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 #230]

You have asked me to share the mechanism of the Source. I have stated it clearly: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. The mechanism is built into the nature of matter itself - it forms, expresses, becomes (in formation). No gap. No separate substance. No act of will upon nothing.

God is a willful soul, what we call creation is matter coming into existence. The mechanism is built into the nature of God itself - He creates matter where it wasn’t before. No gap. A separate substance. An act of will, not upon nothing, but to bring into existence other somethings.

Why is yours an explanation but mine isn’t? Why is mine a description of what I claim happens not how it happens, but yours is about how it happens? Why is mine just naming the capacity while yours isn’t? Mine follows your explanation exactly except that there is different content in the form, but the form is the important bit here to say what counts as an explanation, otherwise you are special pleading.

You ask which premise in the CCA says the Source is not immaterial. The CCA defines "natural" in broad terms: coherent, lawful, understandable. Strong supernaturalism, beyond understanding, lawless - is excluded by P4. If your "immaterial" means that, you have conceded. If it means something else, you need to define it without creating a gap.

My ‘immaterial’ does not mean beyond understanding or lawless. I've explained it exactly the way you explained the Source.

On the verses: you claim water-in-container is a "common reading." But you also claim continuity/discontinuity was not a live question. If the culture was not asking the question, why assume the container reading is the correct lens? You are CONTINUING using silence when it suits you and inference when it suits you.

Jeremiah isn’t trying to directly answer the question of continuity/discontinuity. This doesn’t mean what he writes can’t have implications for that question.

The CCA reading doesn't require extra work. It takes the text at its word: God fills heaven and earth.

You are saying the plain reading of the phrase of the form “X fills Y” (where different terms are used) is ontological continuity. Ask your AI whether that or that X and Y pick out distinct things is the common way to interpret that kind of phrase.

If God is the Source, and heaven and earth are formations within that Source, then "filling" means "being the reality in which they exist"—not "occupying a separate container somehow purpose built to occupy the Source" especially when no explanation for how a supposed Source Entity which is immaterial can occupy a material vase, given that water is also material as the container is...thus even using water as an analogy for a supposed immaterial entity defeats the attempt at explanation. If the ancients with their "common reading" couldn't understand that then, it would seem foolish for us who can understand it now, to go along with the old way of thinking just to honor "tradition".

You are faulting a metaphor for not being literal?

On the incarnation: you say Paul condemns God in idols, not God in any material. But the logic of your position requires a distinction you have not provided. If God cannot be in gold or stone, why can God be in flesh? You need to explain why one is ignorance and the other is not. "God took on human nature" is the claim, not the explanation.

Human bodies are not carved out of silver, gold, stone by humans; idols are You don’t see this distinction?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #231]

Why is mine an explanation while yours is not?
The difference is not just content; it's coherence. I have explained how wilful matter produces formations. You have yet to explain how "immaterial" produces material.

Claiming that the Eternal Source Entity "creates matter where it wasn’t before" produces a gap not an explanation. It is an expression of strong supernaturalism while it remains a non-explanatory claim. Yours is special pleading on account of that. Nothing more.

Your ‘immaterial’ remains beyond understanding or lawless. your have not explained it exactly the way I explained the Source, because I have never explained the Eternal Source Entity as "immaterial". Please cease with claims that I’m really meaning/doing something else than what I say.

Re "God fills heaven and earth" and you wanting the "common way to interpret that kind of phrase" is simply arguing for the wisdom of ancient tradition over modern interpretation. I already critiqued the wisdom of doing so. The CCA is modern architecture critiquing supernaturalism. Complaining about that rather than addressing my critique gets us nowhere.

Yes - I fault the metaphor for not being literal. If Paul or anyone else (including you) are arguing for "immaterial" then use a metaphor which does so. Sneaking in "water = immaterial" only muddies the waters because it does not in any way explain what immaterial actual is.

Standard definitions:

Oxford Languages:

Immaterial: "not consisting of matter; incorporeal."

Synonyms: non-material, intangible, incorporeal, spiritual, ethereal.

