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?

[William]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #20]

Re 'Source Reality' - If 'Reality' (with a capital R) is eternal and contains our universe as a state, then that eternal Reality is what I call the 'source reality' or 'necessary ground.' We agree it's not 'supernatural.' We may disagree on whether it's a conscious ground, but that's separate.

Re Indeterminism - Indeterministic causes (like quantum events) are still natural, coherent events within a framework of laws (probability fields, conservation laws). They don't represent 'strong supernatural' incoherence. My argument isn't for determinism, but for coherent causality.

Re Infinite Regress - The Crux - Your analogy is flawed. The question isn't about the motion of parts vs. whole. It's about the existence of the set itself. If every member of a set is contingent (could not-exist), the set's existence is unexplained. An infinite chain of 'contingent thing caused by prior contingent thing' never answers: 'Why does this chain of contingent things exist at all, rather than nothing?' To say 'it just does' is to abandon the search for a sufficient reason. My argument is that a necessary existent (whether an unconscious quantum field or a conscious ground) provides that reason.

Re the Split - I'm not splitting reality. I'm defining the logical requirements for an ultimate explanation. The 'supernatural' label is only used to exclude incoherent explanations. You agree there's 'nothing that is not natural.' So do I. We're on the same side against 'strong supernaturalism.'

In short, we agree more than we disagree. The real debate between us appears to be "Does the totality of contingent existence require a necessary ground, or can it be a brute, infinite, unexplained fact? That's a deep metaphysical choice, not a scientific one. My argument is that the former is more coherent.

As my Coherent Causality Argument re the Note on Consciousness stated, if the source is conscious, it provides a coherent origin for experience. This isn't a requirement, but a logically consistent possibility that solves the hard problem at a metaphysical level.

Your model - an infinite, brute-fact chain of contingent events - offers no such possibility. Consciousness within it is a merely an unexplained magical emergent property with no ultimate reason for existing. The hard problem isn't just unsolved; it's rendered necessarily inexplicable.

So we have a choice between two coherent models of a 'natural' reality:

An eternal, necessary, conscious ground (which explains consciousness).

An eternal, brute-fact, unconscious chain (which cannot explain consciousness).

Both fit my 'coherent cause' category. But which provides a more complete and sufficient explanation of the reality we actually experience, which includes subjective awareness?

[alexxcJRO]

Re Infinite Regress - The Crux - Your analogy is flawed. The question isn't about the motion of parts vs. whole. It's about the existence of the set itself. If every member of a set is contingent (could not-exist), the set's existence is unexplained. An infinite chain of 'contingent thing caused by prior contingent thing' never answers: 'Why does this chain of contingent things exist at all, rather than nothing?' To say 'it just does' is to abandon the search for a sufficient reason. My argument is that a necessary existent (whether an unconscious quantum field or a conscious ground) provides that reason.

Q: Special pleading much?!
Q: One could be asking the same thing: why does the omni-being exist at all, rather than nothing? As one would be asking why does the omni-verse(with stop gaps or not) exist at all, rather than nothing?

As my Coherent Causality Argument re the Note on Consciousness stated, if the source is conscious, it provides a coherent origin for experience. This isn't a requirement, but a logically consistent possibility that solves the hard problem at a metaphysical level.
Your model - an infinite, brute-fact chain of contingent events - offers no such possibility. Consciousness within it is a merely an unexplained magical emergent property with no ultimate reason for existing. The hard problem isn't just unsolved; it's rendered necessarily inexplicable
So we have a choice between two coherent models of a 'natural' reality:
An eternal, necessary, conscious ground (which explains consciousness).
An eternal, brute-fact, unconscious chain (which cannot explain consciousness).
Both fit my 'coherent cause' category. But which provides a more complete and sufficient explanation of the reality we actually experience, which includes subjective awareness?

Your argument is not as bad as some other arguments out there.
Although is a debated issue only ~ 60 % of philosophers believe is a real issue.
You argument is contingent on it being a real issue(Hard problem of consciousness).

[William]

Re Infinite Regress - The Crux - Your analogy is flawed. The question isn't about the motion of parts vs. whole. It's about the existence of the set itself. If every member of a set is contingent (could not-exist), the set's existence is unexplained. An infinite chain of 'contingent thing caused by prior contingent thing' never answers: 'Why does this chain of contingent things exist at all, rather than nothing?' To say 'it just does' is to abandon the search for a sufficient reason. My argument is that a necessary existent (whether an unconscious quantum field or a conscious ground) provides that reason.

Q: Special pleading much?!

