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 realityâ€).
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.â€)
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 Coherent Causality Argument
Moderator: Moderators
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #1
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Richard Aberdeen
- Apprentice
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:39 pm
- Location: California
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #321[Replying to William in post #1]
The main problem with this post and with modern atheism is the inability to recognize invented language terminology that doesn't exist in reality. For example, there is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." Rather, all of the known evidence clearly demonstrates deliberate design and creation. Thus, in reality, the only thing that exists is "creation", not an invented "natural world", which is clearly just a human construct; a lie invented to explain away the obvious, that we live within a created cosmic reality. In fact, there is zero evidence that anything can randomly exist unto itself, let alone something as overwhelmingly complex as the universe and life contained therein.
More explanation and overwhelming evidence can be found here:
www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html
The main problem with this post and with modern atheism is the inability to recognize invented language terminology that doesn't exist in reality. For example, there is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." Rather, all of the known evidence clearly demonstrates deliberate design and creation. Thus, in reality, the only thing that exists is "creation", not an invented "natural world", which is clearly just a human construct; a lie invented to explain away the obvious, that we live within a created cosmic reality. In fact, there is zero evidence that anything can randomly exist unto itself, let alone something as overwhelmingly complex as the universe and life contained therein.
More explanation and overwhelming evidence can be found here:
www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html
In Search of the Real Jesus
https://FreedomTracks.com/revolution.html
https://FreedomTracks.com/revolution.html
-
Richard Aberdeen
- Apprentice
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:39 pm
- Location: California
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #322[Replying to William in post #320]
The main problem with this post and with modern atheism is the inability to recognize invented language terminology that doesn't exist in reality. For example, there is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." Rather, all of the known evidence clearly demonstrates deliberate design and creation. Thus, in reality, the only thing that exists is "creation", not an invented "natural world", which is clearly just a human construct; a lie invented to explain away the obvious, that we live within a created cosmic reality. In fact, there is zero evidence that anything can randomly exist unto itself, let alone something as overwhelmingly complex as the universe and life contained therein.
More explanation and overwhelming evidence can be found here:
www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html
The main problem with this post and with modern atheism is the inability to recognize invented language terminology that doesn't exist in reality. For example, there is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." Rather, all of the known evidence clearly demonstrates deliberate design and creation. Thus, in reality, the only thing that exists is "creation", not an invented "natural world", which is clearly just a human construct; a lie invented to explain away the obvious, that we live within a created cosmic reality. In fact, there is zero evidence that anything can randomly exist unto itself, let alone something as overwhelmingly complex as the universe and life contained therein.
More explanation and overwhelming evidence can be found here:
www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html
In Search of the Real Jesus
https://FreedomTracks.com/revolution.html
https://FreedomTracks.com/revolution.html
-
Richard Aberdeen
- Apprentice
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:39 pm
- Location: California
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #323[Replying to William in post #4]
Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I AM." Eternal Creator rationally explains our existence and the existence of the larger cosmic reality. Nothing else in the history of humanity rationally explains the existence of anything.
Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I AM." Eternal Creator rationally explains our existence and the existence of the larger cosmic reality. Nothing else in the history of humanity rationally explains the existence of anything.
In Search of the Real Jesus
https://FreedomTracks.com/revolution.html
https://FreedomTracks.com/revolution.html
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #324You reject "nature" as invented terminology, but "creation" is equally invented. The CCA works with "natural" as a coherent, lawful framework - a description of observed regularity, not a metaphysical claim. Your argument assumes a separate Creator creating ex nihilo, which the CCA rejects as an explanatory gap. The CCA offers an alternative: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No separate substances. If you wish to engage the CCA, address its premises and conclusions. Your link does not do this.Richard Aberdeen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 6:18 pm [Replying to William in post #320]
The main problem with this post and with modern atheism is the inability to recognize invented language terminology that doesn't exist in reality. For example, there is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." Rather, all of the known evidence clearly demonstrates deliberate design and creation. Thus, in reality, the only thing that exists is "creation", not an invented "natural world", which is clearly just a human construct; a lie invented to explain away the obvious, that we live within a created cosmic reality. In fact, there is zero evidence that anything can randomly exist unto itself, let alone something as overwhelmingly complex as the universe and life contained therein.
More explanation and overwhelming evidence can be found here:
www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html
The CCA is designed to bridge the otherwise irreconcilable chasm between weak naturalism (materialism) and strong supernaturalism. It does not deny design, purpose, or creation. It relocates them: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No separate substances. The design you see is the Source's own nature expressing. This is not weak naturalism (which reduces consciousness to illusion) nor strong supernaturalism (which creates an unexplained gap). It is a coherent alternative.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #325Richard Aberdeen's linked book...
Chapter by Chapter through the CCA lens.
Chapter 1 – BASIC BIOLOGY GONE WILD
Richard's core claim: Life is irreducibly complex (molecular machines, DNA coding, proteins). Random chance cannot explain this complexity. Therefore, a Grand Designer (separate, supernatural Creator) must exist.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Yes. Life operates within consistent, lawful frameworks. Complexity is not incoherence.
Understandable? Partially. We understand many mechanisms, even if not all. "Not yet fully known" is not "unknowable in principle."
The gap: Richard rejects randomness (correctly) but then leaps to a strong supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo. That leap is an explanatory gap. "God did it" names the gap but does not bridge it. No mechanism is provided for how an immaterial, separate Creator produces material complexity.
CCA alternative: The Source is wilful matter. Molecular machines, DNA complexity, and protein folding are the Source's own inherent nature expressing as formation. No separate Creator is needed. The complexity Richard marvels at is the Source's own richness, not evidence of an external intelligence. The CCA closes the gap that Richard leaves open.
Chapter 2 – GENETIC AND OTHER EVIDENCE CHALLENGING MODERN THEORY
Richard's core claim: Non-random genetic changes (bacteria recycling DNA, squid RNA editing, archaea crossing superkingdoms) challenge Darwinian natural selection and randomness. Therefore, an Eternal Creator (separate, supernatural) exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Yes. Richard correctly notes that genetic changes are often non-random and adaptive. The CCA agrees: reality is not random. The Source is wilful; expression is lawful, creative, and directed.
Understandable? Partially. These mechanisms are being studied and understood. "Not yet fully known" does not equal "unknowable."
The gap: Richard leaps from "not random" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This leap is an explanatory gap. He provides no mechanism for how an immaterial, separate Creator produces non-random genetic changes.
The CCA alternative: Non-random genetic changes are the Source's own wilful expression. The Source does not need to intervene from outside; it is the system expressing. The CCA agrees that life is not random, but rejects the need for a separate supernatural designer. The Source is wilful matter; evolution (understood as adaptive expression) is the Source's own nature.