Philosophical usage:

That which is not composed of matter

Often implies a separate substance or order of reality (e.g., mind/soul distinct from body)

You claim "immaterial" does not mean beyond understanding or lawless - so your are trying to fit it into broad/strong natural of the CCA. But you are still stuck with the core problem: if immaterial means "not consisting of matter," then you still need to explain how something not consisting of matter produces matter. "Will" doesn't bridge that gap.

The CCA (and I) don't use "immaterial." The Eternal Source Entity is wilful matter. That's a positive claim about what it is, not what it is not. Matter, in this model, is eternal, wilful, expressive. There's no need for an "immaterial" category that I can see, as long as an explanation of what that is and how that functions remains absent.

Also, what makes you think after what I wrote that I don't see the distinction between bibles, crucifixes sacraments et al being things created by human hands while planets et al are not?

Moving Forward

You have now, in this thread and elsewhere, agreed that the CCA is true, that strong supernaturalism is out, and that any coherent cause fits broad natural. Questions are now about about what follows from that framework.

One such question is the Kingdom of God. If the Source is wilful matter, and creation is matter taking form, then the Kingdom is not a distant/different realm where the Eternal Source Entity resides that one can enter but the reality of the ESE recognized within one's SELF. Jesus said it is within "you" (Luke 17:21). That is the next application of the CCA lens. What the realisation signifies.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #232]

You have asked me to share the mechanism of the Source. I have stated it clearly: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. The mechanism is built into the nature of matter itself - it forms, expresses, becomes (in formation). No gap. No separate substance. No act of will upon nothing.

God is a willful soul, what we call creation is matter coming into existence. The mechanism is built into the nature of God itself - He creates matter where it wasn’t before. No gap. A separate substance. An act of will, not upon nothing, but to bring into existence other somethings.

Why is mine an explanation while yours is not?
The difference is not just content; it's coherence. I have explained how wilful matter produces formations. You have yet to explain how "immaterial" produces material.

Claiming that the Eternal Source Entity "creates matter where it wasn’t before" produces a gap not an explanation. It is an expression of strong supernaturalism while it remains a non-explanatory claim. Yours is special pleading on account of that. Nothing more.

Your ‘immaterial’ remains beyond understanding or lawless. your have not explained it exactly the way I explained the Source, because I have never explained the Eternal Source Entity as "immaterial". Please cease with claims that I’m really meaning/doing something else than what I say.

You not explaining it as immaterial is different content. I mirrored the form of your explanation exactly with only changing content. You are then simply saying it is a gap and not an explanation simply because of my different content. That is special pleading. My content could have flaws that make it untrue, but it would still have been an explanation and not a gap.

Re "God fills heaven and earth" and you wanting the "common way to interpret that kind of phrase" is simply arguing for the wisdom of ancient tradition over modern interpretation. I already critiqued the wisdom of doing so. The CCA is modern architecture critiquing supernaturalism. Complaining about that rather than addressing my critique gets us nowhere.

We are interpreting an ancient text and you are claiming that your interpretation isn’t just a modern interpretation but how the ancient text "plainly reads". I think this response implies that you know your interpretation reads the text in a non-typical way. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily false, but it does mean that “a plain reading of the text” doesn’t support your interpretation and you have more work to do.

Yes - I fault the metaphor for not being literal. If Paul or anyone else (including you) are arguing for "immaterial" then use a metaphor which does so. Sneaking in "water = immaterial" only muddies the waters because it does not in any way explain what immaterial actual is.

Oxford Languages defines metaphor as “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.” Faulting a metaphor for not being literal is illogical by definition.

You are also misapplying the context of this metaphor. I am not using it to explain what the immaterial actually is. I’m using it to explain that the phrase “I fill the heavens and the earth” doesn’t “plainly” read ontological continuity between the X that fills Y.

In context, this phrase is in a passage where Jeremiah is speaking of God’s judgment on lying prophets. Those prophets are acting like they can do some things without God seeing them. God responds with “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” In other words, Jeremiah is saying God sees all they do without explaining how that actually works (because God is immaterially present everywhere or everything is a formation of the Source Entity, or God has agents everywhere that report back to him, etc.).

