If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

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...

I have a feeling you're not even aware how you not knowing which of those two scenarios is actually the case or whether it is some other scenario that is actually the case applies to the Salesman's statement.

Okay I'll play. Lets hypothesize the universe is an uncaused phenomena. Is it a natural phenomena for things to come into existence uncaused?

It certainly seems to be. The only examples we have of something coming to exist are virtual particles, and they come into existence causelessly.

Is it scientifically explicable by appealing to known laws of physics?

Yes, their existence is tied to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is impossible to know both the position and velocity of a fundamental particle. The position and velocity of a nonexistant particle is (0,0). Since it is truly indeterminate for both velocity and position to be known, virtual particles must come into existence. That is the (very dumbed down) explanation for why the phenomenon occurs, however it is not a 'cause'.

I suspect you don't actually believe the universe came into existence uncaused either.

Well, impugning the motives of others is kind of your MO. I suspect because you're well aware of your own lack of integrity in argumentation, you tend to assume the same of others.

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.

When did you say 'is theism true?'

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.

Atheism is not a knowledge position at all, as you've been told over and over. It is a belief position. We don't believe God actually exists. We also don't know if God caused the universe to exist. We DO know that there are alternate naturalistic explanations, so it's hardly like the possibilities are limited to God or nothing.

Is that your position?

I'm beginning to think you're physically incapable of comprehending our position, which is we don't believe any god or God actually exists.

You'd also have to say you don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs.

We DON'T know if supernatural phenomena occur. Have you got an example of a supernatural phenomenon occurring? If not, why do you believe in them?

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.

Sure we do, at least the majority of us do. There's just something wrong with your brain that apparently prevents you from recalling that simple fact.

I said as much that human minds (at this time) are only capable of producing virtual universes.

With computers that are the result of decades of innovation. Do you believe someone created our universe with a computer that was the product of decades (or centuries) of other people's innovations? If not, I don't think this virtual reality scenario is very analogous to the feats of a Creator God.

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.

Are you maintaining that our universe is a virtual simulation? If you do not, how are virtual universes a theistic model? How does a natural mind being able to do something imply that supernatural mind can do the same thing, when a supernatural mind hasn't even been demonstrated to be possible? Did you mean that if there is such a thing as a supernatural mind at least equal to our own and able to manipulate the forces involved, it should be able to do all the things a natural mind can? Because I think that would be reasonable statement.

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?

The math. Cosmologists and physicists don't hide their work, they publish it and invite anyone who can to shoot it down. The math has to be sound and it has to conform to the laws of phyics as we know them. Yet it is considered hypothetical until there is a way to falsify it and the attempts to falsify it consistently fail. It isn't much, yet, and may turn out to not be the case, but it's infinitely more than 'God did it'.

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).

I see appeal to motive remains your go-to fallacy. I presume you understand why you're so widely considered disengenuous.

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

Judging from your notion that 'the universe exists' is evidence of that supports your belief in theism, I can only imagine your other four lines also utterly failed to actually be evidence, clues that support a particular conclusion rather than merely not contradicting your position.

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.

You're such a petty little ass. Atheists who are rational skeptics will always deny there are facts in support of theism because as yet no one has actually come up with any. That you're too dense to understand why you're wrong and why your 'evidence' isn't actually evidence is completely consistent with the behavior you've demonstrated here thus far. For the record though, I don't think you're stupid. That's quite an effective set of blinders you're wearing, though.

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...

The 'evidence' and 'facts' you presented for a Creator God being real don't share much with what you presented for atheism, which can be summarized as: no good reason to think a Creator God is real. You said that if an atheist, you would argue from those facts that God doesn't exist, However, those facts are not a good basis for an argument for God's nonexistence. They ARE however, a good basis for an argument that belief in God is not rationally justified, and since we are largely rational skeptics, THAT is our actual position.

This underscores the real problem and why atheism isn't growing in numbers by leaps and bounds.

In America, 1% of the population to 5% of the population from 2007 to 2012. That's a five-fold increase. Pardon me if I doubt you've got advice for us that would improve on that.

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.

The above run-on sentence is a good illustration of why discussion with you is futile, but since I write for the undecided audience, thank you for your support. If I were an 'evangelistic atheist' I would try to find some way to reward you for your frequent appeals to motive. There's nothing that says 'I got nuthin' like whining about how mean and unreasonable the other side is instead of showing it.