The Coherent Causality Argument

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

Hi.
This is my first thread created on this Message Board.

I have been working on this argument for a while and invite critique which might serve to tidy it up or throw it in the scrap.
The argument was initially developed as a possible means to bridge the otherwise irreconcilable traditional divide between naturalism and theism.

This argument is not meant to prove the God of any religion. It is meant to show that the divide between naturalism and theism is not as deep as it appears. It argues that a natural, conscious Source is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the universe and for the presence of consciousness in it. I invite critique, especially on the move from ‘natural cause’ to ‘physical Source,’ and on the claim that consciousness is fundamental.
:slight_smile:
Cheers.

The Coherent Causality Argument (Draft)
Definitions (Oxford Languages):

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Premises:

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 (and necessary).

New premises moving consciousness from note to conclusion:

P6: A non-physical substance cannot produce physical effects without an explanatory gap (from P4 and the rejection of strong supernaturalism).

P7: The Source produces physical effects (the universe, matter, formations).

C4: Therefore, the Source is physical.

P8: The Source, being physical, either is conscious or is not.

P9: If the Source is not conscious, consciousness must emerge from non-conscious physical reality. This is the hard problem of consciousness—an unexplained gap equivalent to strong supernaturalism.

P10: Consciousness is not a separate substance, nor is it an emergent property. Consciousness is physical reality. The Source does not have consciousness; the Source is consciousness.

C5: Therefore, the Source is conscious.

C4 established that the Source is physical. Consciousness is not an attribute the Source has; the Source is consciousness. Therefore, the Source is physical consciousness - wilful matter.

Overall Conclusion:

The 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.

2 Likes
An argument for the existence of God
On the nature of God
The Rattling Chains of Supernaturalism and The Occult
2

Was lightning supernatural back when it was beyond scientific understanding?

I can’t really parse your P4 without a better understanding of that.

How do we know a thing is temporarily beyond scientific understanding or permanently so?

3

No. What changed was how the observers defined it.

WE don’t know and we also don’t assume.

For example, we can imagine how a type 1 civilisation might have way more knowledge than a type 0 and thus - from their perspective they can say “we know more than we did, and the things we have yet to know could help us become a type 3 civilisation.” - but we will still be saying “we know more than we did and there is more to find out/discover.”

Therein we cannot say " there are things which are permanently beyond scientific understanding" without describing what those “things” actually are, and to describe those things, would be the same as having scientific understanding…

We cannot point to something and say: “That is supernatural.” The only coherent position is to treat all phenomena as potentially natural - even if we do not yet understand them.
This means that supernaturalism is not an explanatory alternative. It is a placeholder for ignorance. And if it is a placeholder for ignorance, it cannot function as a causal explanation.

5

Why is it not exactly supernatural? I don’t get why it’s not

6

Good effort! Obviously you’re asking some deep and difficult questions, but well done for producing a coherent account. However I will call P1 into question.

Here, I think the difficulty is with understanding what constitutes a ‘natural cause’. Science operates as if the Universe is governed by laws, although even that modest description is called into question nowadays (i.e. ‘How the Laws of Physics Lie’, Nancy Cartwright.) But even if we accept the description, the point is that the nature of those laws, or why they are as they are, is not itself a scientific question. The existence and character of that lawful framework is itself something science presupposes rather than explains. When it turns around and tries to explain that order (as for example Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have attempted), then it is no longer a strictly scientific undertaking.

But doesn’t stipulating that the cause must be “natural” take us beyond what can actually be established by the natural sciences?

1 Like
7

All nature came into existence at some point t_0. There is no nature before t_0. Hence supernaturalism.

8

I addressed this in the OP. The distinction is that I am not positing a being outside of natural. I am positing a reality that is naturally expressed. The Source is the ground of existence itself. That is not supernaturalism in the usual sense and allows us to make coherent natural explanations which supernaturalism does not and is not able to provide.

The CCA does not distinguish anything outside the system as being supernatural, in the sense that such cannot ever be explained by any science

9

I do not think so. This would be like saying that if there were an intelligent species which is far more evolved than humans currently are, that their natural science couldn’t have established things which are beyond current human natural science.

10

This is not what the CCA is arguing. In the case of The Source, IT is considered natural even that IT is also considered uncreated (never having had a beginning) Indeed - IT is considered to be the most natural or primary-natural entity from which all things derive/take form from.

11

In which case, ‘natiural’ means what?

12

Is there some equivocation going on with the root word “nature”, here?

1 Like
13

Would you object, WhoKnows, if I reworded your P6

from:

P6: A non-physical substance cannot produce physical effects without an explanatory gap

to:

P6: We cannot explain how a nonphysical God (or source) could cause a physical universe

15

I am not sure what this means. What does it mean by “a natural cause”? How do you know P1 is true?

16

To me, it seems definitional. I think the author is saying that we will call all things natural. Even God and (apparent) magic, I suppose.

But I’m just supposing. I’m terrible at these P and C constructions.

17

As the OP states re Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The CCA argues that “natural” effectively means “everything” All that is known and all that is still to be known.

18

Good question @ Thrifclyfe

What do you think the reason is for why the question is asked, and what the answer to your question is and why that answer should be accepted as true?

For my part, The equivocation is not in my argument. It is in the human self-understanding that projects the category of ‘supernatural’ onto reality.

“Supernatural” is not a real category. It is a place holder/gap filler. It is a projection of the human experience of self as separate from nature. Once we recognize this, we see that ‘natural’ simply means ‘everything that is.’ The Source is not supernatural; it is natural. Consciousness is not an exception; it is the nature of nature.

19

@ BestGuessYet

You asked

Would you object, WhoKnows, if I reworded your P6
from:
P6: A non-physical substance cannot produce physical effects without an explanatory gap
to:
P6: We cannot explain how a nonphysical God (or source) could cause a physical universe

“a non-physical substance” is another way of showing an oxymoron.

20

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.

How do you know P1 is true?

Perhaps, by examining whether P3 is truthful/coherent…

21

Yes. That is what the CCA is arguing.
If a supernaturalist argues that their idea of The Source/God et al is “supernatural” the CCA is effectively arguing that the word itself has no explanatory power.
It is a meaningless word.

22

I have met many who seem to believe otherwise, though.