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

Alright, dailygirl, let's get it on! Best of luck to you, and may this be an interesting and engaging debate.Before I begin, I think some clarification is in order. The resolution contains a premise and a conclusion. We can reword it as such "Supernatural explanations for the origins of our universe are superior to natural explanations of the origins of our universe", with the secondary clause "Due to violations of nature" removed from it. Why? Well, that would be to assume that it has been established that laws of nature have indeed been violated. However, I think this is what you intend to prove, dailygirl. So let's leave the resolution as "Supernatural explanations of the origins of our universe are superior to natural explanations of our universe". I hope that's okay.So, moving forward. With that clarified, Burden of Proof rests squarly on your shoulders. You must prove that supernatural models are superior (in explanatory power) to natural models for the origins of our universe. I need only rebut dailygirl's points or at least make them less plausible. If I can do this, then I have upheld my burden. If I cannot, it means that dailygirl has upheld her Burden of Proof.So, with that in mind, let's examine the possible explanations available for our universe. There are:Multiverse Models [3] These models are predicated on the assumption that we are one of many, many universes. Not possible universes but actual universes. Meaning that these universes may (or may not) interact with one another. These interactions range from birthing new universes to causing Big Bangs. Why is this important? Well, these are naturalistic accounts for the origins of our universe which need no outside creator to explain them. The energy did have to come from somewhere, however, we cannot conclude that the energy came from God, and any such assertions must be heavily scrutinized, as these tend to fall into Argument from Ignorance, particularly the God of the Gaps, whereby we do not know how to explain something so it must be God. This is different from the "First Cause" argument, as the First Cause can indeed by anything. It could be the First Universe. It could be the First Fluctuation. Oscilatting Models [4]These models are predicated on the assumption that our universe can (or has) existed multiple times. That is to say that there are, could be, and likely have been multiple Big Bangs, which move toward a Big Crush to return to a siltate of Singularity. If our universe is not expanding on average, it could indeed be infinite into the past. This is known as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. Oscillating Models are not subject to it. Now, why are these two possibilities important? It leaves us with three possibilities. Cosmologists tend to support Multiverse Model, though. So, we have at least two possible ways to explain the origins of our universe, possibly three. How do we determine which is superior? None of these seem any more, or less, probable or plausible at face value. However, one thing to note is that God, as he is interpreted by most deists, theists, pantheists, and panentheists, exists (or at leasted existed) outside of our universe as immaterial. Each of these positions gives different characteristics to God, some religions even choose to anthropomorphize God into a being, or beings, with human characteristics. However, if God is indeed immaterial, we run into an explanatory problem:How does non-energy act on energy? (The God Model)The Mass-Energy Equivalence tells us that mass is an extension of energy, in other words, that mass is a measurement of the energy within an object [6]. If E stands for energy, m stands for mass, with c standing for speed of light, we can arrive at the conclusion that E=m by replacing c with 1 (the process is odd even to me, but is explained here) [1]. So even if God did exist, the use of God to explain the origins of our universe creates more problems than it solves. How does non-matter and non-energy interact with matter and energy? For that matter, how does something come from nothing? If X is neither matter nor energy, then X is, for all intents and purposes, nothing. I might be presuming too much, however, it would seem to me that there are certain characteristics that would be necessary for a being outside of our world, which is indeed what "supernatural" seems to imply. Necessarily, If the supernatural is beyond scientific understanding [5], and that which is scientifically understandable is that which is in our universe, the supernatural must exist beyond that. William Lane Criag, a defender and prime proponent of the Kalam Cosmological argument, argues that God must necessarily be immaterial, beginless, changeless, and timeless, for, in order that God may create the world, God must thus transcend it. In so transcending the world, God earns such qualities. However, "immaterial" necessarily entails non-energy. For example, within nuclear processes, the expenditure of energy can be such that we can measure a decrease in mass. However, for a much more intuitive example, let's view exercise. When we exercise, we expend a certain amount of energy. This expenditure can then be observed as a loss of weight (wieght being mass times gravity, thus a measure of mass). There is a lot of technical jargon that goes into this, however, the key takeawy from this should be understood. What does this mean?If we are looking for the "superior" model, we should be looking for the model which answers the most questions. The God Model actually asks it's own questions, or rather, presents more questions. The model which is "superior" is that which is better, in terms of explanatory power. I decided to keep the number of models low, to save character space, and to allow for more direct rebuttals. It seems unfair to suggest multiple models and demand a rebuttal of each. It is much simpler to provide a comparison of the available models.I look forward to your rebuttals, dailygirl. Thank you again for instigating this debate.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...;[2] http://www.allaboutscience.org...;[3] http://discovermagazine.com...;[4] http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...;[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...**I am aware that this is a wikipedia article. I wanted to keep the article simple and concise, with as little technical jargon as possible. This was the most easily accessible, in terms of reader availability and prerequisite knowledge. If you (audience members) wish to deduct points, I understand. I just wanted to explain my rational.