God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

the magician analogy may be flawed, but so are any analogies that con presents. something from nothing, uncaused caused, possible infinite regressions.... these are not things we see every day. this is all stuff that is unique unto itself. this means unexpected or alteranative etc explanations are to be expected. "To demonstrate the absurdity of PRO"s position, I claim that the universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn. According to PRO"s reasoning, she must accept this proposition unless she can prove it false" the problem is that all i am claiming to establish is the supernatural. and perhaps various definitions of God, probaably something Deistic as a baseline. a unicorn is specific and we have no specific reason to believe antything about unicorns. we have have reason to think something about the supernatural. i dont know why con seems to be acknolwedkng that the link i provided is an adequate reference to thermodynaics, when he had in the last post said it wasn't possible for me to be arguing about thermodynaimcs. anyways, just a minor quibble. "No, we do not have an observation that "the universe apparently came from nothing." What we have is an area in which we are ignorant. If PRO is claiming that the universe came from nothing I would be willing to look at her evidence." im not claiming it came from nothing. im claiming that's what it looks like. this is common lay man knowledge. there was nothing, then there was the big bang. there might be alternative explanations, but this is the common knowledge 'what it looks like' 'what it is said to be' understanding. i do acknowledge that with occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is that we came from nothing. if we want it to make more sense, though, basedo n the observation taht things have always been known to come from other things, we have no choice but to add a layer on to explain it. you could add a theoretical model like multiverses etc, but they are themeselves added layers. and, the supernaturla hypothesis is a layer that could be said to be more simpler, cause it just ends with "it's a mystery". the other theories have many more questions than answers etc. it should be noted too, that those theories are just that, theories. they are not based on empirical evidence. emirical evidence alone, it looks like we came from nothing. and we know that that isn't something we should be working with. why go with supernatural instead of alterantive theories? because that's what it looks like. con is putting too much emphasis on the point of God. i mostly included it as the arguments i'm using are a common theme is the God's existence debate. we could easily have the supernatural or not deabte without reference to God specifically. i wouldn't necesaarily even go so far as con's definition of God, you could easily and argue more probably that my argument is more from a deistic standpoint, that there is 'something' like a higher power going on. but again, is all pretty much beside the point of the supernatural argument. i will take his points about God being used to explain the unknown, as 'supernatural' is being used to explain the unknown. he has a point, it has often been the catch all for thigns we can't explain. but existance as we know it, and how that happened, no one can deny is unique unto itself/. it's not everyday we something that looks like it fcame from nothing, or that we see 'uncaused causes' or 'infinite regresssion'. you can argue that my magician point is just an analogy, but your analogy here is also just an analogy. again, we are dealing with a situation that is unique unto itself. ' Please demonstrate how any being exists outside of space and time.' it is of course obvious that if something is supernatural. it doesn't have to and in fact wouldnt alwayts accord with laws as we know them. we have evidence of the supernatural, which just means we have evidence for something acting outside of laws as we know them. it's not definitive evidence, but it's sufficient ot say it's a proof, and it is indisputably somehting that could be called 'evidence'. multiverse. yes ive admitted already taht there are other possible explanations. that doesn't mean we don't ahve sufficient evifence to state a theory or even a proof for something supernatural. and, those alternative explanations are just theories. they are not based on empirical evidence. the empirical evidence we do have i am arguing indicates the supernatural. "Did the laws of physics exist before the universe. Well the laws of physics describe the universe, so if there's no universe how can there be laws of physics? They would be reduced to the laws of nothing?" im not following what con is tryin to say here. it seems like if anything he is supporting the supernatural explanation. we can't describe something from nothing with phyhsics, and phsyics doesn't makes sense 'before' the universe'. so we go to the supernatural explanation. "The Quantum Eternity Theorem states: under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future." i'm sure there are theories that say that. the standard model says that our iuniverse is breaking down from higher energy to lower energy and will go out with a whimper, as they say. we are fading to black. "When you apply quantum physics to gravity, the whole universe can come from nothing." you didn't really address my quantum points. we see something from nothing only at the quantum level. that means at the level where matter already exists to begin with. we also don't see quantum happenings causing matter to form. these are both huge obsticals in trying to put this in the same league with matter and the universe coming from nothing. "If we don"t know something, the correct answer is "I don"t know."" sure, of course. but if we are going to argue about possibilities, i'm just arguing what i see as the best one. bottomline: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.