Whoop, ok, I edited it too.

Well, it can't, except by process of elimination.  And since unlike in Sherlock Holmes there are an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities ... (you can't conclude that the unknown cause was supernatural). 

And that's part of why I edited.  A different universe might have different rules, so they wouldn't have necessarily been affected to the same extent etc. 

That's what we're arguing about; I'm proposing two contradictory observations, and posting that the only way to reconcile them is to bring in God or to remove the basic assumptions of science.

We all could be a dream, we all could be in a computer program, we just don't know.  But you know what, it doesnt really matter.  I may or may not be on my computer, but I might as well 'assume' that I am on my computer because thats the reality I am living in.  Its also the reality that you and everybody else is living in.

To be so concerned that you cant prove that your life exists that you accept a bunch of crazy stories is a waste of your life, regardless if it is real or not.

That's another assumption.  Same with the next sentence. 

Picking any one belief about reality is just as baseless as pciking another; there is no good reason why one might be true over another.

If the math didn't work then we would have to change the current model of the laws of physics until the maths did work, or if there actually was a supernatural cause then science would simply leave it un-explained forever. There simply isn't a way for science to accept the supernatural that doesn't involve breaking logic.

I mean if the math didn't work for supporting the idea that the laws of physics did not apply at the beginning of the universe, not that math doesn't work at all.

And you can't leave something unexplained (by unexplained, I assume you're talking about contradictory).  Either science is wrong or there is a supernatural cause; leaving it unexplained would be breaking logic.

There is a good reason, because one 'assumption' has better results than the other.

I believe that if I unplug my computer I will not be able to get on the internet.  Another belief I could have is that if I unplug my computer I will be able to get on the internet.

Obviously, the belief that my computer needs to be plugged in is the better belief.  Otherwise, I'm sitting here staring at a blank computer screen.  Now, as you say, my computer may or may not exist, but regardless if it exists or not, the only way I am going to be on it is if I plug it in.

"Now, as you say, my computer may or may not exist, but regardless if it exists or not, the only way I am going to be on it is if I plug it in".  This is contradictory.  If it doesn't exist, you won't be able to get on it.

And you seem to think that you can observe whether or not you can actually get on a computer.  How is that?

Let me rephrase it.

My computer may or may not exist, but regardless if it exists or not, the only way that I am going to think that I am on my computer is if it is plugged in.

To prove my point, if you are going to reply to this post your computer is going to be plugged in.  In fact, if it doesnt matter, then why is your computer plugged in right now as you read this?