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?

[1213]

What do you mean by ‘life’?

In this case the difference between dead and alive cell.

[William]

What do you mean by ‘life’?

If you mean biological function (metabolism, reproduction), that’s studied by natural sciences.

If you mean conscious experience, that’s the hard problem - still not ‘supernatural’ in the sense of lawless or beyond all understanding.

Clarify your terms, and we can see if this is a tangent or relevant to the cosmological Coherent Causality argument.

The Coherent Causality Argument does not deny a creator - it only insists that any creator must be part of a coherent, law-like reality (what I call a natural source-entity).

If life seems inexplicable to you, that’s an issue for you, but invoking a supernatural (inexplicable) creator explains nothing. A coherent, natural creator - remains possible within my argument.

In this case the difference between dead and alive cell.

what has that got to do with the thread subject?

[William]

What does the coherent causality argument say? It rejects any first cause that is, arbitrary, incoherent, unintelligible, and beyond conceptual grasp. If “God” is defined in those terms, then yes, God would be considered a supernatural mystery and therefore an inadequate explanation.

But the real question is, should God be defined as a coherent metaphysical necessity, or as an unknowable supernatural agent? Those two concepts behave very differently in philosophical arguments. Now, because Jesus Christ is God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all things therein, John 1:3, and Colossians 1:16, who is God manifest in the flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16, showing himself and proving that he is not a supernatural mystery, doesn’t that prove that God is not a supernatural mystery?

In theology, Jesus does not eliminate the mystery of God; he makes God knowable without reducing God. Christians teach that God is both transcendent and revealed. The New Testament presents Jesus as fully God, fully human, and the visible image of the invisible God. He is the Word made flesh. This means God is not unknowable, but neither is he fully understood. Christ reveals God without exhausting God.

A classic line is, “God is infinitely knowable, yet never fully known.” The Lord did not remove the mystery; he made the mystery personal and relational. He made God intelligible, not “non-mysterious.” So, from the perspective of the Coherent Causality Argument, “supernatural mystery” is something unintelligible, incoherent, or beyond conceptual grasp. But the Christian claim is that God is not incoherent; he is infinite. Those are two different things.

Jesus reveals that God is rational, purposeful, personal, morally intelligible, and relational. This is why Christians claim Jesus is the “self-revelation” of God, not the “explanation” of God in a reductive sense. There are two simultaneous truths: God remains infinite, eternal, and beyond creation; this is the “mystery” part. But he entered creation in a way humans could understand; this is the “revelation” part. The incarnation did not shrink God down to human size; it brought humanity up into a relationship with the infinite.

Question: Did Jesus prove God is not a supernatural mystery? What he proved is that God is not an incoherent mystery; he is not arbitrary, chaotic, or conceptually impossible. He is not an unknowable mystery. Why? Because he revealed himself in history, in flesh, in words, and in actions. Yet he is not a fully comprehensible being, because no finite mind can exhaust the infinite. Jesus did not eliminate mystery; he transformed it into a relationship. To conclude, the incarnation was not the removal of divine mystery; it was the revelation of divine coherence.

Just reading what you wrote above,, it is obvious that it aligns with The Coherent Causality Argument.
Yes,, you seek to "explain" why it is "acceptable" to ALSO regard the Bible God as "supernatural" as if this is necessary because of human ignorance - but what does this actualise in Christian thinking and subsequent behaviour. What does it matter that the bulk of information regarding the First Source Entity is unknown to any human mind, that we can label that as "supernatural"? Who does that help? What does that obtain?

For example - does it help in keeping the bible God at arm's length? That one uses mediums as a means of placebo-connecting with so-labelled "supernatural" subjects - especially the Bible itself, as if by searching the scriptures over a lifetime will produce relationship with something otherwise off-limits due to its "supernatural" unreachability...as if one can "know" the God which is supernatural, by doing so.

And paradoxically, where the Bible does point to means of connection - real connection with that entity - the supernatural curtain prevents one from obtaining that connection, even that verses insist that it is - not only possible - but necessary...

...Jesus’s core mission, as presented in the Gospels, is to make God knowable.

Key sayings that show the Bible God's desire to be known:

The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9): “Our Father in heaven...” Establishes an accessible, familial relationship, not a distant, unknowable force.

John 14:7-9: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also… Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus explicitly identifies Himself as the perfect, knowable revelation of God.

