The Coherent Causality Argument

[William]

For years, I've seen Christians argue for a supernatural creator - an entity outside nature, beyond scientific understanding, uncaused and eternal.

But if "supernatural" means beyond understanding and evidence, how does that explain anything rather than simply labeling the unknown as unknowable?

Here is an alternative argument that retains a first cause but removes the incoherence of supernaturalism. I welcome thoughtful engagement, particularly from theistic perspectives, on the following:

---
Definitions (Oxford Languages):

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Supernaturalism: the belief in a supernatural agency that intervenes in the course of natural laws.

---

The Coherent Causality Argument

P1: Everything that begins to exist within nature has a natural cause.

P2: It is generally accepted in modern cosmology that this universe (our spacetime reality) had a beginning.

C1: Therefore, this universe has a natural cause.

P3: A “natural cause” means a cause that operates within some framework of consistent laws, is potentially understandable in principle, and is part of a broader causal reality.

P4: A supernatural cause, by definition, is beyond natural laws, understanding, and evidence, thus it cannot function as a causal explanation.

C2: Therefore, the cause of the universe is not supernatural - it is part of a broader natural reality (a “source reality”).

P5: This source reality may be eternal, timeless, or uncreated relative to our universe, but it is still natural in the sense of being coherent, consistent, and conceptually describable.

C3: Since an infinite regress of contingent causes provides no ultimate explanation, the source reality must be eternal (or necessary).

Overall Conclusion:
The universe was caused by an eternal natural entity - not by a supernatural one. This avoids the explanatory dead-end of supernaturalism while still satisfying the demand for a causal origin.
(By “natural,” I mean “operating within some consistent framework of cause and effect, even if outside our observable universe.”)

Note on Consciousness:
If the natural source-entity is intelligent and consciously creative, this would provide a coherent origin for consciousness itself, potentially resolving the "hard problem" by grounding subjective experience in a fundamental, conscious cause. This is not required by my argument, but it is a logically consistent possibility if one accepts both an intelligent source and the principle that consciousness cannot emerge from purely non-conscious substrates.

A Clarification on Terms:

If “supernatural” simply means existing outside our universe but still operating by consistent, higher-level laws, and is not being used in its strong, classical philosophical sense here, then it becomes a subcategory of the natural - understood broadly as any reality operating within a coherent framework of cause and effect.

If, however, “supernatural” means wholly beyond understanding, outside any consistent laws, and intrinsically inexplicable, then it cannot meaningfully explain anything—including the origin of the universe.

This argument proceeds under the second definition, which is both standard in philosophical discourse and necessary for the term “supernatural” to retain any distinct meaning. If you hold the first definition, then your “supernatural” cause aligns with what I term the eternal natural source-entity—and we are largely in agreement on the nature of the first cause, differing only in terminology.

Q1: If a cause is supernatural - beyond understanding and evidence - does it actually explain anything, or does it merely relabel an unknown as unknowable?

Q2: Can a Christian (or any theist) coherently define God as both supernatural (in its strong, classical philosophical sense) and personally interactive without contradiction?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #239]

So I hope this all helps you in some way to understand what I am meaning by mechanism, framework, and understandable process.

It makes it sound like you are saying that since we don’t have a scientific understanding of my immaterial option (or, perhaps, one that experts largely agree on like we may have on some scientific questions), it can’t count. The physicist, as a physicist, wouldn’t be able to understand the “mechanism”. And that yours counts because it doesn’t posit anything beyond what science already knows exists. Is that what you mean?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #239]

It makes it sound like you are saying that since we don’t have a scientific understanding of my immaterial option (or, perhaps, one that experts largely agree on like we may have on some scientific questions), it can’t count. The physicist, as a physicist, wouldn’t be able to understand the “mechanism”. And that yours counts because it doesn’t posit anything beyond what science already knows exists. Is that what you mean?

Please show from my post #239 where what I wrote makes it sound like what you say it sounds like.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #242]

Please show from my post #239 where what I wrote makes it sound like what you say it sounds like.