The distinction is between contingent (could not exist) and necessary (could not fail to exist). A necessary ground by definition provides its own reason for existence. An infinite chain of contingent things never does. Each link, and the whole, remains unexplained. This is not special pleading; it's a metaphysical distinction between brute contingency and self-sufficient necessity.

Q: One could be asking the same thing: why does the omni-being exist at all, rather than nothing? As one would be asking why does the omni-verse(with stop gaps or not) exist at all, rather than nothing?

The necessary ground exists necessarily - its existence is self-explanatory by its nature. The infinite contingent chain exists contingently - there is no reason within it for its existence. Equating the two is a category error. One provides a terminal explanation; the other is an endless deferral.
My model also allows for a possible conscious Source without the baggage of maximal properties.

As my Coherent Causality Argument re the Note on Consciousness stated, if the source is conscious, it provides a coherent origin for experience. This isn't a requirement, but a logically consistent possibility that solves the hard problem at a metaphysical level.
Your model - an infinite, brute-fact chain of contingent events - offers no such possibility. Consciousness within it is a merely an unexplained magical emergent property with no ultimate reason for existing. The hard problem isn't just unsolved; it's rendered necessarily inexplicable
So we have a choice between two coherent models of a 'natural' reality:
An eternal, necessary, conscious ground (which explains consciousness).
An eternal, brute-fact, unconscious chain (which cannot explain consciousness).
Both fit my 'coherent cause' category. But which provides a more complete and sufficient explanation of the reality we actually experience, which includes subjective awareness?

Your argument is not as bad as some other arguments out there.
Although is a debated issue only ~ 60 % of philosophers believe is a real issue.

The hard problem highlights an explanatory gap in purely physical models.
The debate isn't about consensus; it's about which model has the logical resources to explain all the data.
The relevant question is not "Do most philosophers believe it's a problem?" but rather: "Which metaphysical framework - a necessary conscious ground or an infinite unconscious chain - can coherently account for the reality of subjective experience?

Your argument is contingent on it being a real issue (Hard problem of consciousness).

My conscious ground model would solve it if it exists, while your brute chain guarantees it remains unsolvable. This gives my model the explanatory advantage - it could account for a major feature of reality (consciousness) that your model must treat as a permanent, inexplicable mystery...the same thing that supernaturalism does. Both are explanatory dead ends.

You must now either defend why an infinite contingent chain is a sufficient explanation and argue why the hard problem isn't a genuine metaphysical issue, (without retreating into brute assertion), or concede.

[alexxcJRO]

The distinction is between contingent (could not exist) and necessary (could not fail to exist). A necessary ground by definition provides its own reason for existence. An infinite chain of contingent things never does. Each link, and the whole, remains unexplained. This is not special pleading; it's a metaphysical distinction between brute contingency and self-sufficient necessity.
The distinction is between contingent (could not exist) and necessary (could not fail to exist). A necessary ground by definition provides its own reason for existence. An infinite chain of contingent things never does. Each link, and the whole, remains unexplained. This is not special pleading; it's a metaphysical distinction between brute contingency and self-sufficient necessity.

The individual element of the set could not exist. But maybe the set in whole could not fail to exist.
Like we could have setY: ... x1, x2, x3 , ... xn, xn+1, ... or setY: ... x2, x3, ... xn, xn+1, ...
x1 could not exist but setY could not fail to exist.

The necessary ground exists necessarily - its existence is self-explanatory by its nature. The infinite contingent chain exists contingently - there is no reason within it for its existence. Equating the two is a category error. One provides a terminal explanation; the other is an endless deferral.
My model also allows for a possible conscious Source without the baggage of maximal properties.

To get to your conclusions you use terms like "beginning to exist", "causality ".
"Beginning to exist" is rendered moot by B-Theory of time type Block Universe where nothing begins to exist. Temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once. Imagine time like a space dimension.
On B theory, all of the moments of time exist tenselessly at once.

"Causality" which was known in the classical sense and intuitive sense also has become fuzzy in the last century.
Quantum Mechanics is relativistically causal. You have relativistic indeterministic, probabilistically deterministic, deterministic and superdeterministic depending on the interpretation.

The wavefunction collapse in entangled particles appears to happen instantaneously. Happens at the same "now" and not in the future light cone of one of particles. So local realism is gone.

You have "Indefinite Causal Order" which is quantum phenomenon where the sequence of events: A before B or B before A exist in a quantum superposition with no clear ordered timeline.

https://physicsworld.com/a/indefinite-c ... nd-effect/

Who knows what unintuitive, totally weird, beyond our 2-3 digits IQ phenomena and principles exist in the whole reality-omniverse that make out terms ridiculous.
So making conclusions about all reality-omniverse based on terms that may describe only our pocket-local universe may be unproductive and meaningless.
Playing with words usually does not help. Science helps. Doing experiments.

