Your position on naturalism

[theologian]

Thank you for what I take to be a genuinely held position on your part. We've been suffering a barrage of Poes and trolls so not something to be taken for granted. I'd love to explore this with you if you're game.

If everything is natural, then we deny principle of sufficient reason,

I probably need you to unpack that for me. Whether or not things have sufficient reasons, I would never assume we are equipped to understand them all. So something which seemingly lacked a sufficient my well have one like that, which we just can't comprehend.

..because every natural being being defined by its nature which in turn must be defined by what is not defined by nature, the beyond natural, the super-natural or supernatural.

Why should that be? Aren't you begging the question of whether any such thing as the supernatural exists, smuggling it in without arguing for it?

But, I think no one can deny sufficient reason coherently, because everything we observe, we know that it must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, not everything is natural and hence there exist at least one supernatural being.

This seems to just repeat your last paragraph.

Yes. I'm game.

Let's see.

I used here a valid conditional syllogism:

If A, then B.
But, not B.
Therefore not A.

So, the only remaining thing to check now is whether my premises are all true in order to show that my argument is not only valid, but only sound, and therefore, my conclusion must be necessarily be true.

And that is fantastically being asked by some of your inquires:

Your first query demands a request for me to explain more the Major Premise of my argument which has a firm of "if A, then B".

Well, I think, using our intuition, we can understand that from nothing, only nothing comes. Thus, every effect must have a cause. Now, nature is the essence of a thing. Since, it is defined, and every defined things must be defined, there may be a definer that is not defined. That can only be the sufficient reason, right? So, if not, which is tantamount to affirming that all things are natural, then we are denying sufficient reason.

Next, sufficient reason is not about comprehension. Principle of Sufficient Reason is just the truth that something can only come from something and not from nothing. Just as there is a crime scene, we know that there must be a reason for that, even though we don't comprehend or know the whole info regarding the crime scene.

I fail to understand what you are pointing at when you say that I seem to beg question. What is that question? Remember that I don't claim that I know supernatural right away, but I knew it by demonstration.