Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

You said: Well I'm not ridiculing your vocabulary, I'm trying to help you speak coherently. Whether you realize it or not, Your question implies a prescriptive law. When you say "implemented" that necessarily implies that the law is prescriptive. You might be doing this by accident, Because apologists do this a lot and you might be getting your arguments from them. But it's wrong regardless of how you try to spin it. A law is not an edict. It's a description of something we see. The law of gravity is true even if there is no gravity happening. All the law says is that when gravity does happen, This is what it will look like. I will never accept your characterization of laws because it's simply a word trick. Ad hoc or post hoc means that you have something you want to prove, Like the existence of god, And instead of studying from the bottom up, You add all of the evidence into what you want to prove instead of letting the evidence just prove it for you. My response: But as I keep saying the (context) of the argument we were talking about the natural law its just a ploy you're using to avoid the question and I doubt you will answer it which is Q. "How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state. " The word universe is in the question. By the way I'm not an apologist. What evidence? You said: You're still mixing up the words explain and account for. First of all. The bible is not evidence. Second. The god of the bible is the hardest god to argue for, So that just makes thing worse for you. Third. When I say explanatory power, I mean god's ability to explain things in the universe. Fourth. When I say explain. I don't mean it simply accounts for it, I mean that it can describe the method by which god creates the universe and can make predictions. Fifth. I'm not talking about narratives. I'm talking about explanatory power. Sixth. Yes we can formally explain light and that's why science excepts light and not god. Here I'll show you. Light consists of photons and is the fastest moving thing in the universe. I just gave facts about light that explain things about it and make predictions. I can use the statement about it being the fastest moving thing to compare other things two it and I can make the correct prediction that nothing will move faster than it. God has none of these explanatory properties. My response: I mean we can see light but also light doesn't only consist of just photons it consists of many more things and doesn't fully describe it eg our body is 70% water that doesn't mean we're just water, I'm saying God explains the existence of the universe if you see a house you would think a group of people helped build that so why would you think differently about the universe? You said Yes I did My response no you didn't Never said it was just put it out there in case you wanted to quote scripture as incorrect Knowing this first, That there shall come in the last days scoffers, Walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they WILLING ARE IGNORANT