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

Thank you, dailygirl, for providing your rebuttals.I shall save my counter-rebuttals and defense for R3. So, PRO's main points are based on (1) Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and (2) Assumptions of the Uncaused Cause.Rebuttal - Point One "...the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it- a high energy level came from something other than a higher energy level."PRO gives no justification for this statement, though it would seem that the entirety of this point rests upon it. How do we know that energy came from something other than a higher energy state? There are several possible explanations for how this might happen, and PRO does not address these. Not to mention, PRO utilizes the Second Law of Thermodynamics incorrectly. The Second Law makes no claims about how long something can exist, but rather discusses the process of increasing Entropy that all things must undergo. Again, there might be possible explanations for the high energy state of our universe. What justification is given for calling this unknown "God"? Again this is simply an Argument from Ignorance, and a prime example of the "God of the Gaps" form of this fallacy. I do not know how this happened.No natural cause can explain why this has happenedTherefore, God exists.This does not give any justification for the truth of the statement "God exists". If indeed we are using violations of the laws of nature to determine if God exists, should we not first verify that laws are, in fact, being violated? Even if laws have indeed been violated, why must the unknown be supernatural? Are all unknown things "supernatural"? That is to see, is what we currently do not know. If I write the equation "2x - 13 = 19", there is someting which I do not know, which I can then find by testing possible solutions. There is only one possible answer that would make this equation true. We do not know what exactly these variables refer to, but we cannot say "I don't know, therefore God!"., especially if we wish to justify our beliefs on the basis of reason. The statement that "we could call that unknown, God. a reason why we might call it that, is because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it" fails to support PRO's argument. There is also a phenomenon, known as the Quantum Vacuum, that displays similar characteristics, where particles seem to pop into and out of existence. The Quantum Vacuum is observable by science, thus does not fall into the realm of "supernatural", but exhibits the exact same qualities that PRO seems to attribute to supernatural things.Rebuttal - Point 2 Since we are only talking about "God" in the creator sense (to my knowledge), it has to be determined if something can come from nothing. God is not nothing, this is true, but all available inductive data (which is key to PRO's points) leads us to believe that Creatio ex materia (creation from materials) is only way for things to "come into being". For example, I can't make a table by simply wishing one up, I must use certain materials, wood, nails, lacquer, etc. If God is somehow exempt from this and acts upon nothing to create something, this is equivalent to saying "God did not act on anything to create something", but then how can we use examples of "Intelligent designers" to justify God's existence when all known "designs" require materials? It does not logically follow.All things which begin to exist have a physical cause of their existence.The universe began to exist.Therefore, the universe has a physical cause of it's existence. This is essentially the "Uncaused Cause" argument. That there must exist some cause to begin all other causes, a cause which is itself uncaused. Well, if all known causes act upon physical substances, doesn't that require that something existence either before or with "God"? That is to say, some grouping of materials existing at the same time, and for the same amount of time as God? Otherwise, we are left with creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing, and inductive arguments fail to work. PRO's "Uncaused Cause" argument is based on inductive reasoning, thus either (A) PRO concedes this point or (B) PRO must construct a new argument. If PRO concedes the point that creation from materials is the only available inductive data, then that means that PRO must justify preference of the God Model over the available models. If we must have "empirical evidence" to determine which model is correct, should we not require the same of God? If not, we are using Special Pleading, and thus are not reasoning soundly. "For all cosmological models, empirical evidence must be presented. Except for in the Case of God", this is highly irrational, in the sense that we apply a universal rule, then negate it for one particular thing (God) to simply argue that "Well, no other models have evidence, therefore God!" without utilizing any form of process of elimination or providing justification for our assertion that the God model is true. All of these is disregarding the fact that PRO uses faulty reasoning to arrive at the conclusion of an Uncaused Cause." we see a finite beginning with thermodynamics, and the big bang. there then apparently exists an uncaused cause. "Let's make this a syllogism, and try to plug in hidden premises.1. If something has a finite beginning, then it has a cause2. The Big Bang indicates a finite beginning of our universe (from empirical evidence not made available by PRO). *C1 From 2, therefore our universe has a finite beginning. C2 From 1 and C1, therefore our universe has a cause. So, our universe has a cause. How do we shift from "cause" to uncaused cause? It is just as likely that the cause was caused, or was a physically uncaused cause. For example, how do we know that quantum fluctuations did not lead to the increase of energy for the Big Bang? Again, PRO does not provide any reason to believe the cause is supernatural. The Multiverse Models assume the same thing the God Model does: there is some uncaused variable. So, the "Uncaused Cause" argument does not affirm the resolution.What are we left with?There are several holes in PRO's arguments that prevent the affirmation of the resolution. Perhaps upon PRO's defense, we can see if this holes are filled in. I look forward to PRO's counter rebuttals, and the opportunity to defend my points next round.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;**My links above do not seem to be working. However, the wiki links do. I am not using much of the information within this webpage, beyond a simple understanding of what the Quantum Vacuum seems to indicate.