God does not arbitrarily manipulate the laws of physics and perform miracles.

I object to your definition that God "arbitrarily" "interferes" with the universe. If you or I can have reasons for our decisions it is hardly fair to claim that the Creator of the Universe does miracles "arbitrarily." Miracles may seem arbitrary to you or me, but that is no basis from which to state that God has no reason for what He does. Pro's argument seems to be this: we explain the universe based on discovered laws of physics. We depend upon the laws of physics remaining constant in making predictions. If the laws of physics weren't constant, then we wouldn't be able to predict or understand the universe. Science has established that God does not interfere with the laws of physics in that the scientific method has established the existence of scientific laws that have no exceptions. The problem with this argument is that natural laws are descriptions of what happens, not prescriptions of what must happen. Natural laws don't cause anything, they only describe what regularly happens in nature. The four known natural forces can be---and are--overcome every day by intelligent beings. For example, when I throw a ball I am overcoming the force of gravity with the propelling force of my right arm. Now, many miracles can be understood in that sense. For example, the impossible removal of a massive stone too heavy to lift is not impossible if a Being stronger and more intelligent than us exists. But more to the point, natural forces could certainly be overcome (and the "laws of physics" overruled, so to speak) by the Creator of those natural forces. As a result, one must understand that supernatural intervention does not denote a suspension of the laws of physics but instead indicates the victory of God's infinite force over the created forces. Referencing dimensions may be helpful. From a two-dimensional perspective, three-dimensional creatures would be able to do what would appear frankly supernatural, appearing, disappearing, changing shape, but actually no "laws" would be violated. The Flatlanders' understanding of physics is restricted to one plane and as a result is not sufficient to account for the workings of three-dimensional beings. Now, I will not state that God is a creature of a particular dimension(s), but certainly angels may be regarded as creatures of higher dimensions than ours, being also created beings. It is not unreasonable to postulate that such higher-dimensional beings would be able to appear and disappear at will and do other "supernatural" (to us) things as from their dimensional vantage point they would be able to utilize "natural," or "supernatural" if you prefer, laws that would enable them to do what would appear to be impossible to us. To quote, God does "manipulate the laws of physics." He uses them for His own purposes, and He achieves his purposes through forces impossible from our dimensional perspective and/or His own infinite force. To summarize: Pro says that miracles cannot exist because the Scientific Method supports the Laws of Science. In other words, evidence supports the continuity of the immutability of forces. However, this does not preclude the existence of miracles. If evidence were to be found for the existence of miracles, then from the perspective of the Scientific Method one would be forced to believe in them and the existence of supernatural forces. If Pro claims that there is no evidence for miracles, that is a different matter, but his claim that miracles are impossible is unfounded. If God exists (view 1, minus "arbitrary") then miracles are possible. If miracles exist, then God must exist. I would claim that there is evidence for miracles, such as the miracles worked by Jesus and primarily his resurrection from the dead. By the way, Pro says "As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the moment of the big bang." I disagree. "Events before the big bang can have no consequence"? How about the big bang? I would argue that the Big Bang (and the existence of the entire universe) would qualify as a reasonable consequence.