On the incarnation: you say Paul condemns God in idols, not God in any material. But the logic of your position requires a distinction you have not provided. If God cannot be in gold or stone, why can God be in flesh? You need to explain why one is ignorance and the other is not. "God took on human nature" is the claim, not the explanation.

Human bodies are not carved out of silver, gold, stone by humans; idols are You don’t see this distinction?

Also, what makes you think after what I wrote that I don't see the distinction between bibles, crucifixes sacraments et al being things created by human hands while planets et al are not?

When did I say that you don’t see a distinction between those things? You (in the bolded above) said my position requires me to provide the distinction between God being in gold/stone idols and in human flesh through the incarnation of Jesus. If you see the distinction there, then you are dropping your previous critique. If you don't see the distinction then help me to see why you don't.

You have now, in this thread and elsewhere, agreed that the CCA is true, that strong supernaturalism is out, and that any coherent cause fits broad natural. Questions are now about about what follows from that framework.

One such question is the Kingdom of God. If the Source is wilful matter, and creation is matter taking form, then

This bolded part looks like a big jump to me. I don’t see any phrasing in your CCA, the argument you laid out in premise form, that shows the Source is willful matter and that creation is matter taking form. Which premise does that? I think this is still your latest formulation:

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

…nothing in P1…

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

…nothing here…

C1: Therefore, this universe has a natural cause.

…nothing here…

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.

…nothing here about being material…

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

…nothing here about being material…

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

…maybe here and I've misunderstood your CCA still? But, if so, how does this follow from the premises above? “Natural” in P3 didn’t say anything about the natural cause having to be material.

P5: This source reality may be eternal, not timeless, or uncreated relative to our universe, but it is still natural in the sense of being coherent, consistent, and conceptually describable.

…nothing here…

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

…nothing here…

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #233]

You are now defending “willful soul + ex nihilo” as an explanation of the same type as “wilful matter + formation.” But ex nihilo is not a mechanism; it’s the absence of mechanism. You confuse formal mirroring with substantive equivalence.

You agreed here that strong supernatural is out. Ex nihilo creation unexplained and immaterial soul are examples of strong supernatural. You must either retract that concession or abandon ex nihilo/immaterial soul. You cannot keep both (even if the concession was embedded in another thread topic).

The CCA’s conclusion is not “therefore the source is material.” The conclusion is “therefore the cause of the universe is not supernatural - it is part of a broader natural reality.”

“Natural” in P3 means: operates within consistent laws, is potentially understandable, part of broader causal reality.

If strong supernatural is ruled out, and “natural” excludes anything beyond laws/understanding, then the only remaining options are:

Material

Something else that still meets P3 (coherent, lawful, understandable)

I have not proven “material” from P1-P5 alone. I have proven “not strong supernatural.” My positive claim “wilful matter” is a candidate that fits that conclusion. It derives from "not supernature" + the revised note on consciousness. Your “willful soul + ex nihilo” does not fit because ex nihilo is not shown by you to being lawful/understandable.

So your demand to derive “material” is a category error. The CCA doesn’t claim to prove materialism. It claims to prove strong naturalism (in my defined sense). I then argue that the most coherent natural candidate is wilful matter. You are free to propose another coherent natural candidate - but ex nihilo immaterial soul as proposed unexplained, presently isn’t one.

Your “human hands” distinction dodges the ontological question. Idols are wrong because they equate relation with God with relation with object, not because of who carved them. Incarnation faces the same risk unless you have a continuity model.

You ignored the Luke 17:21 move. That’s where the CCA lens actually does work theologically.

Re that:

Deuteronomy 30:14 "But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it...(17) But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

Psalm 139:7-10 "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."

Isaiah 55:10-11 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Jeremiah 23:23-24 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

(You argued "context" as if somehow that matters or makes the Eternal Source Entity "on occasion" not separate from its creation?)

John 14:17-21 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Acts 17:27-28 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

How does the immaterial soul/ex nihilo model define through interpretational lens, these verses?

The CCA model interpretational lens defines these as the ground of being recognised in relationship. The "you" becomes - not the stone/gold/flesh but the essence recognised in the relationship. Which is to say, the individual human consciousness shifts from understanding itself as the container and begins to understand itself as the contained.