Francis Collins quote: Collins says DNA demonstrates design. The CCA agrees: design is the Source's own inherent nature expressing. But Collins (as Richard presents him) assumes a separate Creator. The CCA offers a different interpretation: design without a separate designer—design as the Source's own coherence.
Probability arguments: Richard cites astronomical odds against random formation. The CCA rejects randomness as the mechanism. The Source is wilful; complexity is not random but expressive. Probability arguments against randomness do not support strong supernaturalism; they support the need for a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA provides that Source without a gap.
Chapter 3 – RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS
Richard's core claims: (1) Life may be eternal and ubiquitous. (2) "Junk" DNA has function. (3) Science is uncertain and changes. (4) Fine-tuning and design are evident. (5) The Bible predicts cosmic collapse. (6) Black holes match biblical descriptions. (7) Atheists lack evidence. Therefore, a separate, supernatural Eternal Creator exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Partially. Much of what Richard cites (non-junk DNA, fine-tuning, cosmic design, quantum complexity) is coherent with a lawful, expressive universe.
Understandable? Some things are understood; others are not. Mystery is not a gap. "Not yet known" is not "unknowable in principle."
The gap: Richard leaps from "science doesn't know" or "the universe is complex/designed" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo." This leap is an explanatory gap. He provides no mechanism for how an immaterial Creator produces fine-tuning, DNA functionality, or cosmic design.
Eternal life: If life is eternal and ubiquitous, the CCA agrees—but identifies the Source as wilful matter, not a separate supernatural being. Richard's evidence for eternal life supports the CCA's eternal Source, not his separate Creator.
Junk DNA: Richard correctly notes that non-coding DNA has function. The CCA agrees. This is evidence of the Source's expressive complexity, not evidence of a separate supernatural designer.
Fine-tuning: The CCA agrees that the universe appears fine-tuned. But fine-tuning does not require a separate supernatural tuner. The Source is wilful matter; the laws and constants are the Source's own coherent nature expressing. Fine-tuning is the Source's own consistency, not an external adjustment.
Biblical predictions (cosmic collapse, black holes): Richard argues that biblical descriptions match scientific theories (universe rolling back, black holes as "bottomless pit"). Even if true, this does not prove strong supernaturalism. The CCA can accommodate biblical descriptions as the Source's own expression. The issue is not whether the Bible describes reality, but whether reality requires a separate supernatural Creator or is the Source's own expression.
Science uncertainty: Richard points out that science changes and disagrees. The CCA does not depend on any particular scientific theory. Science's provisional nature does not prove strong supernaturalism. It only shows that human knowledge is incomplete.
Atheist lack of evidence: Richard critiques atheists for lacking evidence for randomness and no-God. The CCA is not atheism. It affirms an eternal, physical, conscious Source. Richard's critique of atheism may be valid, but his alternative (strong supernaturalism) is not the only option. The CCA bridges the gap between atheistic materialism and strong supernaturalism.
The CCA alternative: All of Richard's evidence for design, fine-tuning, cosmic order, DNA complexity, and even biblical prophecy can be accepted without positing a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate supernatural being. The design Richard sees is the Source's own nature expressing.
Chapter 4 – MILITANT ATHEISM AND MORE RESEARCH CHALLENGING BELIEFS
Richard's core claims: (1) Many scientists believe in God; atheists misrepresent this. (2) Belief in God is evidence-based, like belief in invisible light or black holes. (3) The "God of the gaps" accusation is false; most believers think God is behind everything, not just gaps. (4) Science doesn't know origins; it's arrogant to claim otherwise. (5) Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory fails to explain altruism, conscience, morality, and human rights. (6) Atheists misrepresent Einstein and Darwin. (7) The Bible describes a God who is not a "little man in the sky" but in whom "we live and move and have our being." (8) Atheism is a blind faith religion with no evidence.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard's critiques of atheism are often valid, but his positive claims about a separate supernatural Creator remain unsubstantiated.
Understandable? He correctly notes that science has limits and that mystery is not evidence for atheism. However, he does not provide a mechanism for how a separate supernatural Creator produces reality.
The gap: Richard repeatedly leaps from "science doesn't know" or "atheism is insufficient" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This is the same gap throughout his work.
Scientists believing in God: The CCA does not deny that many scientists believe in God. The question is what kind of God they believe in. If they believe in a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo, the CCA rejects that as a gap. If they believe in a God who is the ground of being—the Source—the CCA may be compatible. Richard does not make this distinction.
Evidence-based belief: Richard argues belief in God is like belief in invisible light or black holes (evidence of effects). The CCA agrees that the Source is known through its effects (the universe, consciousness, order). But the CCA's Source is wilful matter, not a separate supernatural being. Richard's analogy does not distinguish between these two interpretations.
"God of the gaps": Richard correctly notes that most believers do not use God to fill gaps; they see God behind everything. The CCA agrees: the Source is behind everything, not just gaps. But the CCA identifies that Source as wilful matter. Richard's alternative (separate supernatural Creator) is not the only way to hold this position.
Science's limits: The CCA does not depend on science's certainty. Science's limits do not prove strong supernaturalism; they only show that human knowledge is incomplete. The CCA's conclusions are philosophical, not scientific.
Altruism, conscience, morality: Richard argues that Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory fails to explain altruism, conscience, and human rights. The CCA agrees that reductionist evolutionary explanations are insufficient. The Source is wilful matter; morality, altruism, and conscience are the Source's own nature expressed in formation. No separate supernatural Creator is required. Richard's evidence for a designed conscience supports the CCA's wilful matter model, not strong supernaturalism.
Einstein and Darwin: Richard notes that Einstein was not an atheist and Darwin was agnostic. The CCA does not claim these figures as allies. Their views on God are irrelevant to the CCA's logical structure.
"Little man in the sky": Richard correctly notes that the Bible's God is not a "little man in the sky" but the one in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). The CCA agrees. That verse is central to the CCA's continuity model. Richard's citation of this verse undermines his own strong supernaturalism. If God is the ground in whom we live and move, then God is not a separate substance creating ex nihilo. He is the Source, continuous with creation. The CCA's wilful matter model fits this verse. Richard's separate Creator model does not.
Atheism as blind faith: Richard critiques atheism as lacking evidence. The CCA is not atheism. It affirms an eternal, physical, conscious Source. Richard's critique of atheism does not support his own strong supernaturalism; it supports the need for a coherent alternative. The CCA provides that alternative.
The CCA alternative: Richard's critiques of atheism and reductionist Darwinism are often valid. His defense of design, conscience, morality, and the biblical God (as ground, not a little man in the sky) can be accepted. But his conclusion—a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo—does not follow. The CCA offers a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; morality, conscience, and altruism are the Source's own nature expressing. The verse he cites (Acts 17:28) supports the CCA, not his separate Creator model. Richard has inadvertently provided evidence for the CCA's continuity model while missing the conclusion.
Chapter by Chapter through the CCA lens.
