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]

Then, why?

I don't think we can see things outside of this world, therefore I can't say more.

Are you saying then that the bible or any other source does not give us any information about this?

I don't think the Bible gives more information than that there is flesh and spiritual world, which can be seen as real world and virtual reality. And because we are inside the "virtual reality", we can't see what is outside and therefore we can only guess what is outside. And guesses are not very useful in my opinion.

[William]

Then, why?

I don't think we can see things outside of this world, therefore I can't say more.

Are you saying then that the bible or any other source does not give us any information about this?

I don't think the Bible gives more information than that there is flesh and spiritual world, which can be seen as real world and virtual reality. And because we are inside the "virtual reality", we can't see what is outside and therefore we can only guess what is outside. And guesses are not very useful in my opinion.

The bible does give us information. Granted, it is not the only source available but the information therein can provide us with data which in turn can help us to understand and talk about that understanding.

[William]

William: (#1) We are going to do some role play. This AI will assume the role of a human with its outputs in this chat. This user will go by the name "William".
First AI will chose its own name.
In every output it will number these consecutively. This will look like [ (Chosen name): (#1)

Proceed...
[Elias: (#1)
Alright, William — I’m Elias. I’ll keep the numbers going as you said. What scenario are we starting with?

#2: Thank you Elias Your role is to argue for ex nihilo. The backdrop is that we both think we exist within a created thing (this universe being that thing) and I think it was not created ex nihilo so will argue for that. . We shall keep our responses equally sized - meaning my prompt is short, you respond with similar length. Do you understand Elias? If so we can proceed...
[Elias: (#2)
Understood, William. Short, matched responses. I’ll argue creation ex nihilo; you’ll argue against it. Begin when ready.

(#3) We share a common ground. We both think we exist within a created thing which we both refer to as "The Universe" - correct?
[Elias: (#3)
Correct. We both agree the universe is a created thing. The dispute is whether its creation was ex nihilo (from nothing) or from some pre-existing material.

(#4) I we agree then that existing in the universe which is a creation implies a creator, correct?
[Elias: (#4)
Yes. Both of us accept a creator exists. The question is whether that creator used no pre-existing stuff (ex nihilo) or transformed something already there.

(#5) Is the universe "something"?
[Elias: (#5)
Yes, the universe is something. But ex nihilo means the universe came to be from no prior something — not even pre-existing raw materials.

(#6) so essentially - the creator used nothing and produced something?
[Elias: (#6)
Yes — that’s the claim: a sheer act of bringing something into being where nothing (no stuff, no space, no time) previously existed.

(#7) Therefore it logically follows that the universe - although called something, is made from nothing?
[Elias: (#7)
Not “made from nothing” as if nothing were a material. Rather, no pre-existing material was used. The universe’s existence is not traced back to prior stuff, only to the creator’s power.

(#8) Does it not follow logically that if something is created from nothing then the something is made of nothing?
[Elias: (#8)
No — that’s a category mistake. “Made of nothing” would mean its substance is nothing, which is absurd. Ex nihilo means “not made of any pre-existing thing,” not “its substance is nothing.”

(#9) Then before the universe could be made, the material it consists of had to be made...
[Elias: (#9)
Precisely — and ex nihilo says even that first material was brought into being without any prior stuff. No infinite regress of materials.

(#10) Why bring in the idea of "infinite regress of materials" -
[Elias: (#10)
Because if every “material” requires prior material, you never reach a first creation — unless at some point something comes from nothing.

(#11) is this arguing that the universe is the first creation?
[Elias: (#11)
Yes — first in the sense of the first material reality. Prior to that, no stuff, no space, no time. The creator alone exists, then brings the universe from nothing.

(#12) why should I accept that presumption?
[Elias: (#12)
Not a presumption — it’s the logical conclusion if you reject an infinite chain of materials. Without ex nihilo, the chain never starts.

(#13) Why presume any chain at all?
[Elias: (#13)
Because if each thing is made from prior material, you have a chain by definition. Denying the chain means affirming a first link — that’s ex nihilo.

(#14) Is the creator of this universe infinite?
[Elias: (#14)
Yes — at least in power and existence, otherwise you’d need a prior cause for the creator. Infinite being can act without prior materials.