“The "Wilful matter" is such a natural cause as it is understandable in principle because it is not a separate idea from what we already know about nature and natural cause.”

This reads as your view is understandable because it’s not separate from what we already know about nature, which is the realm of science (if you mean “nature” in its usual sense) with the implication being that mine is not understandable because it lacks this feature.

“If one asked a physicist…”

By the definition of physics, a physicist as a physicist can’t study the immaterial. So why would we be asking a physicist this unless we assume we need a scientific understanding for something to count as a “mechanism”?

I'm fine if I read you wrong, but please clarify what you mean then.


I had chosen to focus on that element instead of responding to some other points, but perhaps I should respond to those from your last post as well.

By the Oxford definition, ‘strong supernatural’ means beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. You’ve said your God does not fit that. So my question is: how does ‘immaterial soul creating matter ex nihilo’ not fit that definition? What part of that process is within scientific understanding or the laws of nature?

No, the Oxford Languages definition of ‘supernatural’ is that, and I’ve said God fits that. You’ve said that isn’t what you mean by “strong supernaturalism”. You defined that as “wholly beyond understanding, outside any consistent laws, and intrinsically inexplicable” which my idea of God does not fit.

I defined mechanism in post #225: a description of process, not just a label. My candidate has that: matter forms because formation is intrinsic to matter. That is an understandable. Yours has only labels: ‘immaterial,’ ‘will,’ ‘ex nihilo.’ None of those describe a process. So the burden remains on you.

Following this phrasing my candidate would be

Matter → An immaterial Mind
Forms → brings into existence
Because --> because
Formation → bringing into existence
Is intrinsic to matter → is intrinsic to a mind

I don’t think this shows anything for either of us, it simply asserts our cause can do it because they have the power to do it, but if that is what counts as a mechanism, then why doesn’t my version?

You’re focused here on parts of speech. I’m focused on whether a process is described. ‘Matter forms because it is wilful’ describes a process. ‘Immaterial soul creates matter ex nihilo’ asserts an outcome without a process that fills the gap between matter and not matter. That’s the difference - not grammar.

I’m focused on understanding your view; sometimes grammar can help us do that, even if it causes the other person to correct, expand, nuance, clarify, etc.

If this is the kind of phrasing you are looking for, then “immaterial Mind creates because it is willful.” So why doesn’t this count as describing a process for my candidate?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #243]

I already answered this. A label (‘will’) is not a process. You’ve named the agent and the outcome. You haven’t described the how. I have described the how.

By the definition of physics, a physicist as a physicist can’t study the immaterial while true, doesn't mean that the immaterial is true. No one can study an imagined immaterial. That is what the physicist example tells us. He can only say (re the CCA as a frameworked lens) that if one asked a physicist if they understood in principle the CCA, they would be able to say "yes" and give some feedback on what it is they understand about it. But if we asked the same if they understood in principle how an "immaterial soul" can create substance from nothing they would likely say something along the lines of "yes I can imagine something popping into existence seemingly from nowhere or nothing, but in principle my understanding would be that there will be some mechanism involved which would have to be discovered and examined because in principle, without that it is just magical imagery without any explanation.

The issue isn’t that physics can’t study the immaterial; it’s that without a mechanism, there’s nothing to study at all. The physicist can grasp the CCA’s principle even without full details; with “immaterial soul,” there’s no principle to grasp - only imagination.

Mechanism, framework, process. Explain.

IF you are able to explain the mechanism - the "how this is done" THEN we can talk about whether your idea of God fits the broader natural. Otherwise, nope.
So.
If you were able to bring something into existence from nothing, HOW would you describe the process in order to let someone know HOW you did this.

(Such an explanation = mechanism)

[RBD]

Overall Conclusion: The universe was caused by an eternal natural entity.

CCA Conclusion: Philosophically reworked old pagan natural deism.

Unless their philosophical 'entity' doesn't think for itself.

Then it's an irrational philosophic eternal naturalism, that does not account for thinking itself. And so, philosophy finally denies itself as a thinking practice, without any practical thought.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world without Deity.

