Why I believe in a "Supernatural"

Anybody who knows me knows I have categorically rejected religion, scriptures, and all attempts at explaining the unknown and unknowable. I’m writing this to explain why I haven’t rejected the idea of the supernatural. There’s a huge difference between a belief in a God and a belief in a Supernatural.

First things first - you need to know what the Cosmological argument is, as well as the idea of the Cosmological First Cause. The idea of a Cosmological first cause is something that has caused a lot of confusion in theology and science. It presents us with the biggest oxymoron in logic ever - logic versus physics.

Here is the Cosmological argument, in my own words:

1. Everything we know of is contingent on (caused by) something else.
2. If X causes Y, Y cannot also cause X.
3. What came first - the chicken or the egg? You can't have an infinite number of causes - it doesn't make sense.
4. Therefore, there must be a First Cause (that is not also an effect).

People use this logic to argue for the existence of God. There's a huge problem with this, though. Cause and effect reasoning leads us to have no answer for "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" What caused the chicken? The egg. What caused the egg? The previous chicken. What caused the previous chicken? The previous egg. On and on it goes, a problem with no end. This is referred to as "infinite regress," and most people agree that this is absurd.

Most people also agree that there can't be a "Cause" without an "Effect." What caused the gases that caused the big bang? No explanation - they were just somehow "always there." That's not a very good answer. But on the other hand, what caused God? No explanation - "He" was just somehow "always there." That isn't a very good answer - it's a cop-out on both fronts.

Thus the idea of a Cosmological first cause - a "prime mover" - is absurd. How can something in a cause-and-effect relationship have no cause? It makes no sense.

Physics, however, tells us it had to start SOMEWHERE. There's a chain of causes and effects in place, and something must have started it.

1. Physics, even including chaos theory, proves cause and effect relationships.
2. Physical cause/effect = change.
3. "Something" never comes from "Nothing.” There must be something to change. Therefore there must be an "Original."

See the problem? In order for us to exist, there must have been an "Original." But the "Original" is logically impossible... therefore, it is “impossible” that we exist. Existence as we know it - predication, cause/effect - is absurd. Existence SHOULD be impossible.

Yet here we are. What's going on here!?

Now I'm going to make a bit of a leap and walk a very fine line with equivocation to make my point. This is my argument for the existence of a “supernatural.”

1. Our epistemology - that is, how we know what we know - is based on our experience in the natural world.
2. Therefore our logical arguments are limited to making sense in the "natural world" - in other words, our logic is bound by the nature of the "natural world."
3. Finite explanations (cause and effect) can’t explain existence (you get infinite regress – the endless “chicken/egg, chicken/egg,” etc.).
4. The “natural” can only provide finite explanations.
5. Therefore what is “natural” cannot explain existence.
6. Since we exist and what is natural cannot explain it, there must exist a “supernatural.”

And of course, a belief in “A supernatural explanation of some sort” is a far cry for a belief in “A Supreme Being with a personality.” But that’s another story.

At any rate, this is why I believe in the supernatural. Basically it’s an argument against ontological/philosophical naturalism. Now, I like this argument; but I wonder if there is some sort of equivocation between “the natural” and “our understanding of the natural.” I put it this way because I’m referring to “the natural” only in terms of predication/cause-and-effect. Since we’re looking for a cause, I think this argument/“equivocation” is valid. If anybody thinks there’s a problem with this argument, or has thoughts to add, I’d love to discuss it.