The Coherent Causality Argument

I have been working on this idea for a while now. It is still a Work in Progress which means it is open to additions, tweaks et al.
I share it here because it is clear that some members want to get to know me - how I think etc...
In Love
Eternal Entity

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 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 must be eternal - uncreated, but 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).

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 a 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 any reality experienced.

ScottA said:

C4 and P8 - No, God whom you seem to like calling the Source, is not physical, but spiritual.

Click to expand...

In using that word, are you saying The God of the Bible is "supernatural" or are you meaning something else?

ScottA said:

The God (of the Bible) is spirit.

"Supernatural" technically is correct, but since you were referring the "Source" as being physical, I didn't want to add to the confusion--because biblically, what is natural is by God, but not of God.

Click to expand...

Can you give some biblical examples of this being the case?

Angelina said:

Good morning William. @Eternal Entity,

I appreciate the clarity of your framework and the attempt to build a full explanatory chain. There are several strong instincts in your argument, especially the rejection of infinite regress and the recognition that consciousness is not easily reducible to a purely mechanical description.

That said, I think a few key steps in the reasoning need justification before the conclusion can hold.

First, P1 introduces a significant assumption by specifying “natural cause.” As stated, it seems to build part of the conclusion into the premise. The broader philosophical principle usually discussed is simply that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Adding “natural” already narrows the space of possible explanations in a way that isn’t independently established.

Click to expand...

If you or anyone can give and example of something which began but is not natural, I will consider removing the word from P1

Angelina said:

Second, the move in P4, that a supernatural cause cannot function as a causal explanation, appears to depend on a definitional restriction rather than a demonstrated limitation. If “supernatural” is defined as “beyond natural law,” it doesn’t automatically follow that it cannot be causally efficacious. That conclusion seems to require additional argument; otherwise, the category is being ruled out by definition rather than by analysis.

Click to expand...

"causally efficacious" does not in itself explain anything. At best it is a gap filler. The CCA seeks to remove gaps and bridge otherwise irreconcilable positions between Strong Supernaturalists (in the theist camp) and weak materialists (in the atheist camp)
The CCA is not trying to prove that supernatural causes cannot exist. It is arguing that they cannot function as explanations in a coherent causal framework.

Angelina said:

Third, P6 (“a non-physical substance cannot produce physical effects”) is doing a lot of work, but it isn’t argued for. It is precisely the point under dispute between physicalist, dualist, and theist frameworks. Without justification, it functions more as an assumption than a derived conclusion.

Click to expand...

I am more than happy to see an explanation as to how this happens.

Angelina said:

Fourth, the transition from “difficulty explaining consciousness under material emergence” (P9) to “therefore consciousness is fundamental and identical with the Source” (P10–C5) does not strictly follow. The presence of an explanatory gap may indicate incompleteness in current physical explanations, but it does not, by itself, determine ontology in favour of consciousness-as-foundation. It leaves multiple live options open, including non-reductive physicalism, dual-aspect theories, or theism.

Click to expand...

Theism in general (you may have examples which don;t) accept that an Eternal Creator did not acquire consciousness - as in - has not always been conscious. The premises seek to show that in accepting that as the case, the problem of consciousness dissolves.

Angelina said:

Finally, the step from “Source is physical” to “Source is consciousness” seems to involve a category shift. If consciousness is treated as fundamental, it is not obvious why it must therefore be “physical” in any standard sense of physicalism. In fact, many philosophers would argue the opposite direction, that if consciousness is fundamental, then “physical” may itself be derivative rather than foundational.

Click to expand...

This assumes that consciousness is not physical which then requires one having to explain HOW a non physical thing can effect physical things and create form through that.

Angelina said:

So overall, I think your framework raises real questions about regress and consciousness, but several key conclusions depend on definitional restrictions and unresolved assumptions about causation, physicality, and explanatory closure.

It may be that the deeper question here is not whether a “supernatural” explanation is allowed or disallowed but whether reality is best understood as fundamentally impersonal, mental, personal, or something else entirely and what arguments would be required to decide between those options.

I’d be interested to see how you would justify P4 and P6 without relying on definitional constraints, because those seem to be carrying most of the weight of the conclusion.

Click to expand...

see above.
Re your observation on "personal" I would argue that IF there is an actual conscious creator THEN one should be able to find ways of communing with said Creator Consciousness.

ScottA said:

There is a lot written that collectively establishes that the world and those that are of the world are by God, but not of God. Here are a couple of passages that speak of those who are "of God" as being "of" rather than by:

Matthew 22:32​

‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”​

John 8:47​

He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”​

Click to expand...

