(December 7, 2018 at 10:10 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think it's a fair assumption even if you can't specifically define the trigger. No matter what you say it is, you have to assume it was sufficient of itself or prove at least two simultaneous anomalies. Because if 1 can't be sufficient of itself, you need a minimum of 2 to generate it, which would make those two things the trigger. This is conjecture here, but that would be a stretch since they would need to be random anomalies. If you rule both those things out, then you pretty much have to default to something supernatural, because ..well, what else could it be?
Why couldn't a naturalistic entity be sufficient of itself?
For me, supernatural would be something outside of (or beyond) nature itself. If the OP argument allows for the first cause to be a part of nature, then while you are certainly free to call it "God", I have as much freedom to consider it to nevertheless be perfectly naturalistic. For me, a supernatural God would have to be the kind of God defended by proponents of arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument: one that defies logic (or at least our intuition of it) by existing "outside" of space-time and that created natural existence from the "outside".
