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

After my claim that telling cosmologists that there's a supernatural explanation for "violations" of nature, or, as I call them, mysteries, is like a lesser informed patient telling a doctor that a medical mystery would be better solved by supernatural medicine... Pro responds "medical sitautions are somewhat different because we always have observed natural excplanations. it would be expected there would be a medical cure." Quantum physical/cosmological situations are not different, because, like medical situations, we always have observed natural explanations. Not only would it be expected that our cosmological/physics mysteries would be solved by a natural explanation, but the "violations" posited by Pro have currently been explained with natural explanations of quantum mechanics. See my round 1 arguments. Quantum mechanics is super counter-intuitive, but the "violations" posited by Pro are founded principles of quantum mechanics, a natural explanation. It is a fact that subatomic particles both exist and don't exist seemingly at the same time in an unstable state of quantum nothingness from which positive and negative energy come. This basically violates everything we know about physical existence, and it's still all perfectly legal under the natural laws of quantum mechanics. https://books.google.com... Although, I recommend going to the YouTube video I posted in round 1 from Lawrence Krauss; it is way more concise and easier to understand. Pro also responded to my claim that Pro is committing an argument from ignorance fallacy (god of the gaps) when Pro appeals to our ignorance of an explanation for phenomena, that seem to violate laws, in order to infer that god/supernature is the explanation. Pro says "it's not really an argument from ignorance. what we observe are violations of nature, apparently. that's not based on ignorance but observation." Pro may have a misunderstanding about the argument from ignorance/god of the gaps fallacy. So first here's a link: https://www.google.com... Furthermore, I never claimed that our observations of "violations" of nature were based on ignorance. I claimed that our lack of knowledge about unexplained phenomena (ignorance) is being used as a proof, by Pro, to infer the supernatural. This is fallacious. Pro has misunderstood what the argument from ignorance is. These fancy names for fallacies are simply just ways to say, you're not really proving your claim, you are instead trying to appeal to something that doesn't prove your claim, like our lack of an explanation for something. So I'll use Pro's argument in different fallacious forms: -appeal to popularity- Supernature should be inferred, because so many people believe it to be so. -appeal to antiquity- Supernature should be inferred, because it has been posited since the time of early humans. -appeal to authority- Supernature should be inferred, because god told us that supernature exists. -appeal to ignorance-Supernature should be inferred, because we are ignorant of an explanation of something. The 4th appeal is the general fallacy that Pro relies on. More specifically, it's called the god of the gaps fallacy. But appeals make for lousy arguments, because demonstrating that supernature is a reasonable inference does not require: -many people to believe it to be reasonable (popularity) -many years since this idea was posited to be reasonable (antiquity) -an irrelevant position of authority to confirm its reasonableness (authority) -a lack of a current explanation in science to be reasonable (ignorance) When you have the burden of proof, as Pro does, it helps to think of your position as a salesman trying to sell a product that no one has been convinced that you have yet. How would a salesman show a product? Excuse the tautology, but he just needs to show it. Proving your claim true, since you can't necessarily physically show it, requires you to just show your proof...logically. When someone who is proving something instead points out our ignorance in science, the approval of their idea from many people, the longevity of their idea, or confirmation of their idea from an irrelevant authority, the salesman has failed to show their product logically. So, until Pro meets his burden of proof and logically explains the mechanism behind supernature/god's solutions to our mysteries, it remains unreasonable to infer the supernatural. Pro also said "it's hard to understand con's points about thermodynamics...con points ive never heard applied to thermodynamics before" Ok, well I pride myself on being able to explain things clearly as I am a teacher, so I will give it another try. The total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity. This is called the zero-energy universe http://www.astrosociety.org... So, accepting the big bang, we start from a universe the size of a subatomic particle, that popped into existence in quantum nothingness. At this point the total energy of matter + gravity = 0. I like to represent matter and gravity as a set: [+ matter, - gravity] Since matter is positive energy, we'll represent it with (+) Since gravity is negative energy, we'll represent it with (-) At the big bang, before expansion, matter and gravity could be represented as [+0, -0] which of course equals 0 total energy. But after the big bang, matter and energy were expressed, and so was gravity. So in the very beginning the total energy set of matter and gravity would look like: [+1, -1] and then [+2, -2] and then [+3, -3] and so on as the universe expands. Still 0 total energy, but we have matter. We know that currently the universe is still expanding as we have observed galaxies moving away from each other, so the set probably currently looks like: [+1000000000000, - 1000000000000] Either way, the total amount of energy never changes, and thus is neither created nor destroyed. This negates the big bang's violation of thermodynamics claimed by Pro. Pro continues "con ignored my response to quantum random things come into existence" I provided both a YouTube video and a publication explaining how the unstable state of nothingness, subatomic particles popping in/out of existence from nothing, inevitably leads to something...energy which is matter. So, the violations pointed out by Pro are not violations, rather are phenomena well with in the laws of quantum mechanics. Even if they weren't, not having an explanation for phenomena doesn't mean that any substitute explanation with no mechanistic explanation can be put in our lack of an explanation's place. This is the argument from ignorance (god of the gaps), and makes inferring a supernatural cause unreasonable.