Thus a shift in what the "you" represents. Not someone separate/orphaned (as all start out being born into sin) but someone authored - related to - a child of the motherly/fatherly Ground of Being. Closing the supernatural gap.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #234]

You are now defending “willful soul + ex nihilo” as an explanation of the same type as “wilful matter + formation.” But ex nihilo is not a mechanism; it’s the absence of mechanism. You confuse formal mirroring with substantive equivalence.

I never said or implied ex nihilo is the mechanism. I explained it and you said that’s not an explanation. So, I asked you to give your explanation of the Source and you did. I then copied the exact way you explained it with only changing the variables/content. You then keep saying, but that’s not an explanation. That’s special pleading.

You agreed here that strong supernatural is out. Ex nihilo creation unexplained and immaterial soul are examples of strong supernatural. You must either retract that concession or abandon ex nihilo/immaterial soul. You cannot keep both (even if the concession was embedded in another thread topic).

How can they be “strong supernatural” when they operate within the laws of logic, are understandable, and are part of the broader causal reality which is how you defined your “broad natural” category?

Your “human hands” distinction dodges the ontological question. Idols are wrong because they equate relation with God with relation with object, not because of who carved them. Incarnation faces the same risk unless you have a continuity model.

That may be what you think, but it’s not what Paul argued.

You ignored the Luke 17:21 move. That’s where the CCA lens actually does work theologically.

I don’t remember seeing you say something about this verse. I’m sorry I missed it. What was this move?

As for how I interpret this verse, the Pharisees ask about when the kingdom will come, thinking it is all in the future, and Jesus says it is here right now.

Jeremiah 23:23-24 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

(You argued "context" as if somehow that matters or makes the Eternal Source Entity "on occasion" not separate from its creation?)

I didn’t argue or imply that. You argued that Jeremiah 23:24 taught ontological continuity. Context matters to what the text is saying. It doesn’t teach ontological continuity. It teaches that God sees what the false prophets are doing.

How does the immaterial soul/ex nihilo model define through interpretational lens, these verses?

That’s not a proper way to interpret a text. You don’t pick out a lens and then try to jam verses to fit that lens. You interpret a text and if it happens to address which of those two lens, then so be it.

Deut 30:14 - Moses has given the various commands and he says they aren’t too difficult to follow (v.11), instead they are near you, in your mouth and mind, so you can do it (v.14). This doesn’t address questions of ontological (dis)continuity or immaterialism vs. materialism.

Psalm 139:7-10 - The psalmist says God knows him (v.1), being aware of everything he does (v.3), so he says in these verses that he can’t escape God, God is everywhere, and that God can guide him wherever he is. He doesn’t address how God is everywhere (such as the continuity/discontinuity question).

Isaiah 55:10-11 - This chapter starts out with God inviting all to come to Him and receive forgiveness (v.7) from Him for free. God’s way of life is different than ours (vv.8-9) and we should receive His wisdom. God then uses an analogy to speak to how what He says (this promise of forgiveness and wisdom if we come) will take place. He’s not going to turn us away when we come. This isn’t about immaterial/material or (dis)continuity or ex nihilo.

John 14:17-21 - Jesus has talked about how he is leaving his disciples, but that an Advocate (the Spirit of life) will come to be with them. He does make a distinction between his disciples and the rest of the world, pointing to how some will not have this Spirit residing within them.

Now, the main aim of this passage seems to be about reassuring his disciples that when he leaves, he’s not abandoning them on their own (v.18) so they will still experience some kind of unity with him (v.20), but one wouldn’t expect the above to be said if the belief was ontological continuity because on your view everyone has the Spirit of life residing in them.

1 Cor 3:16-17 - This passage is all about unity in Christ instead of making factions of different Christians (Apollos, Paul, Cephas). Verse 1 shows he is talking to Christians and they are foolishly dividing themselves (I follow Apollos, I follow Paul). In verse 21 Paul says to stop boasting about humans because we all belong to Christ and God. That is what vv. 16-17 are about. We are God’s temple and His Spirit lives in us, not Apollos’ spirit or Paul’s spirit, etc. This isn’t about ontological (dis)continuity.

