4. I do not see how that follows.

7.  Science induces, but things follow from what science induces.  In other words, Science, here, is is saying " Okay, we'll assume A and B are both true.  Therefore "If A, and B, then there must be C"   (I'm positing, of course)

8. They're possible, yes, but, remember,  "We have detected no physical cause: if it were exported from another universe, and we found no trace of a physical transportation.  Then, science does what it always does; assumes that there is no means of physical transportation.  That doesn't rule out another universe, mind you, but it does mean that there was a means of non-physical transportation, so the supernatural as an explanation is present either way".  I'm not saying that I call the other universe "supernatural", I'm saying science would be left with only supernatural options.  Either way, it must deduce the supernatural: If it was transported from another universe, it was transported divinely.  If created, it was created divinely.  While, in this case (allowing for the possibility of multiple universes), science could not decide which of those two choices it was, it's going to be one of them.  Since both entail the supernatural, science discovers the supernatural (I posit).

9.  It doesn't alter the methods of science, so I think it's alright.  Right?

10. Mm. 1B noted.

No, honest!
Not that you should believe one way or another, but I maintain my honesty :P

4.
What I mean is, if in this universe it is impossible to do X, then nothing can do X within this universe.  That doesn't rule out some other universe where matter can be created without energy.  And there might be aliens in that universe, who decide to mess with us.  And let's suppose that those aliens decide to build a machine to create matter and shove it into our universe somehow (assuming they can do that and our universe allows it).  But they CAN'T send the machine over to this universe to pump out matter without using energy, because this universe doesn't let you get away with that shit.  Any agent that enters this universe has to follow whatever rules it has (which may or may not be quite what we think they are). 

7.  (I'm guessing by "assume A" you mean because of repeated observation and they've formed a theory etc.)
Remember though, science keeps open the possibility that "oh wait, I guess A was wrong" -- and science will default to that as being more probable than the supernatural. 

8.
Referring to 4, in that case the "evidence" could be exclusively in the exporting universe, so there would be nothing to go by on this end. 

And look.  The other universe is either supernatural or it's not.  If it is, then I think you're abusing words like "created" and "divine" -- at least, unless your religion is significantly different from what I think it is .  And if it's not supernatural, then in addition to the above science isn't painted into the corner you say it is at all. 

9.
I don't know what methods of science you're referring to, but in my neck of the woods we don't assume something has been mathematically proven until it actually has been.  If you base your argument on a potentially wrong assumption (unproven supposition about what is and isn't mathematically possible), then your argument is necessarily faulty. 

Or to look at it another way, you can go ahead and put together that argument but you can't say it says anything conclusive since you do not actually have any idea whether that assumption you made about the math, which is necessary to your argument, is in fact correct at all. 

Oh, I didn't mean I was suspicious of the honesty of your position!  I was just skeptical about your claim. 

4. I see, I think.  The situation I'm proposing is, however, not that things cannot be created in this universe, but that they cannot be created by this universe.  The observation in my scenario says that no physical means of creation are observed, which only translates to being unable to create by this universe.  Any agent outside of it that is not physical is not assumed to be boudn by this.

7.  But in this case, science has no reason to think it's wrong; it only does that when it has a contradictory observation, which, as I have shown, is not the case.  Unless you're saying that science precludes the notion of the supernatural, then, should it ever reach that conclusion, decide that the conclusion is wrong as per is preclusion of the supernatural.  But, we went over this, and I believe you agreed that science is not atheistic or deistic in nature, so perhaps this is not the case.

8. I'm not particulary sure of what you mean by your first sentence.  What do you mean, exactly?

Another universe is not supernatural, as I'm defining the supernatural to be the "non-physical", and another universe is definitively physical.  Your objection to the option of it being not seemes hinged on your first sentence here, so I await clarification (otherwise, my previous point 8 addresses how I think I've painted it into a corner).

9.  Er, sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here either...

I'm saying that we pretend that it's mathematically impossible for other universes to exist (I don't even know if it's been proven otherwise).  Such a pretence has no bearing on science and the scientific method here, so my argument should remain unaffected (that science can hypothetically come to a supernatural conclusion).

