I don't believe theists and reject their claims of theism.

[The Reality Salesman01]

What grounds can one rationally posit such an oxymoron? I don't just propose it doesn't, it is the default option. My question is how does one bridge the gap between no grounds for plausibility to attempting to justify it as potential?

Yours was the oxymoron I refer to. I have no idea how you justify it.
What is 'no grounds for plausibility'?

Ok...Forgive me as I catch up. There are just too many p words, and i've been throwing them around too much. Let me clarify as I can see why you would be confused at this point, and it is my fault. If something is not backed by any form of evidence or grounded in reality, it can be possible at best. A claim that is neither, is not plausible as it has no substance and doesn't correlate to reality and is therein possible merely on the grounds that ANYTHING is possible because of your inability to prove it wrong.

Secondly, and please excuse me, I was under the impression that you were implying that a "natural supernatural" was potentially true, and this may be because of my word choice and will clarify that as well. Obviously, there is no justification to think it is even plausible, to much less have the potential for being true for any reason than cited above, and that would explain the misunderstanding we have.

Just to cover all bases, let me clarify the definition of "super natural" in the context I used it in.
By supernatural, this definition was intended: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal (cut and paste definition), and therefore, that which at one time is unexplainable by any law becomes natural once it is. I was not suggesting that once supernatural becomes understood and explainable it becomes "natural supernatural"...That would be absurd.

At one point the Sun rising was by definition a supernatural occurrence, that became understood as natural, and the turtle example I gave, absurd or not, would have served as a more possible explanation than invoking an explanation from that which is imaginatively possible, i.e. God.

A lack of accurate information on any physical phenomenon does nothing to inhibit an accurate assessment of purpose. You make the mistake of mixing an obsession to know how things happen with a religious statement of meaning.

Indeed, this information is insufficient for not understanding the why. My only point towards this "relgious meaning" is akin to what I would say to anyone wishing to assert meaning behind anything without justifiable reasons to invoke the prefacing word in front of it. By the way, if meaning is found in something such as this by you, I'm sure you are well aware that such a thing is perfectly fine and apart from my opinion of it. It is only if you attempt to convince me that it is a valid belief, and open it up for dialogue, that I would request such evidence to qualify it as so.

Agreed, my question still stands. From what position do you justify conjuring explanations that are not grounded in the world you rationalize and then attempt to claim they are in fact, rational?

If the question is, "Where did the universe come from?" At what point is it rational to throw out the world around us, and simply posit that The Universe was created?...rationally? That is to say, with good reason?

Every point known and to be known of origins affirms a creator.

Can you clarify what you are asserting here for me please?

Why? Because creation invokes the supernatural > that which never can be known. No gap invoked. Rather a subject change.

I am perhaps misunderstanding that by this, your preceeding statement was implying the creator is obvious, but I will wait for clarification before addressing such a claim. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, and want know for sure if that is what you intended me to infer.