[William]

Is the word "immaterial" sometimes used in science?

AI Overview
Yes, immaterial is a word used in science, though its usage is often nuanced, debated, or context-dependent rather than a common descriptor for physical objects.

Here is how "immaterial" is used in scientific and related academic contexts:
Theoretical Physics and Quantum Mechanics: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics or theoretical physics use "immaterial" to describe the non-physical, mathematical, or intangible underpinnings of reality, such as fields, information, or quantum states, which are not composed of traditional "matter".

Neuroscience and Consciousness Studies: Researchers sometimes discuss "immaterial" aspects of the mind, such as conscious experience or subjective thoughts, which are not currently reducible to physical brain matter.
Formal/Abstract Sciences: Mathematics and logic deal with "immaterial" objects (numbers, concepts, relations, and data) that are abstract and do not occupy space or have physical form.

Emergent Phenomena: Some scientists describe emergent properties (like the "pattern" of a wave) as immaterial, in the sense that the pattern is not the same as the material (water) that constitutes it.

Scientific Perspective on "Immaterial"
Methodological Naturalism: A fundamental premise of modern science is to investigate only material phenomena. Therefore, many scientists argue that if something cannot be measured or studied through material interaction, it is outside the scope of science.

The Problem of Definition: Many researchers argue that anything that genuinely exists - even if it is invisible, such as gravity or energy - eventually becomes classified as "material" once it is understood and observed, making the distinction between "real" and "immaterial" problematic.

In short, "immaterial" is used, but usually to describe abstract concepts, information, or specialized interpretations of quantum phenomena, rather than to describe physical substances in traditional scientific research.

Are you using "immaterial" in a similar manner?
Remember you admitted that your idea of God was in the Strong Supernatural category. Now you are appearing to argue that it is not. That rather, it is in the strong natural category and even sharing a place as equal beside Wilful Matter.

Do you understand this idea of as existing in a fundamentally immaterial realm which is separate from our universe or any material universe which could exist?

If so, are you claiming that this immaterial realm (or however you would describe it in a logically and understandable way) is "a mechanism" and as such is also " an explanation"?

Are you ignoring the other posts I have mentioned which help to show us the explanation of the mechanisms that support the Wilful Matter which is the Eternal Source Entity the CCA can be used to argue for? If so, is this a form of wilful ignorance on your part? Further to that, if so, can you explain why the wilful ignorance?

Do you believe that modern information has no bearing on ancient concepts, even that moderns have access to a vaster database of knowledge than those ancients had access to?

If so, would you agree that your critique that such is "not a proper way to interpret a text" can be seen as cognitive bias?
You appear to be saying that a person interpretes a text and if it happens to address which of those "two lens", then so be it. Which "two lens" are you referring to?

You call this "proper" as if to say it is THE only correct means of dealing with text.

Do you think that this way of doing that is appropriate given the evidence that using ones subjective interpretations alone not only allows for having no way to bridge differences in positions (atheistic vs theistic as well as theistic vs theistic) and come to any agreement (such as with you and POI in the animal suffering thread or any number of threads in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma sub forum) and the evidence relating to cognitive bias?

The CCA (as a frameworked lens) has been shown (re those posts I have drawn the readers attentions to here in this thread and which you may have ignored) to enable different positions to be bridged, which - if we followed your "proper" way of doing things, would never occur because it could never occur. because it is not designed for that purpose.

And finally - do you equate "soul" with "mind" "consciousness" "sentience" et al or are you using it to describe something else?

I am asking you these questions in an effort to understand your position better.

eta

Also - if you choose to ignore answering all these questions, would that enable or disable our ability to discuss things any further in a productive manner?

eta

At this point you still haven’t shown how ‘immaterial’ produces material. You accused me of special pleading. Fair enough - so let me be explicit: The CCA does not exclude your terms from consideration. I’m asking for the same thing I provided: a mechanism. Wilful matter forms. That’s my answer. That is why I asked these questions above.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #236]

Are you using "immaterial" in a similar manner?