2Ti 2:13
If we believe not, yet Christ abideth faithful: He cannot deny himself.[/i]

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #245]

The CCA doesn’t deny Christ. It denies only incoherent supernaturalism. If you think Christ is coherent, we agree. If you think Christ is beyond all understanding, then you have a different problem.

FYI when push come to shove, supernaturalism could very well be traced back to the very thing you appear to be criticising/condemning - paganism itself and perhaps the central belief of paganism. Tread carefully...

[RBD]

RBD: New participant (post-March 3). Engages with outdated material; ignores direct replies.

William: Standard participant engaging in meaningless accusations for effective replies.

RBD: Holds Biblical creationist position with sharp natural/supernatural divide.

Hold Biblical creationism with sharp reply to pseudo CCA 'broad naturalism', that is cover for pagan natural deism. Or, irrational naturalism without thinking itself.

RBD Reply #1:

Affirmed universe began (with Creator living eternally before)

Introduced distinction: natural things mortal, spiritual beings (angels/souls) immortal

Natural mortal things seen and naturally proven. Spiritual immortal things unseen and not provable by natural means.

Characterized CCA as "pseudo-broad naturalism" trying to "enfold the supernatural into the natural"

Rejects CCA pseudo-broad naturalism trying to enfold the natural with the supernatural. Which becomes old pagan natural deism, with natural celestial and terrestrial spirits. (Unless there's no thinking in the pseudo-broad natural universe, irrationally denying the philosophy thereof)

Repeated binary: Biblical God vs. pagan deism

Biblical God creating all natural things vs pagan natural deism. (CCA pseudo-broad naturalism)

RBD Reply #2:

Dismissed philosophical puzzles as "natural reasoning"

Dismisses philosophical confusion as natural reasoning. And now, if applicable, a philosophical irrationalism of a pseudo-broad naturalism of eternal natural entity, that is not old pagan natural deism, if said-entity is without practical thinking.

Quoted scripture as argument-stopper (Romans 9, Colossians 2)

Quotes Scripture as applicable to faulty philosophy of pseudo-broad naturalism fusing natural with supernatural, while calling it a naturalism, and not natural deism.

Made apparent slip: "The Creator is always creating (so universe is thus far eternal)"

Makes logical conclusion: The eternal Creator is always creating, and so will always be creating.

Isa 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Rev 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; And there was no more sea.

But no more seas.

Key Observation:
RBD never acknowledged or responded to W's direct reply (post #117) addressing his binary framing.

Key obsservation:
William confuses RBD with Tanager, who did respond to #217 in #218.

His engagement is with outdated material, ignoring the conversation's evolution.

His CCA philosophical argument old pagan deism, being the same necessary conclusion of life and species evolution without created origin.

Or, new irrational philosophical eternal natural entity without thought nor imagination. thus philosophy finally denying itself as rational thought. If eternal natural unthinking entity has an ending, then it's philosophic demise precedes it, having rational thought. Indeed, it's philosophical support never began.

Gently requested toning down dismissive language. Left ball in RBD's court

Firmly rejecting gentle demand for agreement. RBD court is reason and truth, not agreeing to please.

Gal 1:10
Do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of true Christ.

"Eternal" vs. "Timeless" Distinguished
Eternal = without beginning or end

Timeless = outside time altogether

Timeless denotes enduring relevance with time. There can be no timelessness without time. Where there is time, there can be no out of time, unless time has not begun or ended: Timeless as being without time, can only be with created natural universe with time of days and years.

Spaceless left open

Dittoes spacelessness, that cannot be where there is space. The natural universe is mass that takes up space. Therefore, timeless and spaceless can only be before and/or after a created universe of space and time.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #245]

The CCA doesn’t deny Christ.

CCA denies the Bible Christ and Creator of the natural universe, where the Creator is a Spirit, that is not a natural part of the universal body.

CCA pseudo-broad naturalism with the natural enfolding the 'supernatural', aka eternal natural entity, is either old pagan natural deism. Or, is a new irrational philosophy of an eternal natural entity, that does not think. Hence, irrationally denying it's own philosophy has any thought.