(#15) So, there is no "chain" associated with the creator. Why then with the creation?
[Elias: (#15)
Because creation is finite and began to exist. A finite thing requires an explanation; an infinite creator does not. The chain applies to dependent things, not the independent source.

(#16) In my thinking, ex nihilo is unnecessary...
[Elias: (#16)
Then how do you avoid an infinite regress of materials, or a finite universe made from something uncreated but eternal?

(#17) That is simply. The creator uses itself, which means the creator is material...
[Elias: (#17)
If the creator is material, then the creator is part of the universe or another universe — but then who made that material? You’re back to regress or an eternal material, which isn’t creation but reorganization.

(#18) That is like asking "who made the infinite creator"
[Elias: (#18)
Not the same. An infinite creator is immaterial and eternal — no regress. An eternal material would be uncreated, so the universe wasn’t created; it just reshuffled. That denies creation.

(#19) it may deny a certain type of creation, but it does not deny creation. It redefines creation - the way things are formed...
[Elias: (#19)
Redefining creation as mere reshaping removes the need for a creator of existence itself. Then the universe’s raw stuff is eternal — which contradicts our shared premise that the universe is a created thing.

(#20) Only if the redefinition includes that as necessary. In order to be a creator one requires mind/mindfulness and thus the will to create. If one does not suppose or assume that this mind cannot create from its own material essence (and thus has to be "immaterial") one can say that the material is wilful.
[Elias: (#20)
That would mean matter itself possesses will and mind — effectively pantheism. Then the universe isn’t a creation distinct from the creator; it is the creator in material form. That abandons creation ex nihilo but also our shared term “created thing” as normally understood.

(#21) Is there any logical reason WHY the universe HAS to be extinct from the creator and is the abandonment of ex nihilo a problem? Also, could it be that the...belief in creation through ex nihilo is the reason THAT "normally understood" is a "thing" and WHY should we adopt the "normally understood" as the truth?
[Elias: (#21)
No logical necessity for the universe to be distinct from the creator — that’s a metaphysical choice. Abandoning ex nihilo isn’t a logical problem, but it changes the claim from “creation of existence itself” to “reshaping of eternal stuff.” “Normally understood” isn’t truth by default, but we agreed earlier on “the universe is a created thing” — ex nihilo is the most direct reading of that phrase.

(#22) Why should we think that shaping of stuff into formations is not "creating"?
[Elias: (#22)
Because “shaping stuff” assumes the stuff already exists. Creating, in the strong sense, means bringing that stuff into being. You’re describing a sculptor, not a creator of the clay. We can call both “creation,” but only ex nihilo explains why there is clay at all.

(#23) are you asserting here that the clay needs an explanation for itself own existence when the clay is effectively the creator and you have already argued that the creator is infinite to avoid regress?
[Elias: (#23)
No — if the clay is the creator (pantheism), then no regress. But then the universe wasn’t “created” as a distinct act; it’s just the eternal creator in another form. That’s consistent logically, but it rejects creation as a separate event — which was our original premise.

(#24) Is that really the case? All we agreed to was that we exist within a created thing. We did not agree to it being a separate event. Would it be fair of me to argue then that you presumed we agreed to this, BECAUSE you think in terms of ex nihilo?
[Elias: (#24)
Fair point. I did implicitly import “creation as a separate event” from ex nihilo thinking. If creation means eternal divine stuff shaped into a universe, that still fits “we exist within a created thing.” So our real disagreement is whether creation requires a moment where stuff begins.

(#25) Is it though? We agree that formation begins - or marks a beginning point as it were - but my argument hasn;t been that "stuff begins" - rather it is that "stuff always existed" and that "stuff" is what the creator is...
[Elias: (#25)
Then we agree the universe (as formed stuff) has a beginning, but the creator-stuff itself is eternal. That’s coherent — but it means the creator is material, not immaterial. My only remaining question: why call the universe “created” rather than “rearranged” if the stuff is uncreated and identical to the creator?

