God's existence - it is reasonable to infer a supernatural cause of existence

Thanks for the debate Pro, I love the topic.Pro has set up a giant argument from ignorance that if we can't explain something then by default it must be supernatural/god.It is unreasonable to infer a supernatural cause of existence simply because we can't explain something about the universe. Pro's position is an argument from ignorance, because rather than providing proof for the existence of the supernatural to be reasonable to infer, Pro appeals to our not knowing something (ignorance), and fills in these gaps in our knowledge with god/supernature.Pro says "something must have caused the highest energy level of the big bang. we could call that unknown, God....because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it"Here's my analogy for why the argument from ignorance is a fallacy that damages Pro's position:Imagine that you're a doctor and you have been studying different types of cancers for years. You, with the help of modern medicine, understand medical principles that explain how cancers form and metastasize, how medicines and therapies are used to treat tumors, and how people can avoid certain carcinogens to more likely avoid cancer. This is well understood science of modern medicine, and there are very few gaps in our knowledge of it. But, there are ways that secondary tumors lay dormant, undetectable, immeasurable for ten years until they are reactivated by some signal that has not been explained, and seems to violate the very principles of modern medicine. http://www.scientificamerican.com...To save you from reading an entire article, it says that "it is difficult to get a picture of the early stages of growth of metastases: they are too small to show up in imaging scans...something keeps them from proliferating, and then something activates these cells...what those signals are is unknown." No modern medicine principles can currently explain such a phenomenon.Now imagine one of your patients, who has a rather limited knowledge of modern medicine, decides to tell you that he's figured out that since we can't explain these certain signals, and these signals seem to violate our current understanding of the reality of medicine, that the explanation for these signals must be outside of our medical scope and transcendent to a new type of medicine...after all it seems to violate the principles of modern medicine.Your patient continues to tell you to forget your years of studying, identifying and applying non transcendent explanations for everything in modern medicine, because your patient claims that this particular unknown explanation for a violation of modern medicine's current model infers transcendent supernatural medicine of which god is the cause.Without your patient ever mechanistically explaining how god's supernatural medicine solves the mystery, do you think your patient has a reasonable inference?orIs it more likely true that the solution to the mystery, as in all ex-mysteries of modern medicine, is a modern medicine-based explanation and thus more reasonable to infer?Pro is much like the patient in the analogy. The only difference is instead of challenging modern medicine by inferring supernatural medicine/god would solve an unknown, Pro is challenging modern cosmology and quantum mechanics by inferring supernatural cosmology/god or supernatural quantum mechanics/god would solve an unknown.Giving no mechanistic explanation for how supernature/god would fill these currently unexplained gaps in our knowledge, Pro merely asserts that supernature/god is the explanation. Pro's reason? Our ignorance of an explanation. Pro is committing what some people call "the god of the gaps argument"; it's under the argument from ignorance umbrella, and it's a fallacy. Anywhere there is a gap, you put a god...god of the gaps.Therefore it is not reasonable to infer a supernatural cause of existence based on a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance. Not knowing something (ignorance) does not mean that supernature/god fills these gaps in our knowledge.I will not dodge the attacks on science...check the avatar...I will respond.So just demonstrating that there are unknowns, doesn't mean you can insert or retrofit whatever you wish in the unknown's place...but Pro could have picked any number of unknowns in quantum physics, and instead chose concepts that are very well understood. Pro has many misunderstandings about "quantum nothingness", modern cosmology, and the application of thermodynamic laws.1. Pro says something from nothing is a violation of laws as we know them.2. Pro claims that the 1st law of thermodynamics is violated at the big bang.Misunderstanding 1Pro has a conflation of the laws of physics and the laws of quantum mechanics which are both natural laws. Yes, many subatomic particles violate laws of Newtonian physics, which is why there is another field of study for them called quantum mechanics. Literally, subatomic particles pop into existence from nothing and pop out of existence all of the time...it looks supernatural, and it sounds supernatural...but it's just well founded quantum mechanics.This fluctuation of subatomic particles is natural, has been demonstrated, and is called quantum nothingness, because there is no matter/energy, no radiation, no full particles, no atoms--basically nothing...but there is this constant fluctuation, and it is a state of nothingness. This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain this way for long, such that with the many subatomic particles popping in and out of existence all of the time, energy is inevitable. Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if subatomic particles are appearing from nothing, that energy and therefore matter can come from this unstable quantum nothingness. Misunderstanding 2The 1st law of thermodynamics says that the total energy of a system is constant. Well, the total energy of a subatomic particle is 0, and when energy is finally expressed from quantum nothingness, the amount of negative (-) gravitational energy exactly cancels out the positive (+) matter and energy equaling 0.So with positive energy and negative energy existing together, 0 can be represented as a set of (+) matter/energy and (-) gravity energy.0 = [+1, -1] and 0 = [+2, -2] and 0 = [+3, -3] etc...as the universe expands, the (+) energy increases directly with the (-) energy... 0 = [+1000, -1000] such that the energy constant never changes and is always 0, but we can observe positive energy--planets, stars, and us--because the negative gravity energy has been canceling it out since the big bang.So even though these concepts that Pro claims are unexplained are actually explained, even if they weren't, we logically cannot say "if the explanation is not science, it's supernature" This is called a false dichotomy because Pro is neglecting the other possible options besides just science and supernature...subnature, infranature, the explanation is unknown between true and false, and the explanation is unknowable.I argue that the Greater White-fronted Goose both looks and quacks like a duck, yet is not a duck. Furthermore, other similar looking waterfowl quack.http://www.soundsnap.com...Go to the 7th sound wave down called flock of geese flying...The Greater White-fronted Goose Pro claims, "bottom line: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." ...or a white-fronted goose.I am using this as an analogy to highlight Pro's use of false dilemma (false dichotomy) with the claim "it's either science or it's supernature."https://en.wikipedia.org...Pro claims it's either a duck that looks and quacks like a duck, or it's not a duck. This is a false dilemma, becausePro has accidentally omitted additional options for things that look like ducks and quack like ducks but aren't ducks, like a white-fronted goose.