The hard problem highlights an explanatory gap in purely physical models.
The debate isn't about consensus; it's about which model has the logical resources to explain all the data.
The relevant question is not "Do most philosophers believe it's a problem?" but rather: "Which metaphysical framework - a necessary conscious ground or an infinite unconscious chain - can coherently account for the reality of subjective experience?

Nonsense.
"According to a 2020 PhilPapers survey, roughly 60% to 62.4% of philosophers surveyed believed that the "hard problem" of consciousness is a genuine, existing problem. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... %20overlap.

[William]

Alexx, your objections from B-theory and quantum mechanics don't engage my argument; they attempt to change the subject. My argument isn't about the mechanics of time or causality within reality. It's about the logical requirement that any ultimate cause must be coherent - not an arbitrary mystery.

You're using physics to suggest reality might be 'unintelligible.' That's functionally the same as positing a 'strong supernatural' cause: both declare the fundamental 'why' to be unanswerable. That's an admission of explanatory failure.

My model provides a coherent explanatory terminus: a necessary, understandable ground. Your model offers either an infinite regress (which explains nothing) or an appeal to ultimate unintelligibility (which also explains nothing). The result is the same as any argument from supernaturalism: a dead end. Which is precisely what my argument is designed to expose.

[Difflugia]

Alexx, your objections from B-theory and quantum mechanics don't engage my argument;

They absolutely do. They engage the very heart of your argument. If one of the premises is untrue, then your syllogism is invalid. Alexx is arguing that P2 is untrue.

My model provides a coherent explanatory terminus: a necessary, understandable ground.

If either P1 or P2 is untrue, then your coherent explanatory terminus, elegant and understandable though it may be, only applies to realities that are different than ours. That's the Achilles' heel of all variants of Kalam.

[William]

The B-theory of time (or tenseless theory) posits that time is a static, 4D block universe where all moments—past, present, and future—are equally real. It argues that the flow of time and the "present" are subjective illusions of consciousness, with temporal relations ordered only by "earlier than," "simultaneous with," or "later than

The key insight is that the CCA's "beginning" refers to ontological dependence, not temporal initiation. B-theory doesn't touch this metaphysical question.

Difflugia,

You are correct to note the distinction: B-theory typically holds that consciousness is real, but its experience of temporal flow is an illusion of consciousness within the static block.

This clarification, however, intensifies the problem for your position, rather than solving it.

If consciousness is real but the block is static and unconscious, then B-theory must explain:

How consciousness exists within, a fundamentally unconscious reality.

Why this consciousness universally and consistently generates the specific, pervasive illusion of temporal flow.

This does not solve the hard problem; it compounds it. The "illusion" is not explained; it is merely labeled.

This is precisely why my CCA's approach is superior. It does not need to explain how consciousness emerges from the unconscious. By allowing the necessary ground to be conscious, consciousness is integrated at the foundation. The experience of time - whether an "illusion" or a mode of perception - becomes a feature of how consciousness regards itself, rather than being some type of glitch in an unconscious system.

Therefore, B-theory does not falsify my premise. It changes the description of the universe (from a temporal sequence to a static block), but it does not address the metaphysical question my argument poses: What is the coherent, necessary ground for this reality - block or otherwise - and for the consciousness being part of it?

Your objection is a semantic shift that avoids the harder ontological question. My CCA provides a framework to answer it.

If all things exist eternally and timelessly under B-theory, then no thing can "arise" (have a beginning) including consciousness.
And since it is consciousness that determines what exists, and since consciousness prefers to examine existence as time-based and explore it as such - B-theory collapses under it own apparent contradiction.

See also:
Re: Steelmanning the Argument From Consciousness
Post #36

[Difflugia]

The key insight is that the CCA's "beginning" refers to ontological dependence, not temporal initiation.

Two things:

First, if that's what you mean, then the cosmologies to which you appeal in your P2 don't actually support your P2. The cosmologies that you're talking about are referring to temporal initiation.

Second, that doesn't help in showing that P1 and P2 are both true. If you mean your overall explanation to be merely speculative, then that's fine, but my understanding is that you're arguing that it's actually true.

This is precisely why my CCA's approach is superior. It does not need to explain how consciousness emerges from the unconscious. By allowing the necessary ground to be conscious, consciousness is integrated at the foundation.

You're just shifting the unanswered question. Even if your syllogism is 100% logically consistent, you've still just declared your premises true by fiat. I can build the same sort of syllogism:

P1: Anything that begins to exist was created by a leprechaun.
P2: The universe began to exist.

