> What about "Believing in a God is a matter of evidence that only you accept and not believing in God is a matter of not accepting that evidence".

I said what I said to try to preclude the nonsense of "I can't give evidence for what doesn't exist. There is no evidence that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist." To me the plausibility of God is based in a number of cogent philosophical arguments based on rational inferences that lead to a reasonable conclusion. And it would make sense that if someone does not believe in God they should also be able to present reasonable philosophical arguments as to why nature of necessity must be a closed system, why naturalism is the most logical explanation for what we now see, and how impersonal chance, random flow, and all accidental moves are the best explanation for our reality and humanity.

> Personal evidence is something I don't care about

All evidence is referential. It is only our thought processes that are able to piece evidence together into a system that makes sense. Otherwise, the puzzle pieces still sit on the ground. Unless a rational mind sees patterns and assembles them, they not only stay there, but they remain senseless. You betray the flaws of your argument when you use words such as "insane" (denoting an evaluation of someone missing the mark by those rational enough to know what is normal and what is an aberration), "his dog" (denoting personal relationship and reference point), and "right" (denoting a moral standard by which we can evaluate behavior). All of your words betray the knowledge of a ground point in life that is impossible from a beginning (and continuation) of impersonal chance, random flow, and all accidental moves. Reality can't be self-contradicting.

> "Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence" — I reject this concept due to lack of evidence.

Well, this certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial. The idea that things can pop into being without a cause is worse than magic. I'm not sure there's any scientist who would claim things can begin to exist without a cause.

> There is no scientific evidence that the universe was created

Possibly, but there is pretty solid evidence that the universe had a beginning. The current theory of the Big Bang (and even a recent discovery: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/) supports the premise that the universe began to exist. My logic reasoned that if it had a beginning, it had to have a causative mechanism, which is a reasonable inference.

> There isn't an objective law that exists by which we know what is good or evil.

I think there is. We don't affirm that killing is always wrong, for we reason that sometime self-defense and even war can be a good choice. Some societies may actually say that killing is right, for instance Islamic jihads or tribal genocide; even Hitler was convinced that what he did was right, because he was trying to achieve a Darwinian end: a superior race. But what about killing children? Well, some cultures even sacrifice children to their gods, so they would say that is right.

What about torturing children for the fun of it? No. There is no culture, anywhere, in all of history, that would ever say torturing children for the fun of it is right. There are other examples, but I only need one to prove the point: there is an objective law by which we know what is good or evil. There is something (many things, actually) that is always wrong, all the time, everywhere, but everyone.

> such source isn't required to be God

I agree, but God is a logical inference of a moral standard, for if we have evolved through random moves, one totally accidental from the last one, with never any purpose (how can there be purpose when it's chemical reactions and chance occurrences?), then there is no such thing as "good" and "evil". They are nonsense terms. It's just impersonal chemicals, physics sequences, and indiscriminate biology. Kill or don't kill, torture or not, but don't call it right or wrong. The problem is that the sheer depravity of humans is the one most certain empirical evidence we have in all of life. We know that there is such a thing as evil. We can see it around us. Unless there is personality purpose, and meaning, there is no such thing as right and wrong. But you think that moral constructs could come from social evolution. How does personality derive from chemicals? How does purpose originate in mechanical laws? I would say it makes more sense that personality derives from personality than from non, and that purpose is the effect of a purposeful cause, so to me God makes more sense than not-God.

Randomness doesn't require an intelligent cause, but it can't really result in intelligent effects. How many times would you have to toss Scrabble pieces on the ground to get an intelligent message?

But what about ordered data (1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2)? Ordered data doesn't necessarily require an intelligent cause either. Snowflakes are a good example.

Then there's informational data, like DNA. We have no scientific example of informational data that does not comes from an intelligent cause. None.

Really, we have to weigh what is a sufficient reason for what we see. Taking all the evidence together, I think God is a reasonable explanation, and I think "nature" (as spectacular as nature is), falls short. We all know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. Things just don't pop into existence. And they certainly don't do it without sufficient cause. If they do, then there is no such thing as science. But there is something. There is cause and effect. There is purpose. There is personality. There is a sense of right and wrong. What makes sense is an eternal, timeless, personal, purposeful, moral, and intelligent first cause.x

> Nothing PROVES God, just as nothing proves he doesn't exist either.

I agree although if you define a God in a particular way, he can be disproven.

>Believing in God is a matter of inferring to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence, and not believing in God is a matter of a presuppositional position.

What about "Believing in a God is a matter of evidence that only you accept and not believing in God is a matter of not accepting that evidence".

> My reasoning for the plausibility of the existence of God is based in a number of arguments, outside of supernaturalism, [b]that make sense to me[/b].

Exactly my point. Personal evidence is something I don't care about, otherwise the insane person who claimed his dog told him to kill those people is right - evidence that makes sense to him - is actually incorrect as far as reality is concerned.

> Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.

I reject this concept due to lack of evidence. There is no scientific evidence that the universe was created. We only have evidence of a massive explosion and expansion of the universe via Big Bang. So I reject the entire argument that assumes this initial premise.

Your second argument:

>Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature

I actually think this is fine.

> If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

I don't see how this follows. Your other arguments are similar. Then you have this one:

> If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.

This is wrong. There isn't an objective law that exists by which we know what is good or evil. Also, such source isn't required to be God, it could be a function of our brains as social animals that were able to kill out ancestors that couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong (who probably killed each other). This also doesn't fall in line with the history of the Christian God which contracts right and wrong but that's another argument.

Nothing PROVES God, just as nothing proves he doesn't exist either. Believing in God is a matter of inferring to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence, and not believing in God is a matter of a presuppositional position. My reasoning for the plausibility of the existence of God is based in a number of arguments, outside of supernaturalism, that make sense to me.

I think the cosmological argument makes sense (stated extremely briefly):

1. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.
2. Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.
3. Therefore that first being is uncaused, and there is at least one first, uncaused being.

Another form of the cosmological argument also makes sense:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Kalam's cosmological argument may be the strongest form of it:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

To me, the ontological argument also makes sense:

1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.

The teleological argument has some strength to it.

1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.

The analogical argument proposed by Plantinga makes sense:

1. The productions of human contrivance are the products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles the productions of human contrivance
3. Therefore probably the universe is a product of intelligent design
4. Therefore probably the author of the universe is an intelligent being.

There's also the axiological argument (the existence of morality): (from Zacharias)

1. We all admit that evil exists in the world.
2. If evil exists, one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference
3. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.
4. If a moral law exists, one must posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law.
5. The source of a personal, moral law must also be personal and moral
6. Therefore God must exist.

None of these pertain to supernaturalism, but to logical reasoning. We both know that these arguments don't PROVE the existence of God. What we are after is what is reasonable—reasoning to the best inference given the reality we see around us. And what we see around us is

A universe that had a beginning
A universe and life forms that appear designed
Personality
Transcendent, objective moral truths
Informational data (we have no example of informational date that does not come from an intelligent cause)

Given what we see, God is a reasonable explanation for it, in my opinion. It hopefully addresses your question.

Can God be proven without supernaturalism? By that, I mean actual physical evidence as opposed to some logical puzzle that can be used to prove any Gods.