An Argument Against Supernatural Causation

[Caecilian]

It happens to be so that string theory, an as of yet unfalisifiable yet mainstream theory among theoretical physicists, predicts that there are additional spatial dimensions to the three spatial dimensions known to us. It has invented a thing called Kaluza-Klein compactification to explain why these spatial dimensions are not visible to us. So according to string theory, you are describing the very nature of our reality. Indeed normal matter and nature share these dimensions as you describe. If the causal chain is playing out in these dimensions it is undetectable for us. So in fact this ALREADY IS under the scrutiny of science and defined as a natural property. This shows that the distinction between natural and supernatural is not that relevant in Kim's argument.

IMO it is foolish of Kim to proof a negative, i.e. that the supernatural can be ruled out by a logical argument. But that is exactly what he does. Also I can imagine other approaches in attacking his claim, for in the realm of speculation all is possible.

---

The first section of your post seems to me to point towards Kim's argument being valid- extra dimensions don't help for more or less the same reasons that spatializing the soul doesn't help.

I agree that it isn't a knockdown argument, but then we really don't have any knockdown philosophical arguments against theism. Its a philosophical argument that, in practice, would force the theist into increasingly absurd and arbitrary speculation to defend their position. In my intro I said that it 'indicates' (note: not 'proves') that supernatural causation is incoherent; I think thats a fair description.

Imo there is no one 'master argument' against the theist position. There are philosophical arguments- this one, various non-cognitivist arguments, various arguments re the conflicting attributes of god- that are more or less effective. There are also empirical arguments- arguments coming out of evolutionary theory, archaelogy and textual analysis- that are more or less effective. Its the cumulative weight of the philosophical and empirical arguments, rather than one argument in particular, that makes theism untenable.