Natural laws are not an answer to "why?" but rather "how?". God is the
Christian's answer to "why?". Your answer would be "no reason", which
attempts the make "why" = "how".
Jonathan is completely correct when he supposes that my answer to 'why' would be 'no reason.' To have a reason implies that there is purpose. A ball rolls down hill for no purpose whatsoever, just as a clock minds the time for no purpose. We, as humans, have studied and observed and understood the properties of mechanics and electronics so that we can assemble naturally occuring events to do work for us - we see a watch as having the purpose of telling time, but really a spring unwinds just because that was its nature to do so.
Jonathan is incorrect, however, when he says that my answer makes 'why' = 'how.' 'Why' is an irrelevant question. Science is concerned with how. Nature does things because of the laws that govern it. And the so-called 'laws of nature' are not really laws anyway, because nature is not obligated to follow them. The 'laws' are described for our benefit, to help us understand what we are seeing. I think that this 'how' vs. 'why' may be a central element of our disagreement.
Because then Jonathan writes that Christians make the jump because of the Bible. That will require some further spelling out, my friend. Also requiring further attention is a good reason for why I should give the Bible more credit than I currently do.
And finally, I have to apologize for assuming that Jonathan was using an emotional argument. I apparently misunderstood his question about what would satisfy me. I confess that I am still confused and am not sure what is being asked or implied. But if it is about 'why,' then I can't think of any possible answer.
There is no 'why.' There just is. And that is what makes life so profoundly different for an atheist. There is no meaning in life. Perhaps I can apply a meaning to it, but that is more like a mission or a goal than an actual meaning. I see no meaning in life - I am alive, and I will die, and whether or not I improve the world or make it worse, whether or not I suffer or cause suffering makes no difference. That may seem, to the religious, to be utterly depressing and pointless. And, as I have heard argued, I had may as well put a gun to my head now. In a strange way, they are right, because there is no particular difference. In the end, the result will be the same. Either I die now or in fifty years, and the second after I die will be the second I will cease to exist and have any capacity to regret the lost time. But I love life. I want to live and enjoy food and grass and sex, I want to see art and hear music and play with my dogs. All of my 'whys' are short-term. But because this is all that life is, it frees me up to enjoy it more fully. If I were expecting an eternity of heaven, then this life would become kind of pale and shallow. Because this is my moment, I am free to enjoy every second of it and not waste a single penny or second worrying about what god might think of me.
I realize that this may not answer Jonathan's actual question. I have to ask him to rephrase it yet again.