Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

Replace "supernatural" with "non local / non physical" if you like.

What is supernatural about non-locality if it is integral to natural world and subject to observation and prediction?

Replace "god" with "supernatural mechanism" if you like.

What does replacing one empty word without specific predictive power with another do except to steal an underserved aura of cultural awe to thwart an uncomfortable rigorous investigation in order to better remain swaddled in an disgraceful comfort blanket of ignorance?

If you can't define your answer, then your answer has no potential specific explanatory power, and is therefore is not subject to verification, validation, or falsification. It only offers the illusory and nebulous power of a smoke screen to deter investigation. So if you can't define your answer to the point of making your answer in principle falsifiable, you've offered only meaningless words, not an answer.

If no answer can be given that has specific predictive power and thereby falsifiability, then be honest and say "No Answer".

Chuck, claiming quantum randomness is fundamental is just as empty and has no predicative power, cannot be tested, not subject to verification, validation, or falsification. You can test for the appearance of randomness, but you have no way of knowing if it is like all the other randomness....an artifact of ignorance or if it is some kind of new randomness that just exists...for its own sake.

Further, if the hypothesis that our reality is dependent on a supernatural reality is true, you would expect to find aspects of our reality that cannot be explained local physical causes. As it happens this is exactly what we observe. To say such a hypothesis has no predictive power is false.

---

"If God exists" is not a conclusion. "If" is a conditional statement. You are conflating a condition with a conclusion. The conclusion or declaration that "God exists" is not contained with in any premises.

Sorry Ben but you get an F here.

Don't be a weasle. "god exsist" is the one and only conclusion towards which you've striven through this deceitful little construction that so happen to have "if" at the beginning.

Ben's claim was that I was "begging the question". Showing his claim was false is not being a "weasel". If anything I did him a favor by teaching him what "begging the question" really means.

I'm afraid you will just have to learn to live with the idea that certain aspects of physical reality support the notion of God.