Chapter 1 – BASIC BIOLOGY GONE WILD
Richard's core claim: Life is irreducibly complex (molecular machines, DNA coding, proteins). Random chance cannot explain this complexity. Therefore, a Grand Designer (separate, supernatural Creator) must exist.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Yes. Life operates within consistent, lawful frameworks. Complexity is not incoherence.
Understandable? Partially. We understand many mechanisms, even if not all. "Not yet fully known" is not "unknowable in principle."
The gap: Richard rejects randomness (correctly) but then leaps to a strong supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo. That leap is an explanatory gap. "God did it" names the gap but does not bridge it. No mechanism is provided for how an immaterial, separate Creator produces material complexity.
CCA alternative: The Source is wilful matter. Molecular machines, DNA complexity, and protein folding are the Source's own inherent nature expressing as formation. No separate Creator is needed. The complexity Richard marvels at is the Source's own richness, not evidence of an external intelligence. The CCA closes the gap that Richard leaves open.
Chapter 2 – GENETIC AND OTHER EVIDENCE CHALLENGING MODERN THEORY
Richard's core claim: Non-random genetic changes (bacteria recycling DNA, squid RNA editing, archaea crossing superkingdoms) challenge Darwinian natural selection and randomness. Therefore, an Eternal Creator (separate, supernatural) exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Yes. Richard correctly notes that genetic changes are often non-random and adaptive. The CCA agrees: reality is not random. The Source is wilful; expression is lawful, creative, and directed.
Understandable? Partially. These mechanisms are being studied and understood. "Not yet fully known" does not equal "unknowable."
The gap: Richard leaps from "not random" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This leap is an explanatory gap. He provides no mechanism for how an immaterial, separate Creator produces non-random genetic changes.
The CCA alternative: Non-random genetic changes are the Source's own wilful expression. The Source does not need to intervene from outside; it is the system expressing. The CCA agrees that life is not random, but rejects the need for a separate supernatural designer. The Source is wilful matter; evolution (understood as adaptive expression) is the Source's own nature.
Francis Collins quote: Collins says DNA demonstrates design. The CCA agrees: design is the Source's own inherent nature expressing. But Collins (as Richard presents him) assumes a separate Creator. The CCA offers a different interpretation: design without a separate designer—design as the Source's own coherence.
Probability arguments: Richard cites astronomical odds against random formation. The CCA rejects randomness as the mechanism. The Source is wilful; complexity is not random but expressive. Probability arguments against randomness do not support strong supernaturalism; they support the need for a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA provides that Source without a gap.
Chapter 3 – RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS
Richard's core claims: (1) Life may be eternal and ubiquitous. (2) "Junk" DNA has function. (3) Science is uncertain and changes. (4) Fine-tuning and design are evident. (5) The Bible predicts cosmic collapse. (6) Black holes match biblical descriptions. (7) Atheists lack evidence. Therefore, a separate, supernatural Eternal Creator exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Partially. Much of what Richard cites (non-junk DNA, fine-tuning, cosmic design, quantum complexity) is coherent with a lawful, expressive universe.
Understandable? Some things are understood; others are not. Mystery is not a gap. "Not yet known" is not "unknowable in principle."
The gap: Richard leaps from "science doesn't know" or "the universe is complex/designed" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo." This leap is an explanatory gap. He provides no mechanism for how an immaterial Creator produces fine-tuning, DNA functionality, or cosmic design.
Eternal life: If life is eternal and ubiquitous, the CCA agrees—but identifies the Source as wilful matter, not a separate supernatural being. Richard's evidence for eternal life supports the CCA's eternal Source, not his separate Creator.
Junk DNA: Richard correctly notes that non-coding DNA has function. The CCA agrees. This is evidence of the Source's expressive complexity, not evidence of a separate supernatural designer.
Fine-tuning: The CCA agrees that the universe appears fine-tuned. But fine-tuning does not require a separate supernatural tuner. The Source is wilful matter; the laws and constants are the Source's own coherent nature expressing. Fine-tuning is the Source's own consistency, not an external adjustment.
Biblical predictions (cosmic collapse, black holes): Richard argues that biblical descriptions match scientific theories (universe rolling back, black holes as "bottomless pit"). Even if true, this does not prove strong supernaturalism. The CCA can accommodate biblical descriptions as the Source's own expression. The issue is not whether the Bible describes reality, but whether reality requires a separate supernatural Creator or is the Source's own expression.
Science uncertainty: Richard points out that science changes and disagrees. The CCA does not depend on any particular scientific theory. Science's provisional nature does not prove strong supernaturalism. It only shows that human knowledge is incomplete.
Atheist lack of evidence: Richard critiques atheists for lacking evidence for randomness and no-God. The CCA is not atheism. It affirms an eternal, physical, conscious Source. Richard's critique of atheism may be valid, but his alternative (strong supernaturalism) is not the only option. The CCA bridges the gap between atheistic materialism and strong supernaturalism.
The CCA alternative: All of Richard's evidence for design, fine-tuning, cosmic order, DNA complexity, and even biblical prophecy can be accepted without positing a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate supernatural being. The design Richard sees is the Source's own nature expressing.
Chapter 4 – MILITANT ATHEISM AND MORE RESEARCH CHALLENGING BELIEFS
Richard's core claims: (1) Many scientists believe in God; atheists misrepresent this. (2) Belief in God is evidence-based, like belief in invisible light or black holes. (3) The "God of the gaps" accusation is false; most believers think God is behind everything, not just gaps. (4) Science doesn't know origins; it's arrogant to claim otherwise. (5) Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory fails to explain altruism, conscience, morality, and human rights. (6) Atheists misrepresent Einstein and Darwin. (7) The Bible describes a God who is not a "little man in the sky" but in whom "we live and move and have our being." (8) Atheism is a blind faith religion with no evidence.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard's critiques of atheism are often valid, but his positive claims about a separate supernatural Creator remain unsubstantiated.
Understandable? He correctly notes that science has limits and that mystery is not evidence for atheism. However, he does not provide a mechanism for how a separate supernatural Creator produces reality.
The gap: Richard repeatedly leaps from "science doesn't know" or "atheism is insufficient" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This is the same gap throughout his work.
Scientists believing in God: The CCA does not deny that many scientists believe in God. The question is what kind of God they believe in. If they believe in a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo, the CCA rejects that as a gap. If they believe in a God who is the ground of being—the Source—the CCA may be compatible. Richard does not make this distinction.
Evidence-based belief: Richard argues belief in God is like belief in invisible light or black holes (evidence of effects). The CCA agrees that the Source is known through its effects (the universe, consciousness, order). But the CCA's Source is wilful matter, not a separate supernatural being. Richard's analogy does not distinguish between these two interpretations.
