DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[Huggy Bear]

I don't know of any mental gymnastics I've done. You are the one arbitrarily defining things. Please show logically that the origins of the universe must be supernatural. Please show that this is a necessity. Oh, and pay attention: this is how one backs up an assertion. Just because you don't understand how things work, does not mean that it is supernatural. If there is a natural explanation for the reason things without mass are imbued with mass, that makes it not a supernatural phenomena.

su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

Are you able to scientifically explain what caused the "big bang"? The best theory I've gotten so far is:

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something.
Lawrence Krauss[

No. Just, no. There is abundant evidence for the big bang (CMB, Red Shift, Abundance of Elements, etc.) And redefining your god to suit your argument is just fatuous. Here is where you get to practice backing up an assertion. Provide some data that proves your Almighty god is in fact just light.

The question was what caused the "big bang"? Also I'm not redefining God the bible always has described God as light.

Acts 26:13
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Revelation 21:23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

What? This makes zero sense. You are seriously standing by the idea that unless I claim to have an answer, I cannot evaluate your answer? Your example is a non sequitur.

Here's a more apt metaphor: There's a crop circle out in my corn field. I say I don't know how it got there. You say aliens clearly did it. You are asserting that I have no business evaluating the evidence for or against your claim until I come up with an answer of my own. That's just stupid.

Makes perfect sense, assuming the only evidence is the circle, how can you evaluate evidence for or against, when it doesn't exist? So if I state aliens created the circle what would you base your rebuttal on?