This doesn’t answer the question I put to you. What is the definition you are using for “supernature”?
So what is the eternal, natural, conscious reality? Is there any object which fits that description?
Without the details of information on the natural cause it talks about, what CCA offers sounds incoherent.
It is like saying non causality is causality. It needs to be within the general objective concept of causality, if the claim is anything to do with scientific in nature.
The universe is too large and diverse to be caused by a natural cause for its beginning. But the problem is the natural cause the CCA talks about is even more unclear than the universe itself to assert any causal relation between the two.
It needs more compelling arguments in its claim, it seems.
What is not natural is supernatural.
The CCA Is Designed To…
Argue that the cause of the universe must be natural.
Reject supernaturalism as a meaningful category.
Offer a coherent framework for approaching the question.
Establish that the Source is eternal, natural, and conscious.
The CCA Is Not Designed To…
Describe the Source in concrete, object-like terms.
Provide a full ontology of the Source.
Answer every question about the Source.
Describe the Source in empirical detail.
he CCA is a framework, not a complete theory. It establishes that the Source is natural—but it does not claim to know what the Source is in empirical terms.
Without the details of information on the natural cause it talks about, what CCA offers sounds incoherent.
The coherency the CCA argues for, is not in itself incoherent.
It isn’t about details. It is about theories pertaining to the existence of this, our universe, which can be examined through the lens of the CCA for the purpose of detecting overall coherence with said theories.
For example, the Simulation Theory. Likewise, any theory about the existence of our universe.
Who Knows: It doesn’t matter. A “fluke chance” is what, but a type of cause.
The CCA does not discount apparent randomness. The idea is not to form beliefs/bias for either end of the that spectrum, but to piece together as best as possible, the whole spectrum and specifically look for coherence.
The universe is too large and diverse to be caused by a natural cause for its beginning. But the problem is the natural cause the CCA talks about is even more unclear than the universe itself to assert any causal relation between the two.
The Source as defined by the CCA states that it is Eternal. While this does not imply a “size”, it is coherent that since this universe is a natural aspect of The Source from which it derives, then The Source will be vaster than our universe - so cast that it can produce from itself perhaps unlimited vast universes, of which ours is but one bubble on the “landscape” of The Source.
It needs more compelling arguments in its claim, it seems.
I think it may be adequate as a starting point and lens in which to place various theories on existence through.
I think from that, one can then organize compelling arguments through this one argument.
THe CCA is not a meant to be a complete theory; it is a framework for examining theories.
What is not natural is supernatural.
That still doesn’t define what is supernatural. Can you point to anything at all which is clearly not natural?
If so, perhaps you can then define what it is you have identified as supernatural. Otherwise it is simply a placeholder.
Your argument so far is that a supernatural thing created a natural thing. My problem with that is
- A supernatural creator-thing is incoherent because it lacks any substance/substantial explanation.
- There is no explanation as to why a supernatural thing would create something which is itself not supernatural.
If we are to accept your claim, you will at the very least have to provide substantially more of your theory than a simply claim. You need to be exact in your thesis “Why a Supernatural thing is the only coherent explanation for the existence of our universe”
A word will suffice, power. Power differential vis-a-vis the supernatural and the natural.
You raise a good point nevertheless - the supernatural are things like God, angels, etc. but the natural are things like humans, mice, stones, etc.
A word will suffice, power. Power differential vis-a-vis the supernatural and the natural.
This is like saying that the star Stephenson 2-18 is “supernatural” when compared to the Sol, which is natural.
Both are natural.
You raise a good point nevertheless - the supernatural are things like God, angels, etc. but the natural are things like humans, mice, stones, etc.
I raised no point.
The CCA would evaluate all such entities as being natural, whether they are ET, or species which evolved in an earlier epoch of our own planets evolution, or interdimensional beings (from another universe) or for that matter, creators of our universe/programmers of our simulated reality.
“The cause must be natural” doesn’t seem to be saying anything. It sounds like everything that exists was the cause, or even unknown cause was the cause.
There are different types of causes. Direct or indirect. Physical, psychological, logical or semantic. A natural cause doesn’t belong to any of the intelligible category of the causes.
A natural cause sounds like a reason for death of someone. It is not a right concept or word for describing anything relating to the universe.
What is on the other side of the bridge… if not another belief?
The CCA doesn’t argue for or against causes. It argues that the cause of anything that was caused, must have a common First Cause and that the First Cause must be natural.
The reason for the wording “Natural Cause” is to ensure that unsupported claims from supernaturalism are prevented from being snuck in as legitimate arguments.
Natural cause" might sound redundant, but the dogma of supernaturalism forces the term as necessary.
This can be clearly observed in the backstory of this thread, where members have attempted to argue for supernaturalism. Without the wording “Natural Cause”, the attempts made would have been harder to defend against.
Rather, other things on offer to believe.
Well, I can only live in this world by basing my behavior on my beliefs. So if you toss one away, wouldn’t you need to replace it immediately?
I mean, how do you behave if you’ve discarded your belief while pursuing another one?
For me natural means stuff like stones, hills, rivers, animals, human beings, etc.; what an ordinary person encounters in his ordinary life.
What caused the common First Cause? Why must it be natural?
But “Natural Cause” sounds more supernatural and unsupported than supernaturalism, because it has no answers to any questions. Where does the legitimacy come from for “Natural Cause”?
That might make for an interesting thread subject.
For me natural means stuff like stones, hills, rivers, animals, human beings, etc.; what an ordinary person encounters in his ordinary life.
For me it is also the same - I treat all claims of supernaturalism (miracles or magic) as naturally explainable in principle.
That’s a sensible policy. What’s your take on miracles?
The CCA opening post already answers these questions.
In order for you statement to be true, you would first have to give an example of something you consider to be supernatural, and then we can examine your example and show how it could be understood as a naturally produced event.
But, if you cannot name one supernatural thing, then I fail to see why you are arguing for supernaturalism or a supernatural cause.
I read the OP, but cannot locate where it says about the cause for the first cause. Could you quote it from the OP where it says about the cause for first cause?
I was not arguing for the supernatural thing. I was pointing out “natural cause” sounds more supernatural than supernatural, you were opposing.
1 Like
It’s not important to me.
But if you start another thread, I would be most curious to hear about what you saw and how they tie in to your proposal about all things being natural… your best guess about them, I mean.