"God of the gaps": Richard correctly notes that most believers do not use God to fill gaps; they see God behind everything. The CCA agrees: the Source is behind everything, not just gaps. But the CCA identifies that Source as wilful matter. Richard's alternative (separate supernatural Creator) is not the only way to hold this position.
Science's limits: The CCA does not depend on science's certainty. Science's limits do not prove strong supernaturalism; they only show that human knowledge is incomplete. The CCA's conclusions are philosophical, not scientific.
Altruism, conscience, morality: Richard argues that Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory fails to explain altruism, conscience, and human rights. The CCA agrees that reductionist evolutionary explanations are insufficient. The Source is wilful matter; morality, altruism, and conscience are the Source's own nature expressed in formation. No separate supernatural Creator is required. Richard's evidence for a designed conscience supports the CCA's wilful matter model, not strong supernaturalism.
Einstein and Darwin: Richard notes that Einstein was not an atheist and Darwin was agnostic. The CCA does not claim these figures as allies. Their views on God are irrelevant to the CCA's logical structure.
"Little man in the sky": Richard correctly notes that the Bible's God is not a "little man in the sky" but the one in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). The CCA agrees. That verse is central to the CCA's continuity model. Richard's citation of this verse undermines his own strong supernaturalism. If God is the ground in whom we live and move, then God is not a separate substance creating ex nihilo. He is the Source, continuous with creation. The CCA's wilful matter model fits this verse. Richard's separate Creator model does not.
Atheism as blind faith: Richard critiques atheism as lacking evidence. The CCA is not atheism. It affirms an eternal, physical, conscious Source. Richard's critique of atheism does not support his own strong supernaturalism; it supports the need for a coherent alternative. The CCA provides that alternative.
The CCA alternative: Richard's critiques of atheism and reductionist Darwinism are often valid. His defense of design, conscience, morality, and the biblical God (as ground, not a little man in the sky) can be accepted. But his conclusion—a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo—does not follow. The CCA offers a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; morality, conscience, and altruism are the Source's own nature expressing. The verse he cites (Acts 17:28) supports the CCA, not his separate Creator model. Richard has inadvertently provided evidence for the CCA's continuity model while missing the conclusion.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #326Richard Aberdeen's linked book...continued
Chapter 5 – MYSTERY OF MATHEMATICS
Richard's core claims: (1) The universe is mathematically designed (fractals, pi, golden ratio). (2) Math exists prior to humans (animals do math). (3) Probability arguments (protein formation, cell assembly, Penrose's 10^10,123) make random design absurd. (4) Therefore, an Intelligent Designer (separate, supernatural Creator) exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Yes. The universe operates within consistent, lawful, mathematical frameworks. The CCA's P3 requires a natural cause to operate within consistent laws. Mathematics is the description of that consistency.
Understandable? Partially. Math is understandable in principle, even if not fully. The CCA requires the Source to be "potentially understandable in principle." Math meets that criterion.
The gap: Richard leaps from "the universe is mathematical" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This leap is an explanatory gap. He provides no mechanism for how an immaterial, separate Creator produces mathematical order.
Math as prior to humans: Richard argues that animals do math, therefore math is not a human invention. The CCA agrees. Math is the Source's own language—the coherent framework within which the Source expresses as formations. Math does not point to a separate supernatural Creator; it points to the Source's own coherent nature.
Probability arguments: Richard cites astronomical odds against random formation (protein 10^164, cell 10^340, Penrose 10^10,123). The CCA rejects randomness as the mechanism. The Source is wilful; complexity is not random but expressive. Probability arguments against randomness do not support strong supernaturalism; they support the need for a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA provides that Source without a gap.
DNA as language/information: Richard argues that information cannot arise randomly; it requires intelligence. The CCA agrees that randomness is insufficient. But the CCA's Source is wilful matter—intelligence is inherent, not external. DNA's informational complexity is the Source's own language expressing as formation. No separate intelligence is required.
The CCA alternative: All of Richard's evidence for mathematical design, prior math, probability, and DNA information can be accepted without positing a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; math is the Source's own coherent language; complexity is the Source's own expression. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate supernatural being. The mathematical design Richard marvels at is the Source's own nature, not evidence of an external designer.
Chapter 6 – HOGWARTS, ABIOGENESIS AND MAGIC
Richard's core claims: (1) Evolutionary theory is constantly revised and redefined; it's misleading. (2) Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is "magic" — belief in random, blind, unguided processes. (3) Life may predate Earth; if so, evolutionary theory cannot explain origins. (4) Scientists who claim "almost certain no God" are arrogant and unscientific. (5) Comparing God to the "flying spaghetti monster" is a category error. (6) The universe displays grand design; atheism requires more blind faith than any mythology.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard's critique of abiogenesis as "magic" is valid from the CCA perspective. The CCA rejects strong supernaturalism and also rejects weak naturalism (random, blind, unguided processes). Both create gaps. The CCA's continuity model (wilful matter expressing) is neither magic nor random.
Understandable? Richard argues that origins may be unknowable to human science. The CCA agrees that science has limits. But the CCA's Source is "potentially understandable in principle" — not necessarily through science, but through philosophy, logic, and coherence. The CCA does not require scientific certainty.
The gap: Richard's alternative to abiogenesis is strong supernaturalism — a separate Creator creating ex nihilo. The CCA rejects this as another form of magic. "God did it" with no mechanism is as much a gap as "random processes did it." The CCA closes both gaps.
Evolution as "change": Richard notes that evolution is often redefined and that "life adapts and changes" is the core evidence. The CCA agrees. Adaptation and change are consistent with the Source expressing as formations over time. No separate supernatural intervention is required.
Abiogenesis vs. eternal life: Richard suggests life may be eternal (predating Earth). The CCA agrees: the Source is eternal. Life does not need to emerge from non-life; life is the Source's own nature expressing. This is not abiogenesis and not strong supernaturalism. It is continuity.
Arrogance of atheist scientists: Richard critiques scientists who claim certainty about God's non-existence. The CCA is not atheism. It affirms an eternal, physical, conscious Source. Richard's critique of atheist arrogance does not support his own strong supernaturalism; it supports the need for a coherent alternative. The CCA provides that alternative.
"Flying spaghetti monster" analogy: Richard correctly notes that comparing God (as Creator) to the spaghetti monster (a human invention with no claim to creation) is a category error. The CCA agrees. The Source is not a "magical being" but the coherent ground of reality. The analogy fails because the CCA's Source is not a whimsical invention but a necessary conclusion from causality and coherence.
The CCA alternative: Richard's critiques of abiogenesis, evolutionary dogmatism, and atheist arrogance are often valid. But his alternative (strong supernaturalism) is another form of magic — an unexplained gap. The CCA offers a third path: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No ex nihilo. No random magic. No supernatural magic. Just coherence, expression, and continuity. Richard has correctly identified the problems with both weak naturalism and strong supernaturalism but has not yet recognized the CCA as the coherent resolution.