This may be the case of improper interpretation, perhaps caused by the belief that The Creator is supernatural.
What is your understanding of "The Living" as opposed to "the dead" re the CCA?
Are you perhaps suggesting that nature is "dead"?
If one hears The Father, then one has relationship with The Father (is not "Dead" to The Father.
If one does not, then one is "dead" to The Father.
This in itself has no bearing on the CCA.
The CCA would explain that as "Those who are not aware" Those who are not aware would unlikely appreciate what the CCA is arguing. The CCA is about the nature of the Source, not about who communes and who does not commune with The Source.

ScottA said:

Here we can see that all the universe that was made manifest was created "by" God, but that His kingdom (heaven) is "not of this world":

Genesis 1:1​

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

Click to expand...

The CCA does not contradict this.

ScottA said:

​

John 1:3​

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.​

Click to expand...

The CCA does not contradict this.

ScottA said:

Mark 4:22​

For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret​

Mark 4:22 continues also to include the purpose that God made the heavens and the earth, as to reveal all things--to bring all things to light.

Click to expand...

The CCA does not contradict this.

The CCA does not contradict these statements. The CCA argues for an eternal, physical, conscious Source. That Source could be described as "God" who created the heavens and the earth, through whom all things were made, who reveals all things.
As an example, where the Bible tells it that The Creator spoke forms into existence, the act of speaking is sound which is vibration.
Sound is evident in how we see and can explain the formation of a galaxy.
Formations are known to have individual unique frequency signatures.

Given that, the idea that something could be said to have been spoken into formation (thus have a beginning) is not at all far fetched.

Sound is of course a physical phenomena.
One might argue that "in space" soundwaves do not "travel" but this is not entirely true. Sound might not be heard, but its effects are seen.

ScottA said:

CCA?

Click to expand...

Yes. Shorthand. "CCA"

PeterAndroz said:

Does any of this support your trust in the death, burial, resurrection of Christ for the only way to have your sins forgiven ?
ps, Not expecting a response

Click to expand...

That is a separate subject - not unrelated but if you want to discuss this further I will consider creating a thread with in mind outlining my journey from there to here.

Angelina said:

@Eternal Entity.
I think we’re not agreeing on what counts as an explanation, so we might be missing each other’s point.

It seems like your view only accepts explanations that work through physical or natural processes. But I don’t see where that rule has been proven yet. It looks like it’s being assumed rather than argued. So I ask you directly:

Are you treating “the physical world is all there is in terms of causes” as a starting assumption in your model or as something you think you’ve proven?

Click to expand...

No. I am stating that:
A: Everything created is physical.
B: That which creates anything is The Source of all that is created and The Source is Itself Physical and wilful.
What that means is that if we imagine The Source as existing without anything having yet been created, that Source in and of Itself is Physical. Physicality is it nature.
This means that the idea/belief that a created thing is accomplished ex nihilo is unnecessary because all created things (formations) are expressions of The Creator and since created things are physical, these are sourced from/in/by/of the Creator Itself.

Angelina said:

If it’s an assumption, then the real disagreement is about whether that assumption is actually valid.

Click to expand...

It is an assumption based upon evidence. Ex nihilo as an assumption is not.

Angelina said:

If it’s something you think is proven, can you show how it’s proven without already assuming it?

Click to expand...

Nature (the environment we exist within and experience) show us the evidence.

Angelina said:

Also, when you say supernatural things can’t be explanations, are you defining “explanation” as only physical processes from the start, or are you arguing that nothing outside the physical can ever count as a real cause?

Click to expand...

Your question assumes something outside physicality exists, so it is up to you to support that assumption.
This is not to say that there are not any number of universes created which are outside of this one we exist within. This is to say there is no reason to think (assume) that these wouldn't be physical - able to be experienced and interreacted with physically.

Angelina said:

I’m trying to understand the base assumptions your view is built on so we can address the real issue instead of talking past each other.

Click to expand...

I hope then that my clarifying helps you in that.

In Love

ScottA said:

One thing at a time.

First, allow me to explain my "understanding." My understanding is not a matter of mere belief, although I have also come to believe a lot as a result, but what I actually know.

Click to expand...

I understand this. Belief is something which is required at the beginning but is not necessarily meant to be somewhere one stays. It is like a stepping stone from one position to the next (knowledge) and the next (Wisdom)

ScottA said:

Most come into life exploring and learning, some good things, some not, which then become the foundation for what they believe, while very little is actually a matter of true knowledge. In other words, even so called "established facts" are simply a matter of popular opinion based on conclusions that would only seem to be fact then handed down, many of which don't actually prove out over time. Only the first part of that is true with me.