By immaterial, I mean not made of matter, where it doesn’t have physical substance, mass, spatial extension.

Remember you admitted that your idea of God was in the Strong Supernatural category. Now you are appearing to argue that it is not. That rather, it is in the strong natural category and even sharing a place as equal beside Wilful Matter.

Yes, when I wasn’t understanding that your “strong supernatural” was not the standard philosophical sense, I said God was in the supernatural category. With your clarifications, I don’t think it fits your “strong supernatural” category. That’s because God creating ex nihilo operates within the laws of logic, is understandable, and is part of the broader causal reality, which is how you defined your “broad natural” category.

Do you understand this idea of as existing in a fundamentally immaterial realm which is separate from our universe or any material universe which could exist?

I believe there is an immaterial realm (Oxford Languages: a field or domain of activity or interest) which is distinct from our universe but can overlap/interact with it.

If so, are you claiming that this immaterial realm (or however you would describe it in a logically and understandable way) is "a mechanism" and as such is also " an explanation"?

To help us make sure we aren’t talking past each other, in what you wrote here:

You have asked me to share the mechanism of the Source. I have stated it clearly: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. The mechanism is built into the nature of matter itself - it forms, expresses, becomes (in formation). No gap. No separate substance. No act of will upon nothing.

What is the “mechanism” and what is the “explanation”?

At this point you still haven’t shown how ‘immaterial’ produces material. You accused me of special pleading. Fair enough - so let me be explicit: The CCA does not exclude your terms from consideration. I’m asking for the same thing I provided: a mechanism. Wilful matter forms.

What is the mechanism here? You have seemingly given an adjective (willful) a noun (matter) and a verb (forms). Wouldn’t the mechanism be by what the matter forms whatever it forms? Help me understand what you mean by mechanism, if you don’t mean that.

Are you ignoring the other posts I have mentioned which help to show us the explanation of the mechanisms that support the Wilful Matter which is the Eternal Source Entity the CCA can be used to argue for? If so, is this a form of wilful ignorance on your part? Further to that, if so, can you explain why the wilful ignorance?

No, I’m not ignoring them; I could very easily be misunderstanding what you are trying to say in them.

Do you believe that modern information has no bearing on ancient concepts, even that moderns have access to a vaster database of knowledge than those ancients had access to?

I’m not exactly sure what you mean here. The concepts that ancients used could not have been affected by future knowledge, if that is what you mean. If you mean whether modern knowledge can improve upon ancient knowledge/concepts, then, yes they can. If you mean something else, please clarify.

If so, would you agree that your critique that such is "not a proper way to interpret a text" can be seen as cognitive bias?

If you mean the first thing I mean above, then, no, that’s not cognitive bias but pure logic. If you mean the second thing above, then, no, because I wasn’t addressing this. If you mean something else, then I don’t know.

You appear to be saying that a person interpretes a text and if it happens to address which of those "two lens", then so be it. Which "two lens" are you referring to?

I’m saying that the text itself directly addresses certain questions, may have implications for other questions, and doesn't address other certain questions. If the interpreter makes a mistake here, then their interpretation of the text is going to be wrong.

The two lenses I was referring to were ontological continuity and ontological discontinuity. When texts don’t directly address those lenses one way or the other, interpreting the verses through those lenses results in bad interpretations.

You call this "proper" as if to say it is THE only correct means of dealing with text.

I’ve only claimed that interpreting a verse through a pre-conceived lens, rather than allowing the verse to decide what “lens” it speaks to is an incorrect way of dealing with the text. You are reading ontological continuity into verses that don’t teach it.

Do you think that this way of doing that is appropriate given the evidence that using ones subjective interpretations alone not only allows for having no way to bridge differences in positions (atheistic vs theistic as well as theistic vs theistic) and come to any agreement (such as with you and POI in the animal suffering thread or any number of threads in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma sub forum) and the evidence relating to cognitive bias?

I’m not advocating for using one’s subjective interpretations alone. Texts have objective interpretations. And some positions cannot be reconciled logically as they are mutually exclusive. The proper ways to interpret a text should account for possible cognitive bias.