Chapter 7 – GOD AND CHARLES DARWIN
Richard's core claims: (1) Darwin credited the Creator in every edition after the first. (2) Darwin's theory does NOT explain the origin of life. (3) Modern science still doesn't know how life began. (4) "Eternal Creator" is the only rational explanation for origins. (5) Darwin was agnostic, not atheist. (6) Atheism requires more blind faith than belief in God.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard correctly notes that Darwin's theory does not address ultimate origins. The CCA agrees. The CCA is not a biological theory; it is a philosophical argument about causality and the nature of the Source.
Understandable? Richard argues that origins may be beyond human science. The CCA agrees that science has limits. But the CCA's Source is "potentially understandable in principle" through philosophy and coherence, not necessarily through empirical science.
The gap: Richard concludes that "Eternal Creator" is the only rational explanation for origins. But he defines that Creator as separate, supernatural, creating ex nihilo. The CCA rejects this as an explanatory gap. "God did it" names the gap but does not bridge it. The CCA offers a different eternal Source: wilful matter, continuous with creation, no gap.
Darwin's belief in God: Richard argues that Darwin believed in a Creator. The CCA does not depend on Darwin's authority. Whether Darwin believed in God is irrelevant to the CCA's logical structure. However, if Darwin believed the Creator is behind the processes of life (continuous), that is closer to the CCA than to strong supernaturalism. If Darwin believed in a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo, he provided no mechanism. The CCA offers a coherent alternative.
Science does not know origins: Richard repeatedly notes that science does not know how life began. The CCA does not claim to provide a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. It claims that the Source is eternal, physical, conscious, and that creation is matter taking form. This is a philosophical framework, not a scientific hypothesis. It does not depend on science's ability to explain origins.
"Eternal Creator" as only rational explanation: Richard's conclusion is a false binary: either atheism (no explanation) or strong supernaturalism (separate Creator). The CCA offers a third option: the Source is wilful matter; creation is matter taking form. No gap. No separate supernatural being. This is a rational explanation that does not rely on strong supernaturalism. Richard has not considered this alternative.
The CCA alternative: Richard's appeals to Darwin, critiques of atheism, and acknowledgment of science's limits do not necessitate a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is eternal, physical, conscious; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate being. Darwin's "Creator" could be interpreted as the CCA's Source (continuous) rather than a strong supernatural being. Richard assumes the latter but does not argue for it. The CCA offers a more coherent reading of both Darwin and the evidence.
Chapter 8 – IS MODERN THEORY AS "ROCK-SOLID" AS SOME CLAIM?
Richard's core claims: (1) Evolutionary theory is not "rock-solid"; it is in flux, with scientists calling for revision. (2) Horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, and non-random genetic changes challenge standard Darwinian models. (3) The "tree of life" may not be accurate. (4) Therefore, design (separate supernatural Creator) is the better explanation.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard correctly notes that evolutionary theory is contested and changing. The CCA does not depend on any particular biological theory. It is a philosophical argument about causality and the Source. Scientific flux does not threaten the CCA.
Understandable? The mechanisms Richard cites (horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, gene editing) are being studied and understood. They operate within lawful frameworks. This supports the CCA's requirement that the Source be coherent and understandable.
The gap: Richard leaps from "evolutionary theory is incomplete/changing" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This is the same gap throughout his work. The CCA rejects this leap. A changing scientific theory does not necessitate strong supernaturalism.
Non-random genetic changes: Richard cites evidence that genetic changes are not purely random (bacteria recycling DNA, squid RNA editing). The CCA agrees that reality is not random. The Source is wilful; expression is directed, not random. But this does not require a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA's Source (wilful matter) accounts for non-randomness without a gap.
The CCA alternative: Richard's evidence against a purely random, "blind" evolutionary process is accepted. The CCA agrees that randomness is insufficient. But the CCA provides a different framework: the Source is wilful matter; what we call evolution is the Source's own creative expression. No separate supernatural intervention is required. Richard's critique of standard evolutionary theory does not support his conclusion; it supports the need for a coherent alternative. The CCA provides that alternative.
Chapter 5 – MYSTERY OF MATHEMATICS
Richard's core claims: (1) The universe is mathematically designed (fractals, pi, golden ratio). (2) Math exists prior to humans (animals do math). (3) Probability arguments (protein formation, cell assembly, Penrose's 10^10,123) make random design absurd. (4) Therefore, an Intelligent Designer (separate, supernatural Creator) exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Yes. The universe operates within consistent, lawful, mathematical frameworks. The CCA's P3 requires a natural cause to operate within consistent laws. Mathematics is the description of that consistency.
Understandable? Partially. Math is understandable in principle, even if not fully. The CCA requires the Source to be "potentially understandable in principle." Math meets that criterion.
The gap: Richard leaps from "the universe is mathematical" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This leap is an explanatory gap. He provides no mechanism for how an immaterial, separate Creator produces mathematical order.
Math as prior to humans: Richard argues that animals do math, therefore math is not a human invention. The CCA agrees. Math is the Source's own language—the coherent framework within which the Source expresses as formations. Math does not point to a separate supernatural Creator; it points to the Source's own coherent nature.
Probability arguments: Richard cites astronomical odds against random formation (protein 10^164, cell 10^340, Penrose 10^10,123). The CCA rejects randomness as the mechanism. The Source is wilful; complexity is not random but expressive. Probability arguments against randomness do not support strong supernaturalism; they support the need for a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA provides that Source without a gap.
DNA as language/information: Richard argues that information cannot arise randomly; it requires intelligence. The CCA agrees that randomness is insufficient. But the CCA's Source is wilful matter—intelligence is inherent, not external. DNA's informational complexity is the Source's own language expressing as formation. No separate intelligence is required.
The CCA alternative: All of Richard's evidence for mathematical design, prior math, probability, and DNA information can be accepted without positing a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; math is the Source's own coherent language; complexity is the Source's own expression. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate supernatural being. The mathematical design Richard marvels at is the Source's own nature, not evidence of an external designer.
Chapter 6 – HOGWARTS, ABIOGENESIS AND MAGIC
Richard's core claims: (1) Evolutionary theory is constantly revised and redefined; it's misleading. (2) Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is "magic" — belief in random, blind, unguided processes. (3) Life may predate Earth; if so, evolutionary theory cannot explain origins. (4) Scientists who claim "almost certain no God" are arrogant and unscientific. (5) Comparing God to the "flying spaghetti monster" is a category error. (6) The universe displays grand design; atheism requires more blind faith than any mythology.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard's critique of abiogenesis as "magic" is valid from the CCA perspective. The CCA rejects strong supernaturalism and also rejects weak naturalism (random, blind, unguided processes). Both create gaps. The CCA's continuity model (wilful matter expressing) is neither magic nor random.
