Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Statler Waldorf]

And this is where the fun begins in this little game: Who are you to question the creator of the universe? You wouldn't understand my magnificent plan. It's too complex and ineffable for you. Etc etc, all the other theist arguments for why they can't explain the things that god does. They all apply here. Are you really stating that there's no possible point at the future in which devices for manipulating natural laws can exist? Who's to say I didn't build two time machines and use one to go forward and obtain machinery to go back and manipulate the natural laws into their current state.

So you are conceding that natural laws require a creator? They cannot arise through purely natural unintelligent means? I do not believe this game is going as you initially planned because it is only proving my point (unless of course that is what you were trying to do).

That was the point: accounting for something is not the same as having the correct position,

Sure it is if it is done in a logically consistent manner; you did not account for natural laws because you committed a category error which means your attempt at accounting for such laws was irrational. No such category error exists within the Christian conceptual scheme.

and being unable to account for something does not mean that position is wrong.

Yes it does, if position A asserts B and B is true but B cannot exist if position A is true then position A is false.

I just made something up, off the top of my head, that accounts for natural laws, but we both understand that this is incorrect.

It did not account for natural laws though, that is the point.

you proudly state that you can account for things, as though that's a problem for everyone else.

It is a problem for everyone else.

But you can explain anything with magic, it doesn't mean you're right.

I did not say anything about magic.

Evidence will prove that; don't pretend this "I can account for things!" argument actually addresses anything pertinent.

You cannot even account for the notion of evidence if God did not exist. That is the entire point, you are assuming Christian theism is true by questioning Christian theism; your position is completely irrational.

…because "god did it" isn't an answer.

According to whom?

You say you can account for the natural laws, but accounting for things requires an explanation for how they occur, not merely an assertion of a cause.

According to whom?

If I'm asked to account for how hotdogs are made, answering "meat," means I've failed.

That’s a fallacious analogy. “Where do hotdogs come from?” “People make them.”- is a perfectly legitimate answer.

And when you top that by adding that you require presuppositions to make this worldview work... come on, Stat. How can you possibly present such an argument seriously?

All worldviews require axioms; that’s basic epistemology. The only difference between you and me is that my presuppositions make sense of reality while yours contradict it.

I will ask again, how can you make sense of immaterial natural laws in a purely material and unguided Universe?

The special pleading is on time as expected "necessary presupposition"? Indeed. To continue pretending to have answers you don't have, that is. If you get to arbitrarily invoke a primitive [edit out prehistoric] Jewish Zombie, you don't get to dismiss Esquilax as an explanation either. You got on that horse, son. You gotta ride it.

You’re big into irrational question-begging epithets aren’t you? I dismissed Esquilax’s explanation because he was committing a category error and was invoking an explanation that contradicted his espoused conceptual scheme. I will ask you again, can you make sense of immaterial natural laws in a manner that is consistent with your espoused materialism?

And exactly how did you go from descriptive to plugging in a cosmic prescriber?

Simple, there must be a governing agent causing material to behave in a manner that makes it possible to use such descriptions.