The CCA (as a frameworked lens) has been shown (re those posts I have drawn the readers attentions to here in this thread and which you may have ignored) to enable different positions to be bridged, which - if we followed your "proper" way of doing things, would never occur because it could never occur. because it is not designed for that purpose.

If something isn’t true, then it doesn’t matter what it tries to bridge. As the CCA is phrased, all I think it accomplishes is defining what a coherent causal explanation contains (and I’m tentatively fine with that definition, although I haven’t compared it to alternatives), trivially telling us that the cause of the universe must have a coherent causal explanation, and rightly argues for the cause being eternal to avoid an infinite regress. You then seem to have hidden premises that lead you to say “broad natural” causes include natural but not supernatural (in the Oxford Languages/traditional philosophical senses of those words).

And finally - do you equate "soul" with "mind" "consciousness" "sentience" et al or are you using it to describe something else?

I think those can be equated, depending on what is being talked about, but some discussions may use them in ways that there are distinct elements. For this discussion, I have used mind/soul/consciousness as picking out the same concept

Also - if you choose to ignore answering all these questions, would that enable or disable our ability to discuss things any further in a productive manner?

If one choses to ignore answering the other's questions it could hurt our ability to discuss things further, but sometimes questions are irrelevant. This is a general response to your question, not about specific questions here.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #103]

I was going by what you put in your post -- Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

God is supernatural, then by this definition. God is beyond scientific understanding and all laws of nature. We can reason about God, but that isn't understanding God by laws of nature or science.


And then the disagreement is with the wording itself here.

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.

God is supernatural based on the definition you posted from the dictionary. But then here in p4, it says a supernatural cause is beyond understanding. This doesn't follow the definition of supernatural. We can understand something that is beyond science and beyond natural laws. God doesn't exists in any framwork of any laws. God is existence itself. God is the cause of all laws that exist and depends on none of them. They depend on God.

So you say, the cause, which I call God, would be part of a broader natural reality. That is where we disagree. All of nature is caused by God, who is existence itself.

This is precisely what I termed the "weak supernatural" in my original clarification - a reality that operates within a coherent framework, is understandable in principle, and is therefore, in the broad sense I'm using, natural. Not weak naturalism but strong. In this sense, weak supernaturalism = strong naturalis6.

I’m not sure what this means. It seems to conflict with what was said in the original post. The claim that a supernatural cause is beyond understanding is incorrect. We can understand something that is beyond all laws. We can grasp the idea that God is existence itself, pure actuality with no potentials. Yet God is not within some framework of consistent laws. If you mean that we can use logic to understand God, then sure. But if that is all that is meant by “natural,” then any concept that does not entail a contradiction would count as natural, in which case the term does not do much work. It would be clearer to just say the cause must be logical.

I am only responding to the original post and your replies. I do not read entire threads because I do not have the time.

As for the other questions, in classical theism God has no parts. What we call God’s intellect, power, knowledge, justice, and mercy are all one and the same, not distinct attributes. God does not have power or knowledge; He is His power and knowledge. So we use these words analogically. In us, justice and mercy are very different, but in God they are one.

As to whether a timeless God can create a universe that starts at a specific moment, my answer is this. God is ontologically prior to the universe and not temporally prior to it. That probably implies B theory of time. In anticipation of a follow up question, I have this to say.

The universe did not begin at a moment within time. Rather, it exists in time because time is part of the universe itself.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #237]

By immaterial, I mean not made of matter, where it doesn’t have physical substance, mass, spatial extension.

Yes, when I wasn’t understanding that your “strong supernatural” was not the standard philosophical sense, I said God was in the supernatural category. With your clarifications, I don’t think it fits your “strong supernatural” category. That’s because God creating ex nihilo operates within the laws of logic, is understandable, and is part of the broader causal reality, which is how you defined your “broad natural” category.

I believe there is an immaterial realm (Oxford Languages: a field or domain of activity or interest) which is distinct from our universe but can overlap/interact with it.

The following question is one which needs to be asked. You do not have to answer immediately but I think that eventually it will have to be answered by you.
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?