Click to expand...

Okay. If you want to and think that this is relevant to the thread subject, please provide an example of what you are meaning/referring to here.

ScottA said:

In the middle of that time of exploring and learning--with no religious background to speak of, life began to spiral downward. From having a good and happy childhood and then marriage, with children, and a successful business, I was victimized by crime and lost everything. It's a long story, but at last resort--ready to kill myself or go live in the woods--I cried out to God whom I did not before know--and He answered.

Click to expand...

This type of witness is common enough (to my knowledge) that one should take it seriously.

ScottA said:

I was caught up in the spirit in the presence of God, in the fulfillment of my part of what is written, and returned to carry it out.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying here exactly - I think the gist is that you had an alternate experience, met or felt you were in the undisputable presence of GOD (I am unsure of what you are trying to communicate re your writing "in the fulfillment of my part of what is written" but it seems to be something which enlightened you to a purpose you were previously unaware of and when you returned to this reality experience began and have continued to carry that out.

ScottA said:

Which most "Christians" think sounds crazy--except when they read it in the scriptures, then it all well and good.

Click to expand...

THis is a common observation. Some will even demonise the witness of such experience - perhaps more from a fearful framework - but do not do the same type of scrutiny when it comes to the same type of witness given from biblical authors. It is what it is, but such judgment does not need to hinder the purpose you are here for. Running things by Christians is natural enough and even to be commended, even that most - surprisingly - reject and demonise such witness. Once such experience is had, what others say in the negative and why they say it is beside the point.

ScottA said:

I wouldn't be surprised if some chime in now with daggers, just because of me repeating it. But what that means with you and I talking through anything that I actually engage in, I am not speaking my opinion or what I believe--in fact, if you know something of the scriptures--it's not actually me speaking. That is how the word of God has come down through all of history, and that is what this is and how it works.

Click to expand...

This is indeed something my own walk and subsequent experience has shown me as well. It is refreshingly rare to meet another and I appreciate your witness Scott.

ScottA said:

As for the living as opposed to the dead, all who are born of the flesh into this world, are as if stillborn, dead by definition, and only seemingly alive throughout their life time. What occurred (in biblical language) "in the twinkling of an eye" before the world was even formed is now made manifest within the illusion of time, revealing "the man of sin" (as it is written), "then comes the end" as it were.

Click to expand...

I said wrote a similar thing earlier today in this post.

ScottA said:

To the contrary, "the living" are not only born of the flesh, but also "of the spirit of God" ("born again"). "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual."

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. We are born into a blank slate state. We have no prior knowledge of ever having existed. That is the "dark" - which I equate not with "evil" but with "ignorance" and light not as "good" but as "knowledge" - and wilful ignorance as evil, and wilful knowledge (seeking) as good.

ScottA said:

As for "nature" being dead, there is a nature that is dead and there is a nature that is alive. Again, the illusion of this world of time where, yes, everything seemingly living dies, "is dead already." Meanwhile, in God all is living, spoken of in the scriptures as "the new heavens and earth."

Click to expand...

Here we differ, but not irrevocably so. It is not that one is "dead" while living - the power which animate life forms is very much alive - rather the death part is understood by me as I wrote in the post I linked above in this post.

ScottA said:

As for hearing the Father, even the dead hear the Father.

Click to expand...

Here, I also disagree due to the contradiction which you may see re that linked post. You may however, be meaning something else with that statement and if so you can clarify what that is.

ScottA said:

As for the CCA, if I understand you or the theory correctly, it sounds like you are referring to the mechanics of what is natural in the universe...which yeah, maybe "the rocks would cry out" if people (the dead) didn't, to proclaim the truth I have just been elaborating upon. That's biblical. But the rocks and the mechanics and the natural elements do not need to cry out--though they do "For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs", but the dead do also cry.

Click to expand...

Well one rock that does "cry out" is the Planet Earth Herself. A tiny speck of dust relative to the rest of the Galaxy - but from out perspective within Her, quite the spectacle of abundance animated life crying out in many voices.

ScottA said:

As for the CCA being about the "Source"--all of creation, the universe, and the scriptures are "about" God for revelation, "in His image."

Click to expand...

Yes - as to the CCA - we can get into that in more detail since that is the thread subject. My question to you about that is, do you agree that your alternate experience was physical in that you experience things physically - perhaps not in exactly the same way as with this universe, but in relation to sensory perception - the "caught up in the spirit in the presence of God" was felt as a physically real thing - perhaps even "more real" than this physical reality (Earth) but nonetheless physical?

In Love