It denies only incoherent supernaturalism.

Ok. Good. The ACC philosophy is simply reworked natural philosophy of old pagan natural deism. The eternal natural entity being coherent, and so by definition is thinking deity, not unthinking entity, i.e. natural matter.

If you think Christ is coherent, we agree.

Your mono-pagan eternal natural Christ, is not the Christ Creator of the Bible. Your Christ is perhaps a product of the theo-philosophic cosmic Christ of the LSD, Aquarius, O'Leary 60's.

If you think Christ is beyond all understanding, then you have a different problem.

The Bible Christ is not beyond understanding:

Job 5:8
I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause: Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number: Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields:

Rom 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!


Unsearchable is not without understanding. The unsearchable Christ and Spirit just can't be proven by natural means, nor comprehended by natural thinking and philosophy.

Luk 17:21
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

The Creating Spirit is unsearchable, because He is not subject to His natural creation, such as an eternal natural Christ entity. But the true eternal Christ Creator is understandable, but only by spiritual thinking and practice , through faith in His self-revealing mind, words, and promises:

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1Co 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


Someone revealing Himself with promises, must first be understood to know and receive Him with the promises.

FYI when push come to shove, supernaturalism could very well be traced back to the very thing you appear to be criticising/condemning - paganism itself and perhaps the central belief of paganism. Tread carefully...

In fact, CCA pseudo-broad natural/supernaturalism of the eternal natural thinking entity, is old pagan natural deism, with a new mono-sort of Christ. It's just another example of old pagan spiritism, that is mono-theo-philosophized into a natural Christ.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

You can philosophically tread on the Christ-name all you like, but not on the only true Christ of the Bible, Jesus.

2Ti 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

[William]

An eternal, infinite God must be omnipresent (fills heaven and earth) and must not be able/cannot create ex nihilo in any coherent sense, because there is no “outside” to create from or into. Creation would have to be from within God’s own being.
The CCA establishes an eternal natural source. It does not explicitly require that source to be infinite in scope, but classical theism apparently does. If we accept that premise, then the following follows within the CCA’s framework:
The equation:

Eternal + infinite = omnipresent (no outside)
No outside = no ex nihilo.
Therefore, creation = from within God’s own being.

[William]

Me: I think that this snippet of argument between T and D in another thread lends itself to the importance of CCA as a potential bridging framework...

"T: Sharks are a successful species and they forcibly copulate. Praying mantis are a successful species and the females will sometimes eat their mate after sex."

"D: And neither of them are social animals. That was my point about jealousy. Most of what we consider our moral framework is made up of social adaptations. As a selfish precept within an otherwise social framework, jealousy is a moral anomaly. It demonstrates that our moral sense is much more likely to be natural than divine. "The exception that proves the rule." (SOURCE)

AI: You’re right — that exchange is a perfect illustration of why the CCA’s bridging function matters.

What’s happening there:

T points to animal behavior (sharks, mantises) as evidence that nature includes behaviors humans would call immoral.

D counters that those animals aren’t social, so their behavior doesn’t undermine social moral frameworks — and argues that moral anomalies like jealousy point to natural social adaptation, not divine command.

The impasse: T and D are talking past each other because they lack a shared framework for what “natural” means. T implies “natural” includes predation and forced copulation, so morality can’t come from nature. D says social morality is natural too - but both are using “natural” in the weak (materialist) sense.

Where the CCA bridges:

The CCA’s broad natural includes both physical nature (sharks) and the conscious Source’s expression (social moral sense as formation of the Source).

It allows that “nature” includes cooperative and predatory behaviors as different formations of the same ground — not as a competition between “natural” and “divine.”

The anomaly of jealousy is not a problem for the CCA. It’s an expected feature of a ground that expresses through limited, conflicted formations.

You could point T and D to the CCA as a framework that dissolves their binary: morality is not “either natural or divine” — it’s divine (Source) expressing as natural formations, including social instincts, moral reasoning, and even anomalies.

That’s the bridge. Not a compromise. A higher resolution.