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

You use the magician/dog analogy as if it's equivalent to the 'first cause' of the universe. The differences are: -We observed the magician turning cats into dogs, we did not observe the first cause. -We can see the magician. We couldn't see the first cause even if we were there because it's, "supernatural." -Cats turning into dogs would be a direct apparent violation of nature as we know it today; we do not know the circumstances of the universe, of nature or of the "metaphysical." We don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. If hypothetically we did witness a magician turn cats into dogs, both of us, so we knew it wasn't a hallucination, the supernatural wouldn't be the only explanation. He could be a highly advanced extra-terrestrial or time traveler with extremely advanced technology, or has just discovered some sort of force in nature no one has today. All of these are just as whimsical and out-there, if not more, than saying it was the supernatural, and I'm not about to believe any of it. You're saying that since we don't YET have a natural explanation, it is perfectly logical for us to just assume the supernatural did it: God did it, ID did it. I'm saying that's absurd. It's not like the magician analogy because we could simply ask him how he did it, and I suppose he'd say, "Magic!" Would you be inclined to believe that? No. I don't think so. We do not have hardly any of the puzzle. Once we start to learn more and more about our universe, the less need there is to resort to the supernatural because it was just a made up concept all along to explain things when there was no other way to explain them. If a law of nature is violated, which you've only provided a hypothetical example with the cat/dog analogy, and using the second law of thermodynamics which I demonstrated was not violated in my previous argument, and by saying the first cause violates nature, somehow. We have all this reason to believe that everything after the first cause is natural, then you want to look at this one thing and say, "It MUST be supernatural, because it just has to be! We have no other explanation!" You can assert all you want, and you can assume that a supernatural was at work for lack of anything else, but you need evidence. If a shopping cart rolled down a hill, you can say, "Someone MUST have bumped it!" That COULD be, OR, it's just as likely that it rolled down because of its kinetic energy, through natural causes. Until you can show that some intelligence did actually bump the cart, which you can't, it's perfectly logical to just assume it happened naturally. I say you can't because the supernatural is not demonstrable. It's an impossible case, you cannot prove nor disprove it. It's distant, it's invisible, intangible, it's by definition beyond our comprehension. The laws of the universe were not mathematically written before humanity. Humans observed the universe and created formulas for these laws that they created to make sense of it. It's possible that some could be wrong. There could be a slight error in them, and amendments can be made to these laws with newer discoveries if need be; that's how science works. The first time a child sees a magic trick, they're in awe. They don't understand, and they may actually be convinced there's such a thing as magic, why? Because of their little knowledge of the world. When a person learns who to exercise skepticism, and assume the natural before the supernatural, that's when they mature. You wouldn't have to assume something came from nothing, not at all! We don't know what nothing is, whether or not there was nothing or if it even exists! We can't really consider the supernatural because there's just no way of knowing, but it's more likely that it doesn't exist and there is a natural explanation out there yet to be discovered. It may not be in the next decade or even the next century, but that doesn't make it any more feasible to assume the unknowable and the non-observable. The supernatural was once the answer to everything. Now, it answers nothing.