Sure, there is mystery in that anyone who was not present in that time, have not "seen" Jesus - but the mystery is solvable - not in searching the script but in understanding that "seeing" isn't about the fleshy eye-brain coordination and witness, but the deeper recognition which comes ONLY through connection with and relationship formed...

Matthew 11:27: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” The Son’s primary role is to reveal the Father to others.
How does one be "chosen" by Jesus? Certainly not by thinking of the Father as an unknowable, supernatural entity...

John 17:3: “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Defines salvation itself as knowledge of God - a relational knowing.

The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15): God is depicted as a shepherd who actively seeks out the lost. A distant, unknowable deity does not seek. The Shepherd remains unrecognized by those sheep who have consigned the Shepherd to an unreachable "supernatural" which is "unknowable".

Conclusion from Jesus’s teachings: The God Jesus reveals is inherently self-disclosing and relational. The desire to be known is central to His character. This directly contradicts the “strong supernatural” God who is defined as fundamentally unknowable and beyond relationship. It perfectly aligns, however, with my coherent, personal source whose nature includes the will to be known by its creation.

So, decide - if not today, then soon. Is your investment in Bible study (that you have spoken of in the many threads you have started on this forum) linked to your belief in a supernatural God who remains largely unknown to human beings and so relationship with a bound set of books is your only option - the placebo...

...or real relationship with an Entity who can be known personally and communed with in every instance of moment of one's lifetime...and beyond...

[1213]

what has that got to do with the thread subject?

I just want to know what can be seen as supernatural. But, if you feel it not necessary, or too difficult question, you can ignore this.

[William]

what has that got to do with the thread subject?

I just want to know what can be seen as supernatural. But, if you feel it not necessary, or too difficult question, you can ignore this.

If you feel you have something to say re life and supernaturalism, say it. I am happy to respond to that type of debate style and am sure that the Opening Post will cover any argument supernaturalism attempts to bring to this table...but sorry, your passive aggressive wording here has no effect on my ability to remain focused on the actual thread topic.

[alexxcJRO]

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

Nothing really begins to exit. We have just constructed concepts and delimitation in "time" and "space" in order to make sense of it all.
It's all a continuous quantum field with excitations which act as "particles".

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

The beggining of our universe maybe it is just a transitional form of something that is evolving from state x to state y.
Our "universe" may just a part of a bigger multiverse->...>omni-verse.

C1: Therefore, this universe has a natural cause.
P4: A supernatural cause, by definition, is beyond natural laws, understanding, and evidence, thus it cannot function as a causal explanation.

There is nothing that is not natural. There is only things that are known or not known.
Just like “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” the same : " Any sufficiently advanced phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic/supernatural".

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.

We cannot know if the known/intuitive causal principle is a universal thing and what really unintuitive/mind boggling things may lay in all reality-omniverse.

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.

We cannot know what king of time/entropic related existence is beyond our space time place.
Speculating about timeless and eternal things seems ill advised.

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

Infinite regress may not be such a problem people make it out to be.
I have never heard a convincing argument against infinite regress.

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

A personal, interactive God is discoverable scientifically.
A personal, interactive, omni God that wants to have a relationship with every human cannot coexist with genuine disbelief in him. It is illogical.
Since science has not discovered God and genuine disbelief in Yahweh-Jesus exists means we have just an imagined concept on our hands. The God of the Bible is not real.

[William]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #16]

Nothing really begins to exit. We have just constructed concepts and delimitation in "time" and "space" in order to make sense of it all.
It's all a continuous quantum field with excitations which act as "particles".

My argument establishes the category of cause required (coherent, necessary). Whether that category is filled by a quantum field, a multiverse, or a conscious ground is a separate question for physics and metaphysics. But logically, it cannot be filled by an incoherent 'strong supernatural' mystery.

The beggining of our universe maybe it is just a transitional form of something that is evolving from state x to state y.
Our "universe" may just a part of a bigger multiverse->...>omni-verse.

If our universe is a phase of a larger eternal reality, that larger reality is my 'source reality.' The argument still holds; the "cause" is just the prior state of the broader system.

Infinite regress may not be such a problem people make it out to be.
I have never heard a convincing argument against infinite regress.

An infinite regress of contingent explanations never provides a sufficient reason for why anything exists at all. It defers the question forever. A necessary/eternal ground (even an impersonal quantum field) is the only coherent stopping point.

