If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.
FTFY
And natural processes are the result of...?
The flying spaghetti monster
The go-to response for someone without a good answer.
The problem of infinite regression is one that exists in both the natural and supernatural view of the universe. I could say that natural processes are driven by the fundamental force of the universe. You could then come back and say "And fundamental forces are the result of...?", ... and so on... On the other hand I could say "And the flying spaghetti monster is the result of...?" ... and so on ...
There is always a limit to our knowledge,
at some point we have to say 'I don't know'. But, just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that God did it and to assume so is illogical.
No, you
don't have to say you don't know. Knowing through reason is fully contained within the realm of logic. Logic is self-contained. It reinforces itself. Anything outside of logic isn't an "I don't know." It's more like a "don't even bother going there because it's pointless to try." You know that tree that falls in the forest where nobody's around to perceive it? I don't either.
As long as you adhere to some essential rules you can never be wrong. The reason you can never be wrong is because logic says you can never be wrong, so long as you're logical.
Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted.
Referencing "supernatural," I think we could both agree that this generally (and literally) means "above or superior to natural law." This could imply a few things. It could imply the possibility that something could directly manipulate or influence natural law and cause the law itself to change. It could also imply the possibility that something could manipulate the content that the law governs without changing the law itself. Or it could imply the possibility of both. After all, were talking about "natural processes" here, and "natural processes" describes a relationship between both physically real content and abstractly real law.
Now, is
supernatural possible? Well, first of all, supernatural does NOT necessarily mean illogical. It's quite plausible to imagine, for example, that for no apparent reason you could raise your arms up and start floating up into the air. All I'm asserting is that it's possible to imagine. And, given that thoughts are logical constructs, I'm also asserting that it's possible to imagine something quite "supernatural" (defying gravity). This would be a concept representing a supernatural manipulation of content without manipulating the law itself. The Jesus miracles are also examples of this.
Now, what about the other case? Is is possible to imagine something supernatural affecting the law itself? The whole concept of a god that is "outside of reality" but is real enough to "be inside of reality when he wants to" goes nowhere fast. If something is real enough to be considered real, it would always be inside of reality and never outside of it. A much more interesting option is a law that intrinsically changes itself. If a law changes itself, then something interesting happens -- both the law
and the content governed by that law are changed dynamically in tandem.
So, yes, I think supernatural is very possible, logically. All you need is a Universe with an informational feedback loop.
