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

Thanks for the great round PRO! Okay. This is my round to defend my points.PRO: "...empirical evidence alone suggests that that's the case..."One Question: What empirical evidence? There has been none presented here to give justification for this assertion. Even if we leave the theories aside, and simply go from empirical evidence, we would be left with a Big Bang Singularity, which has been said to be densely packed energy. To go off of what we can empirically test, all of the energy that currently exists has always existed. There has not been an increase, nor has there been an increase. I would wager that to pack all of the energy in the universe into a small point constitutes a state of high energy. For example, a sniper rifile is an extremely powerful long-range weapon. A shotgun is an extremely powerful short-range weapon. If we assume equal power, as unrealistic as it is, a shotgun will be weaker as distance increases. Shotgun shells, at least the regular kind, disperse upon fire. The force is dispersed to create spread, this leads to decreased force. However, sniper rifiles have no bullet spread. They fire one bullet to one specific point, resulting in all the force being concentrated. So, energy has not, in fact, come from somewhere other than a high energy state, at least not in a thermodynamic sense, and this is what PRO's arguments are based on."by definition a supernatural act is a violation of natural laws."Gravity, when applied to us here on earth, would suggest that we move closer to the center of Earth's gravitational pull. That is to say that we should always be pulled down to Earth's surface, as the earth is a much larger gravititational body than we are, and larger bodies exert a greater pull. However, I am capable of jumping and violating that natural law. Therefore, I possess supernatural powers. "Gravity", however, is any easily violatable law. We are violating the laws of gravity all the time, as we exert the same amount of force against gravity as gravity exerts upon us. What we see here is that we must take all available information into account before we say a law has been violated, and even more so when we say such a thing is supernatural. PRO's definition is so broad that there are several acts that are supernatural. The fact that energy expanded exponentially during the first micro-moments of the Big Bang is supernatural, but when we understand "supernatural" as "beyond natural" or "beyond scientific understanding", we see that this definition fails. "...it looks like something from nothing..."This table did not exist a moment ago.It exists now.This looks like something from nothing.This is a supernatural occurence.Looks can be very much decieving. This is why we have empirical evidence. Even if we deny the possibility of Oscillating Models and Multiverse Models, the original explanation of the Big Bang was that there was a pre-existing Singularity that erupted. This is not something from nothing. We have, as of yet, not found an efficient cause, but this is what the models are trying to do. The God Model requires creation from nothing, which is still something from nothing. I cannot create a table from no materials. It simply doesn't work. Perhaps PRO could have gave a few clarifications to this point, as creatio ex nihilo is the stock God Model.PRO then goes on to say " but at the beginning of our universe, which is all we have to work with, there appears to be something from nothing. something from soemthing else makes more sense ". This is a key point. If something must come from something else, where does God come from? I was willing to allow PRO to posit God as beginningless and timeless, as William Lane Craig does, but this statement effectively negates that. It rejects the "begins to exist" clause, and simply says "all things which in fact exist must come from something". This means that we are, as of yet, not at the point where we can say the God model is superior to natural models. PRO concludes by saying "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck."It seems to me that rather than looking at an actual duck, we are looking at someone dressed as a duck, and calling her a duck.Suffice to say, PRO's arguments present several flaws, which I have done my best to point out.A supernatural model, in order to be superior, would have to answer the same questions as effectively as other models, and not raise any of it's own. That is the hallmark of an effective model. Parsimony dictates that we search for the simplest explanation. If the explanation requires an explanation in order to work, we can not rightly use it, and it is inherently inferior. PRO's two main points are that there must exist an uncaused cause, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been violatated. I have done what I can to poke holes in these points, and erect my own.My points center around the abject failues of the God Model to produce the same answers as other models, while not raising any of it's own. I have asked a few such questions, and PRO has merely brushed them aside. If we must make an inference to the best explanation of available evidence, the model that we select must make the most of what's available. PRO's God Model attempts to insert evidence where there is none. Namely where her two points are concerned.Thanks for the debate, dailygirl! It's been fun.