C1: They're after me Lucky Charms! Leprechauns exist.

I could then go on to posit that the consciousness of the Prime Leprechaun is transferred to the universe or somesuch, but that doesn't give us a reason to think that it's true. The reason that the Kalam gets such press in apologetic circles is because the premises sound to a lot of people like they ought to be true. They have exactly the same amount of actual evidence for them as my premises do, though.

Therefore, B-theory does not falsify my premise.

Then you're equivocating on "beginning." The "beginning" that most cosmologies accept (to which you appeal for your P2) is false within B-theory.

It changes the description of the universe (from a temporal sequence to a static block), but it does not address the metaphysical question my argument poses: What is the coherent, necessary ground for this reality - block or otherwise - and for the consciousness being part of it?

If you're offering your argument as speculative, then it's interesting and the form of your syllogism makes that clear whether you intended that or not: IF the universe fits a particular mold, THEN your explanation is meaningful.

Your objection is a semantic shift that avoids the harder ontological question. My CCA provides a framework to answer it.

Again, if you're arguing it as reasonable based on a speculative set of premises, then that's fine. No notes. That's not how I've been reading your argument, though.

[William]

The Opening post frames the CCA as a reasoned, plausible alternative, not an ironclad deductive proof. The two questions are invitations for debate, not declarations of victory.

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?

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:

It argues that IF one seeks a causal explanation for the universe, and IF one rejects incoherent "strong supernaturalism," THEN the most coherent conclusion is an eternal natural source. This is a conditional, philosophical argument, not a mathematical proof.

The CCA is a philosophical argument for the best available explanation.

My premises are not asserted 'by fiat.' P2 is supported by the scientific consensus of modern cosmology (the finite age and low entropy past of the universe). P1 and P3 are metaphysical principles (the principle of sufficient reason applied to natural events). They are reasonable starting points for seeking an explanation.

While the evidence for P2 is temporal, the metaphysical conclusion (C1) is about ontological dependence.

Your conscious leprechaun analogy fails because it inserts an arbitrary, incoherent entity with zero explanatory power. My argument points to a coherent, necessary ground - the only kind of entity that could function as an ultimate explanation. My prior post critiquing b-theory also mentions the attribute of consciousness re a coherent, necessary ground.

I'm not 'equivocating' on 'beginning.' I'm using the empirical fact of cosmic contingency (P2 - evidenced by cosmology) to argue for an ontological ground. B-theory changes the description of what exists from a sequence to a block, but it doesn't answer why that contingent block exists at all. The CCA provides a framework for that answer.

Meantime, you have not engaged with the core of my prior post which critiqued b-theory and your comment that Alexx's introduction of b-theory does engage with CCA. My subsequent post showed how this is not the case. Please engage with that so as to keep within the subject.

[alexxcJRO]

Alexx, your objections from B-theory and quantum mechanics don't engage my argument; they attempt to change the subject. My argument isn't about the mechanics of time or causality within reality. It's about the logical requirement that any ultimate cause must be coherent - not an arbitrary mystery.
You're using physics to suggest reality might be 'unintelligible.' That's functionally the same as positing a 'strong supernatural' cause: both declare the fundamental 'why' to be unanswerable. That's an admission of explanatory failure.

You are using terms like "beginning to exist" and "causality(some consistent framework of cause and effect)" in more classical way but try to apply them universally(omniverse style universal).
Like talking in "Newtonian Physics" logic and trying to make conclusions about all reality-omniverse. And "Newtonian Physics" breaks down at high speed(we need special relativity), breaks down at microscopic scale(we quantum mechanics), it breaks down near black holes(we need General Relativity).

I am not saying it needs to be a mystery.

I am saying you cannot make conclusion about whole reality-omniverse based on known logic, principles, and science derived from your local pocket universe.

Its like a man living in medieval times and making conclusions about whole reality-omniverse based on known logic, principles, and science derived from his known local pocket universe: "Earth".

My model provides a coherent explanatory terminus: a necessary, understandable ground. Your model offers either an infinite regress (which explains nothing) or an appeal to ultimate unintelligibility (which also explains nothing). The result is the same as any argument from supernaturalism: a dead end. Which is precisely what my argument is designed to expose.

Complete failure of understanding my position.
I am not offering nothing sir. I do not necessarily believe there is an infinite set of things.
I am saying there may be possibilities where you think there is not.
The infinite set may exist necessarily just as your necessary stop-gap omni-being.

Also you are arbitrary putting the stop-gap at start of our space-time local universe. The stop-gap if it exists may lay like this: stopgap->cacaverse->luluverse->tibiverse->multiverse->our local pocket-universe.