Science does not insist 'natural things need not be caused'
Sentient life did have a cause on this planet, science does not know exactly how that happened yet but perhaps they will in time. Many in science argue against the idea that the natural universe needs a FIRST CAUSE. — universeness

Good point. Many theists and fans of supernatural ideas :razz: have a need to describe the world we live in as a miracle (manufactured by a cosmic consciousness or a god) which is foundational to their worldview. The advantage of this is that they can point to humans and nature and say, there's the 'proof'. Identifying actual miracles or supernatural entities (such a god/s) is much more problematic. :wink:

Which is why things which are not caused can't be empirically proved? — SpaceDweller

You mean like a coincidence?

I am not convinced 'nature' cares about the 'state' or dissatisfied status of the philosophical or even the scientific mind. — universeness

I am not talking about whether nature cares, I'm talking about whether human beings care.

Philosophers will simply have to 'suck up' their feelings of repugnancy until science can provide them with more of the knowledge they seek. — universeness

But the problem is the people who say that there is no cause, that it's a random occurrence. Whoever believes this will not seek a cause. And, if we agree the natural must have a cause, this cause must necessarily be something other than natural, i.e. the supernatural.

You mean like a coincidence? — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean to be able to reproduce something with the goal to prove it, we need to be able to cause whatever to have an effect.

supernatural may have a cause, but we can't cause supernatural.

:up:

I am not talking about whether nature cares, I'm talking about whether human beings care — Metaphysician Undercover

I know what you are suggesting and that's my point. You are giving too much universal priority to what human beings care about!

if we agree the natural must have a cause, this cause must necessarily be something other than natural, i.e. the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Natural must have a cause, yes, but the Universe does not need a FIRST CAUSE. So no supernatural required. If such as the Penrose bounce is true then that pushes first cause, way, way back. Existence of 'something' (probably energy) can imo be declared 'eternal.'
I see no reason why the theists can declare their god eternal and not in need of a first cause but science cannot offer 'eternal energy,' based on posits such as the Penrose bounce as also not in need of a first cause.

In your nature/man/God division, the above distinguishes between nature and man, but not God. — Hanover

One can make the distinction because God. This is the story of the enlightenment. Leave God out of things, and then man is an animal indistinguishable from nature, and morals are 'subjective' aka. fiction. Meaning is lost and all the philosophers thereafter are trying to sort out the mess.

The point here is that we do need to talk about elves and angels if we want to maintain the natural/supernatural distinction. — Hanover

No, not at all. This is the materialist's finest folly, to look for the supernatural in nature and then declare it absent. Man is the image of god in the world, and it is in the judgement, caring, and moral discernment of man that the supernatural is manifested in the world, not some sky god's thunderbolt, operating on tree trunks for the convenience of the traveller. It is the intrusion of moral awareness into material sensitivity that is the unnatural miracle.

Natural must have a cause, yes, but the Universe does not need a FIRST CAUSE. So no supernatural required. — universeness

If the universe is natural then it must have a cause. If all natural things are within the universe, then the cause of the universe, not being within the universe, must be supernatural.

I see no reason why the theists can declare their god eternal and not in need of a first cause but science cannot offer 'eternal energy,' based on posits such as the Penrose bounce as also not in need of a first cause. — universeness

You said "natural must have a cause". If something is eternal, like your proposal of "eternal energy", then it does not have a cause, and it must be supernatural.

Energy is a concept, the capacity to do work. It is a potency, or power, which is attributed to moving things. As such, it is not an actual part of the universe, it is supernatural. So your offer of "eternal energy" is just an alternative form of "the supernatural".

If the universe is natural then it must have a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you insist! Let's make the Penrose bounce the cause. (much better than the god or supernatural (outside of space and time) posit imo.) So if you insist on a cause for THIS Universe then the answer is, a previous universe and that can regress eternally.
If you insist on a trigger for that cycle then I can offer you a mindless, no longer existent, spark, as opposed to any still existent divine spark.

If you insist that my 'mindless spark,' should be labeled 'above' or 'beyond' or 'super' natural then I can live with that single use of the label supernatural as something which has never had any significance in THIS universe, but may have been the mindless trigger of the cyclic universe reality.
So stating that the label supernatural has no existence in this universe is correct.
I find this much more convincing than any god posit but I still can't prove it's true.

So if you insist on a cause for THIS Universe then the answer is, a previous universe and that can regress eternally.
If you insist on a trigger for that cycle then I can offer you a mindless, no longer existent, spark, as opposed to any still existent divine spark. — universeness

This is exactly what I rejected, for the reasons I explained.

Ok, suffice to state then that I don’t find your reasoning convincing.

I agree. "'Supernatural' as an empty, useless term!" :smile:

Franklin's rod was considered the cause of that earthquake?