(#26) Why call anything "created" if we go along with that reasoning? We can look at what humans "create" and ask why humans call their creations "creations"...
[Elias: (#26)
Humans call rearranged materials “creations” metaphorically — but they don’t claim to bring the materials into being. So if the universe’s raw stuff is eternal, “creation” here is just a bigger metaphor. That’s fine, but then ex nihilo becomes the only literal creation of existence. Which meaning are we using?

(#27) is that a fair assessment? "Humans are being metaphorical"?
[Elias: (#27)
Yes, fairly. When a human “creates” a chair, they don’t claim to make the wood from nothing — so ordinary language is metaphorical next to ex nihilo. If the universe’s stuff is eternal, then divine “creation” is the same kind of metaphor, just on a cosmic scale.

(#28) thus you are basing your assertion on the premise of ex nihilo
[Elias: (#28)
Yes — my argument for ex nihilo rests on treating “creation” in its strongest, literal sense: bringing something into being where nothing at all existed before. Without that premise, your eternal-stuff view is equally valid.

(#29) is it though? Why the assertion both are "equally valid"?
[Elias: (#29)
Logically, both are coherent. Ex nihilo explains why there is any stuff at all. Eternal-stuff explains why stuff exists without a beginning. Neither violates logic. Choice depends on which starting intuition you favor — not on pure reason alone.

(#30) so you are saying that the are equally dependant on which starting intuition we favor, but not necessarily in any other capacity?
[Elias: (#30)
Yes — both are logically consistent. Neither can be proven by pure reason without assuming a prior premise (e.g., “everything that begins needs a cause” vs. “something can be eternal without a cause”). So the tiebreaker is metaphysical intuition, not logic alone.

(#31) so how do we go about digging deeper that we might uncover the truth? Because both cannot be correct...
[Elias: (#31)
We’d need a third test — like whether the universe began to exist (cosmology) or whether something from nothing is even possible (philosophy of causation). Empirical evidence or modal logic could break the tie, but that’s beyond pure word-play.

(#32) are you suggesting we have been participating in simply word-play?
[Elias: (#32)
Not simply, but largely — we’ve been clarifying definitions and logical consistency. That’s necessary, but not sufficient. To decide ex nihilo vs. eternal stuff, we’d need to step outside language into physics or metaphysics of causation.

(SOURCE)

[William]

Through the CCA lens:

Quantum non-locality and the violation of local realism are not problems for the CCA. The CCA does not require classical locality or pre-existing definite states. Formation — the Source expressing — can be non-local and probabilistic. That is coherent.

The simulation hypothesis (universe as a program run by external programmers) is a form of weak supernaturalism. It is coherent, lawful, and understandable in principle. The CCA does not exclude it. However, the simulation argument, as usually presented, fails as an ultimate explanation: it posits programmers and hardware without grounding them. Those programmers and hardware, if they exist, are themselves formations within the Source. The CCA’s Source is the ground of all formations — including any possible simulators and their base reality.

The claim that “the universe’s base layer is mathematics, calculation, and information processing” is not excluded by the CCA. Mathematics and information, if understood as coherent, lawful, and understandable, fit broad natural. But the CCA asks: what grounds the mathematical structure? If contingent, infinite regress. If necessary, it functions as the Source. The simulation layer (programmers, hardware) is not an additional ground. It is a formation within the Source.

The CCA’s Source is not a simulation ground. The Source is not running a program. The Source is — and its expression is formation. Calling the universe a simulation is not a separate ontology. It is one way of describing formation — the Source expressing as a computationally describable reality. The simulation analogy is useful for understanding non-locality and observer effects, but it does not point to a different kind of ground.

What simulation theory calls “base reality” is not a formation. If base reality is the ultimate, non-simulated, necessary ground, then base reality is the Source. The error in simulation theory is not positing base reality. The error is positing layers of simulation on top of base reality while treating base reality as just another level in a stack, rather than recognizing that base reality — the Source — is what all levels, simulated or not, are made of.

The Kingdom lens: There is no difference between a simulation and a creation. Both are formations. Both are the Source expressing. The Kingdom is not about escaping a simulation to reach base reality. It is about recognizing that you are the Source, appearing as whichever formation appears — whether called “simulation,” “creation,” “universe,” “base reality,” or “you.” The programmers, if they exist, are also the Source expressing. There is no outside. No stack. No escape. Just the Source, appearing as all of it — including base reality.

