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

When someone has a different view on a topic then me It doesn't really matter to me, what does matter to me is how they gained that point of view. This is why I like how you are arguing your side, you're using reason and basic logic which is why under a certain environment I would be inclined to agree with your position. The problem is that environment would require me to have no prior knowledge of history. If I looked at the beginning of the universe as a stand alone event your argument would be very persuasive because it would be similar to what you said, "the most direct observation is that violations of natural laws have occurred, and / or things outside of nature". However, this environment isn't reflective of reality where we do have knowledge of the success record of supernatural explanation vs. a natural scientific explanation, and when we factor this knowledge into the debate a "direct observation" is no longer possible. Let me use your magician here, you said that, "you could argue a natural explanation is possible, and perhaps even argue that it is preferable, given most times magic tricks have explanations. " right there you supported my argument. You had to ignore the history of magic tricks to argue that as a purely direct observation the magician did something supernatural. So by that same logic when the history of supernatural explanation is NOT ignored, by your own words, a natural explanation is arguably "preferable". ". .. .cause it limits the possibilities of where we came from", The possibilities of where we came from are only limited by what someone can argue, because until it is proven only arguments that aren't defendable using reason, or facts are not possible. ". .. .something from something else makes more sense. " I completely agree with this which is why in my last round I explained how cosmologists are working to prove that we did come from something with the Unified theory. While it is true that you can say, if they prove where this universe came from, what made whatever made us. The substance of that argument losses validity (again) when compared to history, especially if a natural explanation is found for the creation of this Universe. Every time a supernatural explanation is disproven that argument becomes less and less legitimate. Summery (as I see it): Pro argued: -Observation warrants supernatural cause to be more reasonable *Finite end, warrants finite beginning *2nd Law of thermodynamics needs a highest energy state at the beginning of time (god) *Uncaused cause (something from nothing) -Natural explanations possible though not based on what is observed *Quantum level physics starts with existing matter *Scientific Theories aren't based on evidence Con Argued: -History warrants a natural explanation to be more reasonable -Observations warrants natural cause *Finite beginning or end of this universe doesn't mean anything *Pro's argument/understanding of the 2nd Law violates the conservation of energy *Uncaused cause happen all the times *Quantum physics (virtual particles) come from nothing *Pro's understanding of Scientific definitions (Theory) was inaccurate *Unified Theory is working to finish the bases/proof for a natural explanation to where this universe came form (No one argues that we came from nothing) Closing statement: I find that it is more reasonable to conclude a natural explanation to the Universe, because history and physics. Modern cosmology has already explained the majority of the Universe, and is expected to complete the answer to the beginning of the Universe. While history has always seen natural explanations replace what once were supernatural explanations to almost every question in the Universe. I'll close this debate with a quote from the most logical half-human in the Universe, Mr. Spock, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "