"Well, if there is a cause, then the natural world is not 'all there is'."

Exactly, I was explaining how the natural world has no need to account for itself.

It may be, that within the natural world there is a "brute fact" or process which explains it. But we have no need of providing that explanation, to reject claims of a supernatural realm in the absence of evidence.

Hello Wayfarer
I will endeavour to explain my position better in my next post. When I say weak naturalism, I mean it in the same sense of weak atheism. There is no reason to conclude that there is anything beyond the physical world unless evidence is provided for it.

What exactly do you mean to say about "natural laws"? I don't see how it's a challenge to my argument. My argument doesn't suggest that naturalism must account or explain or cause the natural world. I'm agnostic on whether there is a cause to the natural world.