It's too bad you didn't setup more rounds than this. I know things can be explained in a concise and succinct manner. But in terms of understanding, you may need to allow more space for explanation and expansion. Then things like grammar is not so much the issue but a sufficient explanation.
People do speak accustomed to how they habitually do and you have to have patience in ciphering the message . This can be done through questions and answers but in this setup, we've already exhausted the rounds.
But let me answer your question(s) to clear up things between us and the readers. I think the question(s) posed show some misunderstanding on your side.
"I think fundamentally your points can be challenged with this question; why do you assume that before our universe and its laws came to be that there was something more than the natural?"
Notice, go back and read. I never mentioned the term or terms "something more". I laid a foundation of explanation of whatever it was before anything existed describing it as whatever that was in the beginning or prior to. Not saying it's more or less. I can't say what it is exactly or quantify it. We don't know right. So the variable is X which we will call "supernatural ". It's any other whatever outside of reality as we know now and it can't really even be called a " what " because we still don't know other than it not being natural is X. See this is hard to grasp as it leaves us almost impossible to properly identify "what" was before anything. Our minds calculate in a reality in which we know or can know how to describe things.
So outside of what is natural, the label is supernatural. The question is, has the natural always been? That would be the question to challenge me with? But if or being that there's no evidence for natural laws and reality always being, is the challenge really there?
After all all the topic is asking about is proving what I think, not facts.
"Why couldn't it be that there was just a different type of natural before what we are familiar with now?"
Yeah well supernatural is different from natural isn't it? See we're not too far off from agreement. We just need to understand each other better. Non-existence is different from existence. If you want to call non-existence a different type of natural, you obviously free to your preference. I don't think you are alien to the same thought process that there was "whatever "before what we have now. It just comes down to how we identify it in communicating it.
"I think you need to provide evidence that the supernatural is even possible before you can assert that it was the cause of anything. Do you have evidence that the supernatural is possible? "
If you believe and think like I do that the catalyst, whatever it was that gave us the natural world and reality as we know now, I'm CALLING that factor, supernatural.
See you have to really pay attention to how I'm using words and not so much going by the conventional conception that comes to mind when you see the words.
We didn't get a chance to unpack this further but if you decided to come back and read this last round and want to have a part two of this, send me a message.
I'm going to place this message here being that this individual appears to couldn't have stood the heat and is running.
My response to this individual I debated on this topic is the following:
The problem is, don't let debating frustrate you. Don't get into your emotions and you'll be alright. Many people can't take be refuted and run. Take it on the chin. You'll be alright.