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

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. bottomline: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.