Question to Christians re humility

[Undeceived]

The correct answer is "we don't know". You've abandoned science from this point forward (because it was only useful to you as a preamble), you've abandoned evidence (because it is only useful to you as pretext)

My argument gave the best answer at hand. Science is about finding answers. You seem content to say "I don't know" and revert to a naturalistic default. I’ll repeat what I told Darkstar: if you wish to make naturalism the default, give an argument why. There is no “natural unless proven supernatural” court of law. If you think there is, you must explain yourself. Don’t assume your version of epistemology (source of knowledge) is true. In my argument, I made the case that natural laws lead us to supernatural conclusions. That’s scientific methodology. Just because science leads outside of the scientific realm does not mean you should abandon your search for answers. In absence and extension of observation, scientists use reason. Black holes are one example, evolution, gravity… in fact, all the universal laws of science extend only so far as observation of their affects. I can’t see thermodynamics, but I use reason to theorize about why it is the case. Yet you accept theories on these subjects. If science leads us to a creator/catalyst (no matter how personal), why are you afraid of that? A causeless entity should pack no more emotional punch than any other theory, like quantum fluctuations. He/It is only the Black Hole that stars revolve around (metaphorically speaking). We can’t see Him/It, but we know He/It has to be there, and we know He/It has to have certain attributes in that place.

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_bas..._1206.html

According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events (such as the radioactive decay of an
atom, for example, or the precise way in which the QM probability wave function collapses)...

The observed ‘uncaused’ events in quantum mechanics are examples of breakdowns of existing energy. Where did that energy originate? In the case of radioactivity, the atom releases stored energy because it does not have enough of its own energy to contain it.
There are unobserved events in theoretical quantum mechanics also. These involve positive and negative energy. The theory is that energy in the universe always has a net value of zero. For some reason it may randomly split into positive and negative energy. Here's the problem: The theory assumes negative energy has an essence, that it is not just a measurement in the absence of positive energy. There is no direct, observable evidence of negative energy—there are only affects, like the wind. This is the type of reasoning Rhythm condemned me for. It substitutes reasoning in the places observation doesn’t reach. How do we know there is such a thing as negative energy? Beyond this issue, quantum fluctuation theory lacks an explanation for where the ‘vacuum’ for fluctuations comes from. Quantum field theory is the more defined and version of this, and it requires fields with which to work in, containing all the universe’s present laws and constants. If you believe the universe is a closed system with a beginning, quantum theory is not a suitable answer. If you believe in an open, eternal system, you must identify the force that is changeless so as to exist eternally, and how it can possibly remain so in spite of our laws conflicting with its existence. Then you are left pondering how the vastly improbable Big Bang happened in only one possible universe.
In short, the observed part of quantum mechanics explains nothing about the origin of energy. And the unobserved part (on which you base your theory of the origin of the universe) is as much rooted in faith as God is.