Sure
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.
I was not arguing for the supernatural thing.
Nor am I and nor does the CCA.
Yes, I understood that. I also understand that pointing out what something sounds like to your ears, is besides the point the CCA is making.
Your opinion was noted.
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.
This is a good one! No imprint or effect from any Super has been found in the natural, nor would any non-physical be able to talk the talk of the physical and so it would have no effect.
You’re doing well!
I have no idea what that means. That is why I couldn’t find it in the OP. How could that be the cause for the first cause?
Does it exist outside of the universe? Or inside of the universe?
Pointing out unclear claims is not for my ears, but just trying to say what is being claimed is not making sense.
It is to request being more clear, specific and intelligible with consistency and validity on the points.
Me too, although I wouldn’t describe it as a preference. From my own empirical observations, over a 71-year lifetime, I have noted that certainty is rarely, if ever, justified (or even extant), while uncertainty seems to be a universal fact of life. And so I accept uncertainty, because that’s what the world has shown to me, and I take claims to certainty with … scepticism and/or suspicion.
But that’s just me. All IMO. 
I’m a bit more radical, having built my personal theology around the concept of uncertainty. I see it as a valuable and positive thing.
Maybe I’ll start a thread some time.
I see it as an unavoidable feature of real life, as I have experienced it. This being so, our thinking, and our philosophy, should not only take account of it, but embrace it and make use of it, to the extent that we can discover useful ways of doing so. Chaos, in the sense of uncertainty, not true randomness, should be considered alongside laws, rules, and the like. Too often, we humans consider only the latter, Certaintist, sentiments. Mistakenly, IMO.
I don’t want to hijack the CCA thread. I haven’t learned how to start a new subject, but I’ll try to figure it.
Thanks.
Yes - it is perhaps unfair of anyone to ask for examples of supposed supernatural things since clearly there are no such things to example, but it does have the effect of underlining a true point.
I think at this point, the thread has run its course. Some get it and some do not and that is okay and natural for that. 