Understandable? Richard argues that origins may be unknowable to human science. The CCA agrees that science has limits. But the CCA's Source is "potentially understandable in principle" — not necessarily through science, but through philosophy, logic, and coherence. The CCA does not require scientific certainty.
The gap: Richard's alternative to abiogenesis is strong supernaturalism — a separate Creator creating ex nihilo. The CCA rejects this as another form of magic. "God did it" with no mechanism is as much a gap as "random processes did it." The CCA closes both gaps.
Evolution as "change": Richard notes that evolution is often redefined and that "life adapts and changes" is the core evidence. The CCA agrees. Adaptation and change are consistent with the Source expressing as formations over time. No separate supernatural intervention is required.
Abiogenesis vs. eternal life: Richard suggests life may be eternal (predating Earth). The CCA agrees: the Source is eternal. Life does not need to emerge from non-life; life is the Source's own nature expressing. This is not abiogenesis and not strong supernaturalism. It is continuity.
Arrogance of atheist scientists: Richard critiques scientists who claim certainty about God's non-existence. The CCA is not atheism. It affirms an eternal, physical, conscious Source. Richard's critique of atheist arrogance does not support his own strong supernaturalism; it supports the need for a coherent alternative. The CCA provides that alternative.
"Flying spaghetti monster" analogy: Richard correctly notes that comparing God (as Creator) to the spaghetti monster (a human invention with no claim to creation) is a category error. The CCA agrees. The Source is not a "magical being" but the coherent ground of reality. The analogy fails because the CCA's Source is not a whimsical invention but a necessary conclusion from causality and coherence.
The CCA alternative: Richard's critiques of abiogenesis, evolutionary dogmatism, and atheist arrogance are often valid. But his alternative (strong supernaturalism) is another form of magic — an unexplained gap. The CCA offers a third path: the Source is wilful matter; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No ex nihilo. No random magic. No supernatural magic. Just coherence, expression, and continuity. Richard has correctly identified the problems with both weak naturalism and strong supernaturalism but has not yet recognized the CCA as the coherent resolution.
Chapter 7 – GOD AND CHARLES DARWIN
Richard's core claims: (1) Darwin credited the Creator in every edition after the first. (2) Darwin's theory does NOT explain the origin of life. (3) Modern science still doesn't know how life began. (4) "Eternal Creator" is the only rational explanation for origins. (5) Darwin was agnostic, not atheist. (6) Atheism requires more blind faith than belief in God.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard correctly notes that Darwin's theory does not address ultimate origins. The CCA agrees. The CCA is not a biological theory; it is a philosophical argument about causality and the nature of the Source.
Understandable? Richard argues that origins may be beyond human science. The CCA agrees that science has limits. But the CCA's Source is "potentially understandable in principle" through philosophy and coherence, not necessarily through empirical science.
The gap: Richard concludes that "Eternal Creator" is the only rational explanation for origins. But he defines that Creator as separate, supernatural, creating ex nihilo. The CCA rejects this as an explanatory gap. "God did it" names the gap but does not bridge it. The CCA offers a different eternal Source: wilful matter, continuous with creation, no gap.
Darwin's belief in God: Richard argues that Darwin believed in a Creator. The CCA does not depend on Darwin's authority. Whether Darwin believed in God is irrelevant to the CCA's logical structure. However, if Darwin believed the Creator is behind the processes of life (continuous), that is closer to the CCA than to strong supernaturalism. If Darwin believed in a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo, he provided no mechanism. The CCA offers a coherent alternative.
Science does not know origins: Richard repeatedly notes that science does not know how life began. The CCA does not claim to provide a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. It claims that the Source is eternal, physical, conscious, and that creation is matter taking form. This is a philosophical framework, not a scientific hypothesis. It does not depend on science's ability to explain origins.
"Eternal Creator" as only rational explanation: Richard's conclusion is a false binary: either atheism (no explanation) or strong supernaturalism (separate Creator). The CCA offers a third option: the Source is wilful matter; creation is matter taking form. No gap. No separate supernatural being. This is a rational explanation that does not rely on strong supernaturalism. Richard has not considered this alternative.
The CCA alternative: Richard's appeals to Darwin, critiques of atheism, and acknowledgment of science's limits do not necessitate a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is eternal, physical, conscious; what we call creation is matter taking form. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate being. Darwin's "Creator" could be interpreted as the CCA's Source (continuous) rather than a strong supernatural being. Richard assumes the latter but does not argue for it. The CCA offers a more coherent reading of both Darwin and the evidence.
Chapter 8 – IS MODERN THEORY AS "ROCK-SOLID" AS SOME CLAIM?
Richard's core claims: (1) Evolutionary theory is not "rock-solid"; it is in flux, with scientists calling for revision. (2) Horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, and non-random genetic changes challenge standard Darwinian models. (3) The "tree of life" may not be accurate. (4) Therefore, design (separate supernatural Creator) is the better explanation.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard correctly notes that evolutionary theory is contested and changing. The CCA does not depend on any particular biological theory. It is a philosophical argument about causality and the Source. Scientific flux does not threaten the CCA.
Understandable? The mechanisms Richard cites (horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, gene editing) are being studied and understood. They operate within lawful frameworks. This supports the CCA's requirement that the Source be coherent and understandable.
The gap: Richard leaps from "evolutionary theory is incomplete/changing" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator." This is the same gap throughout his work. The CCA rejects this leap. A changing scientific theory does not necessitate strong supernaturalism.
Non-random genetic changes: Richard cites evidence that genetic changes are not purely random (bacteria recycling DNA, squid RNA editing). The CCA agrees that reality is not random. The Source is wilful; expression is directed, not random. But this does not require a separate supernatural Creator. The CCA's Source (wilful matter) accounts for non-randomness without a gap.
The CCA alternative: Richard's evidence against a purely random, "blind" evolutionary process is accepted. The CCA agrees that randomness is insufficient. But the CCA provides a different framework: the Source is wilful matter; what we call evolution is the Source's own creative expression. No separate supernatural intervention is required. Richard's critique of standard evolutionary theory does not support his conclusion; it supports the need for a coherent alternative. The CCA provides that alternative.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #327Chapter 11 – UNIVERSAL TRANSITION
Richard's core claims: (1) "Nature" and "creation" were once used interchangeably; modern science misleadingly uses only "nature" to imply no Creator. (2) Darwin credited the Creator in later editions. (3) Science still doesn't know the origin of life. (4) "Species" is an artificial human invention; claiming one species evolves from another is misleading. (5) All of reality is in dynamic transition (quantum to cosmos). (6) Life is designed to adapt and change within an ever-changing universe. (7) The universe is "fine-tuned" for life. (8) Probability arguments make random design absurd. (9) Therefore, an Eternal Creator (separate, supernatural) exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard's core observation—that all of reality is in dynamic transition, that life adapts and changes within an ever-changing universe—is coherent with the CCA. The CCA's Source is wilful matter expressing as formations over time. Change is not a problem; it is the nature of expression.