The God of the Bible is not real.

That is a problem for personal theism so it's outside the scope of my logical argument for a coherent first cause.

Alexx, you seem to agree that any cause must be 'natural' (coherent). You're just skeptical about our ability to know its properties. That's fine. My argument doesn't require full knowledge - only that whatever the first cause is, it cannot be defined as incoherent ('strong supernatural').

Your multiverse/quantum field speculation is a candidate for my 'eternal natural source.' The disagreement is whether this source must be necessary (to avoid an infinite explanatory regress) or could be part of an infinite chain. That's a separate metaphysical debate, but note: even an infinite quantum field, if it exists necessarily, fits my conclusion.

Re your epistemological tangents - My argument doesn't claim to describe the source's properties intuitively or completely. It establishes that for an explanation to be valid, it must belong to the category of coherent, necessary causes. Whether such a cause is intuitive or describable in human terms is secondary. Your caution is noted, but it doesn't change the logical necessity of the category itself

[1213]

If you feel you have something to say re life and supernaturalism, say it. I am happy to respond to that type of debate style and am sure that the Opening Post will cover any argument supernaturalism attempts to bring to this table...but sorry, your passive aggressive wording here has no effect on my ability to remain focused on the actual thread topic.

Ok, in that case I just say:

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

If something is beyond understanding and evidence, it explains nothing, because then one doesn't understand it and has no idea about the matter.

I believe God is the ultimate cause, but I don't think God is beyond understanding and evidence. If supernatural means "beyond understanding and evidence", then God is not supernatural.

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

Personally interactive does not necessary mean God could not be beyond understanding. But obviously any interaction can be seen as evidence.

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #18]

Good. Thank you.
So we agree: a valid first cause cannot be 'supernatural' in the strong sense (incoherent, beyond understanding). You affirm God is not that. Therefore, God must be part of a coherent, understandable causal reality - what I term the 'eternal natural source.' Your 'God' and my 'conscious source entity' are logically equivalent in this framework.

Personally interactive does not necessary mean God could not be beyond understanding. But obviously any interaction can be seen as evidence.

The question is 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 direct, logical answer to Q2 is "NO." This BECAUSE, If God is strongly supernatural (incoherent, lawless), then His interactions are arbitrary and inexplicable by definition. A "personal relationship" with an arbitrary, lawless force is a contradiction in terms as there is no consistent character or reliable will to relate to.

[alexxcJRO]

My argument establishes the category of cause required (coherent, necessary). Whether that category is filled by a quantum field, a multiverse, or a conscious ground is a separate question for physics and metaphysics. But logically, it cannot be filled by an incoherent 'strong supernatural' mystery.

Like I said: " There is nothing that is not natural. There is only things that are known or not known."

The Causal principle of sufficient reason is consistent with indeterministic causes.

You could have Indeterministic causes. Events that initiate effects without guaranteeing them- meaning the cause is necessary but not sufficient for the outcome.
The reality is a certain way. There is a limited range of options that could happen at certain point. One of options x1 did happen that lead to Big Bang. There is no explaning why you got option x1 and not the others(x2, x3, x4, ...).

If our universe is a phase of a larger eternal reality, that larger reality is my 'source reality.' The argument still holds; the "cause" is just the prior state of the broader system.

There is no source reality. It is simply reality. And we have things in it that evolve from different state to other states.

An infinite regress of contingent explanations never provides a sufficient reason for why anything exists at all. It defers the question forever. A necessary/eternal ground (even an impersonal quantum field) is the only coherent stopping point.

So your argument is :
1. Either infinite regress or unmoved conscious mover/unmoved unconscious thing.
2. Not infinite regress.
C: Unmoved conscious mover/unmoved unconscious thing.

Even if the every part of a set is having a cause, it does not mean the entire set needs to have a cause.

Analogy: Even if every part of thing is moving, it does not mean the entire thing is moving.

I do not have issues with such a set.

Alexx, you seem to agree that any cause must be 'natural' (coherent). You're just skeptical about our ability to know its properties. That's fine. My argument doesn't require full knowledge - only that whatever the first cause is, it cannot be defined as incoherent ('strong supernatural').

The invention of a secondary realm and splitting reality in "natural reality" and "supernatural reality" seems superfluous.