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

Pro has seemed to completely miss the point, and has interpreted most of the things I've said incorrectly. Pro makes this statement: "Things are known to have causes. that means the cause must be outside our universe, trancendent as that proof he cited said. therefore, by definition a supernatural cause exists, given the cause is outside our natural existence. this makes more sense, cause we are estabslihing that something comes from something else, not that it comes from nothing. " Sentence two does not follow from sentence one. As I say AGAIN, there is no good reason the universe can't cause itself. However, I think our universe is the effect of a prior universe. The multiverse solves the problem. We have a cause outside of our universe. It's not a transcendent being; it's just a different universe. Also we have not established nothing comes from nothing. I don't even think nothing in the sense she's using it is even conceivable. Something can come from nothing. I linked a scientific america article demonstrating that. Also you can read Lawrence Krauss's A Universe From Nothing for more information on the topic. Pro:"i do not see how he used inflation to establish proof for the multiverse. as far as i understand it, inflation just means the universe is expanding. that comes from the big bang. and then we get into where did that come from etc. how is he really establishing anything of significance? " My point was not that inflation is "proof", it was that it is evidence. If inflation were true we would expect to see certain things, and guess what? We observe these things. Inflation's predictions are right, and I think that constitutes a good reason to think inflation's prediction of the multiverse is true. Pro:"this is similar to if you see a bike rolling down the hill, and insist we shouldn't assume something caused it to happen. 'it violates occam's razor to think that! '. that rule is just a rule of thumb. as ive argued we naturally have to ask mroe questions, and in fact the razor rule is better satisfied with supernatural explanations than many other natural explanons, anyways. " Occam's razor is not ever satisfied with a supernatural cause because supernatural claims are not able to be investigated. Supernatural claims are the opposite of Occam's razor because they beg unneeded questions that can't be answered. Pro:"as i argued before, con is just giving some theories for existence. these are just theories and are not based on empirical information. the big bang and the apparently nothingness before it, is. something coming from something else makes more sense than coming from nothing. just because it's not definitively proven doesn'/t mean it's not proven. " A theory in science is different than an everyday conjecture. Also god is not supported by ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Once again god is an unneeded step. If we stay with a natural cause, that can be investigated, we don't need to invoke god, which is impossible to investigate. 'con argues that matter can come from empty space. he has not demonstrated that this has ever occurred, though. and, he has not estblished that it is true that matter can come from empty space. even if he did, he doesn't establish where that empty space came from. afterall, even empty space is temporal, and is an issue of existence. true nothingness appears to be before the universe, and appears to be more truly 'nothing' than empty space itself" Once again I linked an article. Also there are many documentaries and textbooks that would agree with me. Pro does bring up a good point about empty space and temporality. This is why I think absolute nothingness is inconceivable. However I will say I don't know, however theism solves no problems. In conclusion: -Models. Pro has completely missed my point. Once again I am NOT saying that any of these are the correct model; the point is there are plausible self contained model. Once again theism is a poor model; it has no explanatory power and it is not verifiable or falsifiable. Even if we look at a non-self contained model, god does not do anything for us. -Social science Pro has not once addressed my points about social science and why you would expect populations to naturally invent gods.