Also, I think I will withdraw agreement with you that your God-idea fits in with the CCAs broader natural category rather than strong supernatural. The reason is because you have now asked "What is the “mechanism” and what is the “explanation”?" and stated "What is the mechanism here? You have seemingly given an adjective (willful) a noun (matter) and a verb (forms). Wouldn’t the mechanism be by what the matter forms whatever it forms? Help me understand what you mean by mechanism, if you don’t mean that." which means if you is not clear on the CCA terms - how can you state that your God-idea fits the broader natural category? One can’t assert fit without first understanding the criteria.


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.

As to your "nouns and verbs" observation Yes, that’s grammar. The substance is: matter forms because forming is what matter does. No external agent, no separate substance, no gap. That’s a coherent claim about the nature of the Source Entity.
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.

The explanatory criteria is in the mechanism yes - but what I wrote was mechanism, framework, or understandable process.
"P1: Everything that begins to exist within nature has a natural cause" points to an underlying process which is a mechanism and framework.
"P2: It is generally accepted in modern cosmology that this universe (our spacetime reality) had a beginning" points to mechanism which has been examined and is an understandable process. In that, the mechanism was always present but not always understood and in many cases misunderstood through assumptions - assumptions like with what supernaturalism historically claims.
"C1: Therefore, this universe has a natural cause" is the conclusion. The conclusion is not C1: "Therefore, this universe has a supernatural 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."
This describes that the mechanism (a natural cause) is operating within some framework of consistent laws. The mechanism also has the additional proviso "is potentially understandable in principle" to address the fact that presently we do not know everything about that mechanism BUT there is the potential to learn more and more about the mechanism. It is not about supernatural ideas being "understandable in principle" - even that they are.
Not because there is a mechanism involved with the understanding but rather because the mind is able to imagine all sorts of alternate realities without the need for mechanisms which show what is imagined actually has a mechanism which in turn would make it not only understandable but also potentially true and real.
"P4: A supernatural cause, by definition, is beyond natural laws, understanding, and evidence, thus it cannot function as a causal explanation."
This is because while we can imagine all sorts of supernatural imagery we cannot imagine how those came to be because we cannot imagine the mechanisms involved in bringing them to be. That is why when one says "the universe was created from nothing - that the stuff of the universe once did not exist and now does exist because an immaterial mind was able to do this" one is not not describing a mechanism which is understandable in principle. One is describing a imagined concept without a mechanism which is understandable in principle. That is not what the natural in P1 is pointing to. That is why it states Everything that begins to exist within nature has a natural cause.

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. The "immaterial" cannot even be referred to as a "thing" "stuff" "something" - Meaning we cannot say "am immaterial mind created material things from nothing" but we can say that "a material mind created formations from itself" because that is understandable in principle.

So, while we may be able to understand in our imagination what an immaterial soul might be and that it could create material things from nothing, to understand in principle what that means - how that happens - requires an explanation involving the mechanisms which change the ideas from maybe understanding in imagination to definitely understanding in principle.

Understanding in principle: I can describe a process, even if I don’t know all the details. Gravity works by curvature of spacetime - I may not know the math, but I grasp the kind of mechanism involved. My “wilful matter forms” gives that: formation as intrinsic property. It’s a principle one can investigate, model, or refine.

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."

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

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #238]

I am only responding to the original post and your replies. I do not read entire threads because I do not have the time.

I understand this because I also don't have time to repeat myself to those who do not have time to invest in debate but still have some time to make a post here and there.

Perhaps when you do find some spare time, you might consider reading the last few pages prior to your current post - as I think they might answer some of your concerns since you last posted on this thread.

in classical theism God has no parts. What we call God’s intellect, power, knowledge, justice, and mercy are all one and the same, not distinct attributes. God does not have power or knowledge; He is His power and knowledge. So we use these words analogically. In us, justice and mercy are very different, but in God they are one.

I find this an interesting position. It tells me that we were not then made in the image of God, because it contradicts that idea. Or one might explain the apparent contradiction by saying it is because of "sin" - but that would only mean in order to align our justice and mercy as one like God does, we would have to stop sinning.
I Understand sin to be "not having a genuine relationship with God" and thus "ignorance".