Understandable? Richard argues that science may never fully understand origins or the quantum realm. The CCA does not require complete scientific understanding. It requires that the Source be "potentially understandable in principle" through philosophy and coherence. Mystery is not a gap.
The gap: Richard repeatedly leaps from "science doesn't know" or "the universe is dynamic" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo." This leap is the same gap throughout his work. The CCA rejects this leap. A dynamic, fine-tuned, adapting universe does not necessitate a separate supernatural being. It necessitates a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA provides that Source without a gap.
"Nature" vs. "creation": Richard argues that changing terminology ("natural world" instead of "creation") creates bias. The CCA agrees that terminology matters. The CCA's term "natural" (broad sense: coherent, lawful, understandable) is not intended to exclude creation. It is intended to exclude strong supernaturalism. The CCA affirms creation—but as expression, not ex nihilo.
Darwin's Creator: Richard notes that Darwin credited "the Creator." The CCA does not depend on Darwin's authority. However, Darwin's "Creator" could be interpreted as the CCA's Source (continuous) rather than a strong supernatural being. Richard assumes the latter but does not argue for it.
"Species" as artificial: Richard correctly notes that "species" is a human classification. The CCA agrees. The underlying reality is the Source expressing as formations. Classification does not change the underlying continuity.
Dynamic transition (quantum to cosmos): Richard observes that all of reality is in flux—adapting, changing, re-arranging. The CCA agrees. The Source is wilful; expression is not static. This dynamic quality is not evidence of a separate supernatural Creator; it is evidence of the Source's own creative nature.
Fine-tuning and probability: Richard argues that fine-tuning and astronomical odds against randomness require a Creator. The CCA agrees that randomness is insufficient. But fine-tuning and probability do not necessitate a separate supernatural Creator. They necessitate a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA's Source (wilful matter) is that Source. The fine-tuning is the Source's own consistency; the probability arguments show that randomness fails, not that strong supernaturalism succeeds.
The CCA alternative: Richard's evidence for a dynamic, fine-tuned, adapting universe is accepted. His conclusion (separate supernatural Creator) does not follow. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; what we call "universal transition" is the Source's own expression. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate supernatural being. The universe is not "nature" vs. "creation"; it is the Source, forming. Richard has correctly identified the inadequacy of purely random, mechanistic models. He has not yet recognized that the CCA offers a coherent resolution that does not rely on strong supernaturalism.
______________
Richard, your entire project rests on the unexamined claim that the Creator must be supernatural (separate, ex nihilo, beyond understanding). The CCA offers an alternative: the Source is wilful matter; creation is matter taking form. Your evidence for design, order, and fine-tuning is accepted. Your conclusion does not follow. The CCA provides a more coherent framework without the gaps of strong supernaturalism.
The CCA has identified the core assumption that underpins your entire work. Every chapter, every argument, every piece of evidence presented ultimately rests on that single, unexamined claim: "The Creator is supernatural" meaning separate from creation, creates ex nihilo, and is beyond understanding.
What you have actually demonstrated:
The universe is coherent, lawful, mathematically structured
Life is complex, adaptive, and expressive
Purely random, mechanistic models are insufficient
Science has limits and does not know ultimate origins
Many scientists have believed in a Creator
What you have not demonstrated:
That the Creator must be "supernatural" in the strong sense (separate, creates ex nihilo, beyond understanding)
That a separate supernatural Creator is the only possible interpretation of the evidence
That continuity (the Source as wilful matter expressing as formations) is not a viable alternative
I find your Post #322 more an attempt by you to advertise your online site than a sincere effort to engage with The Coherent Causality Argument (updated)
Richard's core claims: (1) "Nature" and "creation" were once used interchangeably; modern science misleadingly uses only "nature" to imply no Creator. (2) Darwin credited the Creator in later editions. (3) Science still doesn't know the origin of life. (4) "Species" is an artificial human invention; claiming one species evolves from another is misleading. (5) All of reality is in dynamic transition (quantum to cosmos). (6) Life is designed to adapt and change within an ever-changing universe. (7) The universe is "fine-tuned" for life. (8) Probability arguments make random design absurd. (9) Therefore, an Eternal Creator (separate, supernatural) exists.
CCA lens assessment:
Coherent? Richard's core observation—that all of reality is in dynamic transition, that life adapts and changes within an ever-changing universe—is coherent with the CCA. The CCA's Source is wilful matter expressing as formations over time. Change is not a problem; it is the nature of expression.
Understandable? Richard argues that science may never fully understand origins or the quantum realm. The CCA does not require complete scientific understanding. It requires that the Source be "potentially understandable in principle" through philosophy and coherence. Mystery is not a gap.
The gap: Richard repeatedly leaps from "science doesn't know" or "the universe is dynamic" to "therefore, a separate supernatural Creator creating ex nihilo." This leap is the same gap throughout his work. The CCA rejects this leap. A dynamic, fine-tuned, adapting universe does not necessitate a separate supernatural being. It necessitates a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA provides that Source without a gap.
"Nature" vs. "creation": Richard argues that changing terminology ("natural world" instead of "creation") creates bias. The CCA agrees that terminology matters. The CCA's term "natural" (broad sense: coherent, lawful, understandable) is not intended to exclude creation. It is intended to exclude strong supernaturalism. The CCA affirms creation—but as expression, not ex nihilo.
Darwin's Creator: Richard notes that Darwin credited "the Creator." The CCA does not depend on Darwin's authority. However, Darwin's "Creator" could be interpreted as the CCA's Source (continuous) rather than a strong supernatural being. Richard assumes the latter but does not argue for it.
"Species" as artificial: Richard correctly notes that "species" is a human classification. The CCA agrees. The underlying reality is the Source expressing as formations. Classification does not change the underlying continuity.
Dynamic transition (quantum to cosmos): Richard observes that all of reality is in flux—adapting, changing, re-arranging. The CCA agrees. The Source is wilful; expression is not static. This dynamic quality is not evidence of a separate supernatural Creator; it is evidence of the Source's own creative nature.
Fine-tuning and probability: Richard argues that fine-tuning and astronomical odds against randomness require a Creator. The CCA agrees that randomness is insufficient. But fine-tuning and probability do not necessitate a separate supernatural Creator. They necessitate a coherent, lawful, expressive Source. The CCA's Source (wilful matter) is that Source. The fine-tuning is the Source's own consistency; the probability arguments show that randomness fails, not that strong supernaturalism succeeds.
