concept of family at all, there must be something greater than us in this universe influencing us. Afterall, this universe did create us, so we should have some sort of spiritual connection with it. BTW I am aware that Father Georges Lemaitre came up with the big bang theory, a Catholic priest. His spirituality sure didn't contradict his scientific perception.

I don't see any 'spirituality' in human life. A man and woman had sex, and produced another human. All animals do the same. It's all part and parcel of evolution of life.

That's fine, thats your own perception from your own experiences. Just because one has a sense of spirituality, it doesn't mean they are not rational. A prime example Father Georges LeMaitre who came up with the big bang theory

Hi Dale.
What I mean is: When your/my/anyones' life (physical/current) ends - This point is the Only 'determining' factor - To stress that 'had this/that occured' life would have continued/ended earlier - has no bearing on the 'actual' measurement.
'IF' is always a/an hypothesis - Great to discuss 'if's n but's', but not based on actual, measurable criteria.

Your 'family' is far bigger than you imagine, Amoh.

What is external to 'nature'?

Forgiveness is unnecessary, Dale.
I thrive off differing opinions - They are wonderful to me.

In fact, My opinions, however relative to me, are no more, or less, valuable than anyone else's.

Dale, when you reach the 4th dimension (ps - don't go into the light - you'll return here) You'll understand EVERYTHING!
I reckon you'll bounce to the 5th, and I'll see you there - If I can resist returning here, that is...
Nvm, you'll see.

Sorry Fil - Got Crazy-Setanta in my face.. again:)
Can't remember if I was a bit gruff with you - You're someone whose presence, like Dale's, here - gives me a reason to attend.

The supernatural of course.

I sometimes use 'nature' to denote anything not explained by the known laws of physics. Nothing is outside of actual nature.

You can, but shouldn't propose that this 'universe' 'created us'.
Maybe (Just broadening your perspective-base) We created 'It'?
I'll go-into-it moreso, if you choose? Or just leave you to grasp/not grasp my/your/everythings' (same thing) (for want of a better word) Intent.

Super 'beyond, external, etc' is only applied to 'Natural' events/criteria, etc that we (humans) cannot measure in accordance to/with our current (or technically-advanced) senses (perception).
We, without 'low frequency RF-based detectors' cannot detect (out-of-range) frequencies - Is this 'supernatural'?

Just because we lack adequate instruments does not mean we can't explain out of range frequencies using the known laws of physics, so no, not supernatural.

Then, please, refer me to something, anything that is 'supernatural'?

Currently, that would include The Big Bang and the emergence of biological life on a sterile ball.

I don't fracking know what supernatural means...even so called visions would require some tangible actual photons in place to be visible to the human eye...how can something interact with the world which is not from the world ?
What fracked up notion of sets and sub sets is going on there ?