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

I will do my best to address all of the points which are relevant to the debate. Invisible Pink UnicornsMy point about the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not to provide a counter analogy, but rather, to point out the flaw in PRO’s reasoning. She is claiming that a thing should be believed until it can be disproved. As I have pointed out before, this is fallacious reasoning. The time to believe a thing is when positive evidence for it can be provided; this goes for gods, unicorns, and the supernatural in general. Thermodynamics In round 1 I challenged PRO to elaborate further on her points regarding thermodynamics. In the second round I accepted her points for the sake of the argument, because I chose to argue a different way. I know PRO noted that this is “just a minor quibble;” I just want to make it clear that the points PRO made about thermodynamics are irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned previously, which I will recap at the end of this round. A Universe From Nothing PRO makes the odd point that the universe “appears” to have come from nothing. When pressed, she noted that this is a lay observation. This is irrelevant. I don’t care about lay observations when we have access to expert analysis. My point about the beginning of the universe being a mystery stands; PRO has not provided evidence that the universe came from nothing. Occam’s Razor and Adding Layers PRO claims that we “have no choice but to add a layer” to explain the unknown. This is just incorrect. We can simply say, “I don’t know,” and continue looking. As is noted by Occam’s Razor, adding additional layers simply complicates things unnecessarily. Breaking the Physical Laws PRO has noted that it seems like physical laws break down as our knowledge approaches the Big Bang. She then takes the fallacious leap suggesting that this might be supernatural. No, this is an unknown phenomenon. Once again, the fact that we don’t know a thing, does not mean it was done by magical space pixies, or anything supernatural. Phantom Quotes Toward the end of this round, PRO provided several quotes which are of dubious origin, seemingly crediting them to me. One of them is similar in content to what I wrote, but since she is actually presenting them in quotes, I am confused. They are: ' Please demonstrate how any being exists outside of space and time. ' "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? " "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. " and "When you apply quantum physics to gravity, the whole universe can come from nothing. " Perhaps PRO accidentally copy/pasted from another debate. I really don’t know, and am not going to address these points. Arguments from Ignorance PRO’s points throughout this debate have boiled down to Arguments from Ignorance. That is, she is claiming that something should be believed because it cannot, or has not, been disproved. As I have pointed out, this is fallacious, and these arguments can be dismissed. I do want to point out that PRO has changed her language in this last round. The initial proposition is that supernatural explanations ARE superior, but in her closing comments, she pointed out that SHE SEES them as superior. How PRO sees it is irrelevant. What is relevant is what actually is, and what evidence we can find the help us best understand that reality. Final Thoughts PRO claimed that supernatural explanations are superior to natural explanations. She has not sufficiently supported that proposition. In contrast, I have shown how supernatural explanations are necessarily inferior to naturalistic ones.