4. 
Well, I don't think that something being "non-physical" allows it to ignore the rules of the universe.  Why would it?  Since we agree that the thing is in our universe, and that the act it is perpetrating is physical or at least produces a physical result, why wouldn't that result have to follow the rules? 

7. 
But ... why doesn't it?  I think we might be hitting up against 1b at this point.  Maybe not, but I think we're shooting past each other on something. 

8. 
You said, "We have detected no physical cause: if it were exported from another universe, and we found no trace of a physical transportation." 
If the point of origin is another universe, then of course there is no trace of transportation prior to its sudden and seemingly spontaneous appearance in our universe (within our ability to detect it which is limited to this universe).  It's not so much a "non-physical" cause, in that case, as it is a physical cause from outside this universe (duh, but still).  (I guess this runs into 8.2; see below.)

8.2.  Regarding
"Another universe is not supernatural, as I'm defining the supernatural to be the "non-physical", and another universe is definitively physical."
and
"We have detected no physical cause: if it were exported from another universe, and we found no trace of a physical transportation.  Then, science does what it always does; assumes that there is no means of physical transportation.  That doesn't rule out another universe, mind you, but it does mean that there was a means of non-physical transportation, so the supernatural as an explanation is present either way"
So let me get this straight.  You're saying that our universe is physical, and their universe is physical -- but that the means of transportation is necessarily supernatural? 

9. 
Right, I was misunderstanding; I was thinking you were saying that science could ACTUALLY come to a supernatural conclusion (as opposed to "...if the math I assumed is right etc.").  So I think we're probably going to run into 1b now.  Or I'm tired and missing something, but frankly it's a pretty important objection anyway, as I said. 

4.  Because the rule, as science has observed it, is that there is no physical means of creation, not that things can't at all be created in the universe.  This nonphysical thing would be using nonphysical means to create, so the rule here is unviolated.

7. Hmm.  I'll try to clarify what I mean, but perhaps you.re right in saying were not on the same page here.  In the case of science observing that there are no physical means of creation, and observing something being created in this universe, science does not, here, say to itself "Well, guess I was wrong about the first part, or the second" because they don't have two contradicting observations (they observed the object being created, but not physically created).  Notice that they haven't eliminated all means of creation, just physical, so there's no reason to suspect one of the observations is wrong.

8. Yeah, this runs into 8.2

8.2 That's correct: no wormholes, no rips ins space/time, no physical means of transportation are detected; it just appeared from, apparently, nowhere.  And on  that apparancy science assumes no physicality had a hand in putting this object here, whether by creation or transportation.

9 I see: I think you're correct in where this is headed (since we agree on this point, it renders point 8 irrelevant).

4.  
Is it?  The rule as I understood it was "you can't create matter without using energy in X proportion".  That says nothing about the agent creating the matter, or the method used.  

7.  
How do you "observe" that there is no physical means of creation?  You can observe that this didn't happen, and this didn't happen, etc., and you can suppose that you haven't missed anything and therefore there is no physical cause -- but that's not an observation.  (Similar to 1b)

8. (reunified)
"no physicality had a hand in putting this object here, whether by creation or transportation"
WHAT?!  You agreed that the other universe was physical!  How, then, could you conclude that the matter's creation in that other universe prior to transportation was definitely non-physical?  
.... oh.  You meant that either it was created here non-physically, or it was created elsewhere (perhaps physically) and transported here non-physically?  

4.   While it seems your referring to the real-life 1st law of thermodynamics here, it's still the same, essentially.  My hypothetical observation only states that there are no physical means by which matter may be created (I would say that that what the first law says, too, but that's besides the point).

7. "and you can suppose that you haven't missed anything and therefore there is no physical cause -- but that's not an observation".  But it its, though; science never assumes that it got everything in it's observations, it just assumes after "enough" observations.  You can apply that to any scientific theory or law: they never claim to have examined everything, just lots of it.  Which, hopefully, answers 1b as well (science, at one point, had, apparently, observed such a case, as denoted by the first law).

8.  Wait, I thought we had agreed that this point was irrevelevant, in light of point 9.  Perhaps you are arguing it anyways, for the sake of that part of the argument, perhaps?

In any event, yes, I mean that last part of your point.  Sorry about the confusion.