The CCA alternative: Richard's evidence for a dynamic, fine-tuned, adapting universe is accepted. His conclusion (separate supernatural Creator) does not follow. The CCA provides a more coherent framework: the Source is wilful matter; what we call "universal transition" is the Source's own expression. No gap. No ex nihilo. No separate supernatural being. The universe is not "nature" vs. "creation"; it is the Source, forming. Richard has correctly identified the inadequacy of purely random, mechanistic models. He has not yet recognized that the CCA offers a coherent resolution that does not rely on strong supernaturalism.
______________
Richard, your entire project rests on the unexamined claim that the Creator must be supernatural (separate, ex nihilo, beyond understanding). The CCA offers an alternative: the Source is wilful matter; creation is matter taking form. Your evidence for design, order, and fine-tuning is accepted. Your conclusion does not follow. The CCA provides a more coherent framework without the gaps of strong supernaturalism.
The CCA has identified the core assumption that underpins your entire work. Every chapter, every argument, every piece of evidence presented ultimately rests on that single, unexamined claim: "The Creator is supernatural" meaning separate from creation, creates ex nihilo, and is beyond understanding.
What you have actually demonstrated:
The universe is coherent, lawful, mathematically structured
Life is complex, adaptive, and expressive
Purely random, mechanistic models are insufficient
Science has limits and does not know ultimate origins
Many scientists have believed in a Creator
What you have not demonstrated:
That the Creator must be "supernatural" in the strong sense (separate, creates ex nihilo, beyond understanding)
That a separate supernatural Creator is the only possible interpretation of the evidence
That continuity (the Source as wilful matter expressing as formations) is not a viable alternative
I find your Post #322 more an attempt by you to advertise your online site than a sincere effort to engage with The Coherent Causality Argument (updated)
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Jester
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4248
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #328[Replying to William in post #1]
This is a very interesting and thoughtful post. I'll do my best with it, while admitting that these are hard questions.
I think the logical structure here is mostly very strong. If I skip a point, it is because I agree that it follows.
I suspect that much of the debate will hang on the support for this premise. So far, I'm not aware of strong support for it.
If consciousness is physical reality, we will immediately face the combination problem—which seems an explanatory gap comparable to the hard problem of consciousness and what is here being called "strong supernaturalism".
It is questionable whether equating consciousness with physical reality is really doing much, if any, explanatory work. It may itself be a kind of placeholder.
It is also unexplained how "physical reality" can casually give rise to the universe. This is largely because I'm not yet clear about whether "physical reality" includes the universe, whether it is some sort of abstraction, or something else. By what mechanism does physical reality give rise to the universe?
Also, I can't help but notice the parallels here to classical theism (specifically, the Aristotelian-Thomistic school). If that is not intentional, I definitely recommend you look into it. It may help you further refine this argument. Specifically, Aristotelianism is often praised for the way that it avoids both the hard problem of consciousness and the interaction problem.
Finally, this is a very thoughtful, serious attempt to make a line of reasoning clear. It obviously raises the bar in terms of quality of debate on the site. I very much enjoyed reading it.
This is a very interesting and thoughtful post. I'll do my best with it, while admitting that these are hard questions.
I think the logical structure here is mostly very strong. If I skip a point, it is because I agree that it follows.
This strikes me as almost synonymous with naturalism. Therefore, presenting it without support is tantamount to the presumption of naturalism.
I suspect that much of the debate will hang on the support for this premise. So far, I'm not aware of strong support for it.
I tend to agree, but this is a little weak to support the conclusion. We'd have to argue that the universe did have a beginning (but I doubt this is a point of major contention).
This seems a little too loose for a demonstration. Surely, "natural" would include more than "some" framework, but a naturalistic framework. Otherwise, we risk expanding the definition of "natural" to mean "anything which can be explained in principle". In that case, we'll almost certainly end up equivocating on the term "natural".
This relates to my last comment. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond scientific understanding. But this is not to say that it is beyond all understanding.
Just to repeat, this reduces "natural" to "coherent, consistent, and conceptually describable". Multiple beings traditionally understood as supernatural fit this description.
I agree that an infinite regress is not an explanation, but don't see that this follows from the above. I'd say that this is a premise, not a conclusion.
I'd say this follows from P4 and even a modest form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. My main contention here is that P4 is overly broad and not yet well supported.
This is an interesting move. I don't immediately see a problem with it (if we've accepted what precedes it). I'll have to think on how strong the equivalence is here...
I don't see how this follows from the above, for a few reasons other than my prior objections.
If consciousness is physical reality, we will immediately face the combination problem—which seems an explanatory gap comparable to the hard problem of consciousness and what is here being called "strong supernaturalism".
It is questionable whether equating consciousness with physical reality is really doing much, if any, explanatory work. It may itself be a kind of placeholder.
It is also unexplained how "physical reality" can casually give rise to the universe. This is largely because I'm not yet clear about whether "physical reality" includes the universe, whether it is some sort of abstraction, or something else. By what mechanism does physical reality give rise to the universe?
Broadly, I'm not sure how this offers a more complete explanation of reality than certain supernatural alternatives. Specifically, I'm confused about P3. Is it simply claiming that explicability is a necessary property of any natural being, or is it the claim that anything explicable must necessarily be natural? If the latter, I suspect that we are presuming naturalism (via a form of equivocation). If the former, then I would maintain that we won't be able to support P6.William wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 5:32 pmThe universe was caused by an eternal, physical, conscious Source - not by a supernatural one. Consciousness is not an add-on or a possibility; it is the nature of the Source itself. This avoids the explanatory dead-end of supernaturalism while also resolving the hard problem of consciousness by grounding subjective experience in the fundamental nature of reality.
Also, I can't help but notice the parallels here to classical theism (specifically, the Aristotelian-Thomistic school). If that is not intentional, I definitely recommend you look into it. It may help you further refine this argument. Specifically, Aristotelianism is often praised for the way that it avoids both the hard problem of consciousness and the interaction problem.
Finally, this is a very thoughtful, serious attempt to make a line of reasoning clear. It obviously raises the bar in terms of quality of debate on the site. I very much enjoyed reading it.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #329[Replying to Jester in post #328]
To the right of me...a voice most sensible ynder the stance.
Presently I am preoccupied with my mums dying stages
It is a new experience 4 me
I think i can see where your coming from
The thing 4me is that i met the "consciousness' b4 I began to nut out the details, hence the Work in Progress...
...more on that latter...pleased to meet ya....
W
To the right of me...a voice most sensible ynder the stance.
Presently I am preoccupied with my mums dying stages
It is a new experience 4 me
I think i can see where your coming from
The thing 4me is that i met the "consciousness' b4 I began to nut out the details, hence the Work in Progress...
...more on that latter...pleased to meet ya....
W
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Jester
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4248
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: The Coherent Causality Argument
Post #330[Replying to William in post #329]
To be sure, spend time with your mother. I hope for the best, there.
To be sure, spend time with your mother. I hope for the best, there.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.
