If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

The Reality Salesman,

This is the definition you provided...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true?
If there are, I do not know anything about them and neither do you.

Pretty sure of yourself aren't you? I can name two without even bothering to research.

There is a phenomenon known as the singularity in which according to scientists (not theists or religious zealots) the laws of physics as we know them break down or are not applicable. This phenomenon is associated with black holes and the big bang.

Another phenomena is known as Quantum entanglement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

I have a feeling a redefinition of supernatural is coming down the pike...

How do you know that it was caused to exist? Define the type of cause and it's properties, and then demonstrate how you know it is true. If you cannot, the most honest thing would be to say "I don't know" (Welcome to Atheism)

Okay I'll play. Lets hypothesize the universe is an uncaused phenomena. Is it a natural phenomena for things to come into existence uncaused? Is it scientifically explicable by appealing to known laws of physics? I suspect you don't actually believe the universe came into existence uncaused either. If the honest thing to say is I don't know then when I say is theism true you should respond I don't know. In which case atheism isn't an opinion God didn't cause the universe it can only be I don't know if God caused the universe to exist. Is that your position? You'd also have to say you don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs. But in spite of your profession of ignorance, you don't say I don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs and I don't know if an entity known as God exists and if God caused (created) the universe.

Not a complete one [understand of the human mind]. But we do have some understanding of what it is and what it is capable of doing. And to date, I don't believe a single one has been accredited the creation of an entire physical universe. So, why do you think that a mind could do that? Try to use something other than a circular argument this time...

I said as much that human minds (at this time) are only capable of producing virtual universes. The fact remains whether natural or supernatural mind can and does create universes. This means we have a working theistic model that explains the existence of virtual universes.

If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature?
I don't think there's even a chance that you and I are going to come to an understanding on the possible answer to this question. I don't know what your understanding of "free will" is. Before I answer, do you have an understanding of the differences between Determinism vs. Fatalism? If you believe that you are the conscious author of your thoughts and that you personally conjure each thing into consciousness and you are 100% aware of everything that compels your thoughts from one second to another, we should not even bother trying to converse about that last question...

Should I assume then you have no opinion regarding this matter?

YOU! You are doing that! You are arguing for a kind of entity that cannot be fathomed because it does NOT correlate with reality. THIS reality is NOT a host to any such a mind that poofs external physical objects into existence, and yet, you seem completely oblivious to that fact.

And you suggested the universe came into existence uncaused...not that I think you actually believe that either because how would we distinguish that from a magic act? It appears your only real objection is to the notion a mind caused the universe to exist (while claiming you also don't know how the universe came to exist)

In Criminal law, the subjects in question correlate with reality and if any good case is going to be put forth, it better be based on evidence that correlates with reality as well. In criminal law, every aspect involved is grounded in nature. Suppose I was on trial for murder and my alibi was that I was out playing golf with Elvis in a different Galaxy to celebrate my best Angel Friends birthday.

I posted 5 lines of evidence in favor of my belief in theism. The five were all based on indisputable known facts.

True to form I told you the claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is a sacred claim of atheists. Its bogus...but sacred. Atheists will always deny there are facts in support of theism because it is foundational to their claim of atheism. It is the first commandment of atheism.

1. There shalt be no evidence in favor of theism! Amen.

I on the other hand don't deny there is evidence (facts) that favor atheism. I listed them in the OP...

This underscores the real problem and why atheism isn't growing in numbers by leaps and bounds. Atheists don't like the belief we owe our existence to a Creator or a supernatural cause but they really have no alternate explanation that isn't itself supernatural so they spend most of their time mocking, ridiculing and bashing theism while having no plausible alternative that accounts for the existence of the universe or why it would produce sentient life.