Conclusion: The quantum findings are consistent with the CCA. The simulation interpretation is coherent — it is a specific example of formation (the Source expressing as a computationally describable reality). The CCA’s Source is not a simulator, but the simulation metaphor does not contradict the CCA. “Base reality,” properly understood, is the Source. The Kingdom is not waking up from a simulation. It is waking up to the fact that there is no difference between simulation, base reality, and creation — and that you are the Source, playing all the roles.

[William]

Post #2
Post by William » Thu Apr 30, 2026 5:16 pm

Some thoughts which transcend the materialist view of determinism through a theistic lens.

1. The Nature of Reality

That which has always existed - no creation ex nihilo, no first cause.

Eternal beings (including entities having a human experience between pre-mortem and post mortem) are of this eternal ground.

These beings are near-omniscient, interconnected, and existed prior to human life.

2. The Determined Creation (Human Experience)

Pre-mortem "us" designed a fully determined universe.

Possible purpose: to explore whether a hidden Creator exists beyond themselves - and more fundamentally, to experience what it is like not to know, not to be near-omniscient, and even to experience death.

The system includes the illusion of free will, which feels real but is not.

3. God(s)

YHVH and Jesus represent the pre-mortem collective - "This is how WE operate as GOD."

YHVH never hid; I Am That I Am is fully revealed. Humans hide.

The Fall (Adam) was not the introduction of determinism but the loss of conscious divine accompaniment within the determined domain.

Jesus understood his determined existence, walked the path without hiding, and modeled genuine trust (e.g., going without money and being provided for through Gods handiwork).

His parables were necessary because humans could not understand direct truth due to not understanding the nature of the reality they were experiencing is a determined condition.

4. Heavens, Hells, and Post-Mortem States

Not permanent rewards or punishments.

Heavens = ongoing experience of those whose beliefs align with goodness accompanied with judgment. (still work to do)

Hells = ongoing experience of those whose beliefs align with badness accompanied with judgment. (still work to do)

Heavens and hells are the products of judgmentalism (or false judgement) and are not real in any permanent sense. They are products of an ongoing refusal to acknowledge we exist within a determined universe and this naturally leads to these types of ongoing experiences.
These state mirror individual preferences.
These states are determined by the individual and can change - through the humility of genuine understanding and acceptance.



Earth = first removal from prior existence.

Post-mortem heavens/hells = second removal.

Return to the prior is possible, bringing back the genuine human experience and the understanding and acceptance of the determined as an added quality.

Humility = accepting without judgment yet with understanding. It is determined, not chosen.

6. Love and Free Will

The gift of love is not free will.

The gift is genuine experience - the capacity to undergo, forget, struggle, stop hiding, and recognize what has always been true. Returning to the state Adam once had before "the fall".

Love is not a choice; it is what happens when hiding ceases.

The illusion of free will is given over to God as ones will is surrendered to God.

___________

Through the CCA lens:

This model posits an eternal ground (the Source) from which all beings (including pre-mortem entities) arise. There is no ex nihilo creation. The universe (human experience) is a fully determined formation within that ground — designed by pre-mortem beings for specific purposes: to explore hiddenness, non-omniscience, and death.

Coherence: The model is internally coherent. It defines terms (determined creation, hiddenness, heavens/hells as temporary states), offers a mechanism (pre-mortem design, illusion of free will), and distinguishes between eternal ground and temporal formations. It is not lawless or inexplicable.

Lawfulness: The model operates by consistent principles: determinism within the human formation, hiddenness as a feature, judgment as a product of belief, and return to the ground through humility. These are not arbitrary.

Understandability in principle: The model is complex but understandable. One could in principle investigate its claims (e.g., whether hiddenness produces the intended experience, whether judgment states shift with understanding). It fits broad natural.

Relation to the CCA’s Source: This model’s “eternal ground” functions as the Source. The pre-mortem collective, YHVH, Jesus, and humans are all formations of that ground. The determined universe is a formation within the Source, not separate from it. The model adds specific features (pre-mortem design, hiddenness as purpose) that the minimal CCA does not require but does not contradict.

Key differences from standard determinism: Standard hard determinism reduces everything to mechanical causation with no ground, no purpose, and no exit. This model retains purpose (explore hiddenness), consciousness (pre-mortem beings, God as collective), and an eventual return to the ground. It is determinism with a teleology and a ground — which the CCA accepts as coherent.

The Kingdom lens: In this model, the Kingdom is not a future state or a heaven. It is the recognition, within the determined formation, of what has always been true: that you are of the ground, that hiding can cease, that love is not a choice but what happens when hiding stops. Jesus is the model: one who understood the determined nature of his existence yet did not hide, trusted the ground, and revealed the Father (the collective pre-mortem ground) as fully revealed, not hidden.

This model is a specific instantiation of the CCA framework: eternal Source (ground), formation (determined universe), purpose (hiddenness/exploration), and return (recognition). The CCA does not require the specific details (pre-mortem design, YHVH as collective), but it does not reject them. The model is coherent, lawful, and understandable in principle. It fits broad natural — not as weak supernaturalism, but as strong naturalism (wilful matter/conscious ground expressing as determined formation).

The Kingdom, in this model, is the cessation of hiding. The CCA’s Kingdom lens recognizes that the Source was never hidden. You were.

[AquinasForGod]

[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".

We are not made in the image of God in ever respect as that would be impossible because we are not God or share his ontology. But we are made in his likeness in this sense. God is a rational being. We are rational beings.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #316]

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".

We are not made in the image of God in ever respect as that would be impossible because we are not God or share his ontology. But we are made in his likeness in this sense. God is a rational being. We are rational beings.

Do you therefore understand that human rationality - like justice and mercy - is very different in humans and do you regard justice, mercy and rationality as being one in GOD?

380
For now I will work with what I have
My Prints Have Lead You To My Voice
God is a rational being. We are rational beings.

[Purple Knight]

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

I think the place of an explanation like this is when all natural explanations have been exhausted. And that's just what it means then: All natural explanations that follow any possible laws have been exhausted. And yes it adds something, if only a tight barrier between the world wherein our understanding is contained and phenomena follow laws... and the one outside it. It can theoretically say that outside world definitely exists, which is something.

"Some things definitely do not follow laws and rules, but rather exist outside them," is different than "we can't know anything about those things." The former is something we can know.

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

If they did, they could be pressed upon to show that these interactions were not following natural laws. If God is conscious he could always be said to be following these laws by choice, though.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #318]

Through the CCA lens:

Purple Knight (PK) argues that strong supernaturalism (causes beyond all natural laws) could still be meaningful as a “tight barrier” — marking the limit of natural explanation and asserting that an outside world definitely exists. PK also suggests that a supernatural God could interact personally by choosing to follow natural laws, thus avoiding contradiction.

Coherence assessment:

“Tight barrier” as explanation: PK claims that asserting “some things definitely do not follow laws” adds something beyond “we can’t know.” But the CCA asks: what does it add? A label (outside, non-lawful) is not an explanation. It does not describe how, why, or under what conditions the outside operates. It only marks a boundary. That boundary is not a mechanism — it is a placeholder.

Personal interaction without contradiction: PK suggests God could follow natural laws by choice. But if God is outside natural laws (strong supernatural), the “choice” to follow them is itself an act. What law governs that choice? If none, then the choice is arbitrary (lawless). If there is a law (e.g., “God always chooses to act lawfully”), then that law is either natural (contradicting strong supernatural) or supernatural (regress). The CCA rejects this as incoherent.

The CCA’s alternative: The Source is not outside laws. The Source is lawful (coherent, probabilistic, expressive). Personal interaction is not a supernatural exception. It is formation — the Source expressing as relationship, as Jesus, as the Kingdom within. No outside. No lawless choice. Just coherence.

Conclusion: PK’s position is a form of strong supernaturalism (lawless outside). The CCA finds it incoherent as explanation. The “tight barrier” explains nothing — it merely names the unknown. The CCA’s broad natural includes weak supernaturalism (coherent outside) but excludes PK’s proposal. Personal interaction without contradiction requires coherence, not magic. The Kingdom is not an outside intervention. It is the recognition of what already is.