I'll have one more try but then I will probably give up.
No, don't just give up. Stop using this fallacious line of reasoning altogether and amend your beliefs (i.e. - admit ignorance and be agnostic about it).
1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused. I'm not stating a dogma here - just basic common sense and logic. That does not mean Hey Presto God of the Bible - of course it doesn't. That is not the point at all.
As Greybeard said, this is NOT
"common sense and logic". You are talking to someone with degrees in philosophy. I'm sorry, this line of reasoning is not logical. And even if it was
common sense, this wouldn't mean anything because science often demonstrates things that are counter-intuitive (meaning "common sense" is bullshit and meaningless to explain such things). You are just grasping at straws here in order to hang-on to your assumed theology. It isn't working b/c you have built in assumptions (i.e. - confirmation biases) that you are clearly unwilling to give up and which are propelling you to make false assumptions.
If all of existence encompasses multiple universes, for example, then such universes ARE natural - because they are part of what is,
in a global universe/totality of what exists (i.e. that which exists and can be demonstrated through evidence and sound reasoning). Your claim that it's "non-natural" is an equivocation. You are attempting to artificially limit what phenomena are to be included in the natural order. But that attempt fails because it is ultimately based in your ignorance. It is, in essence, a god of the gaps fallacy; wherever you don't understand something you jump to "It can't be natural!"
instead of admitting ignorance. Sorry, that is irrational.
2. But what it does means is that we need to acknowledge that not everything that has ever occurred is natural.
It does not mean that whatsoever. That is what it means for you,
because you want to smuggle in your supernaturalism and assumed theology (basically "magic did it"). You have neither coherently defined what "non-natural" means or demonstrated anything of the sort has taken place. All you have is one big fat argument from incredulity fallacy
. But just because you, personally, cannot understand how a given phenomena could be a natural occurrence doesn't in any way imply that non-natural magic
is a sufficient explanation. Again, you should be admitting ignorance instead of catering to your religious assumptions by trying to redefine what 'natural' means.
3. If the first event could not have been natural and nor can an eternal existence (no beginning) be natural then we quickly realise that all natural events have stemmed from non natural origins. Yes, all. Again this is common sense and logic only. No dogmas of any kind are required here.
100% false. Your dogma is shining through very brightly here because you are attempting to define
your way into victory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you can't demonstrate the supernatural, or "non-natural", then you have no basis for saying the beginning of our local universe was non-natural - nor do you have any basis for claiming that existence as a whole is not natural. Over and over, all you have here are assertions and equivocations in terms.
4. The term 'natural' can only describe that which follows from some origin - ie what results - given X then Y follows. Y is then natural while the original (first) X always remains not natural. [I'm not pushing for 'supernatural' here - there may be lots of better words for this than that word.]
NOPE! That is your
equivocation fallacy. That is NOT a sufficient definition for what is to be included in the term natural, sorry. And you are
in fact trying to smuggle in the supernatural here. You're just trying to do it subtly by calling it "not natural" or by trying to withhold yourself from putting a label on it. We're not buying it dude. You can't just describe that which is commonly referred as supernatural and then attempt to argue that you aren't
talking about the supernatural (when in fact you are). That is called intellectual dishonesty.
5. The origin of existence cannot be natural. And by corollary anything that later results from those origins, although they can be called natural, none of them (not one) has been fully or properly explained while the origin remains unexplained.
This is merely another one of your many assertions,
which you have backed up with nothing but even more assertions
(oh, and an equivocation fallacy). You didn't demonstrate that existence cannot be natural. What you did was appeal to another argument from ignorance/incredulity and an attempt to define your terms to suit your extended assumptions. You basically done what theists ultimately do: Well, it can't be natural. Why not?Because, I define natural this way (b/c I say so)This definition is insufficient and ignorance based.It can't be natural! Only our existence is natural! It can't be natural! (b/c I say so). So, b/c you took someone else' word for it (and were gullible) we should be too?
All you've presented is one big "b/c I say so" (ad hoc) argument. It doesn't work and your personal incredulity is not a valid excuse for saying that our local universe, and perhaps any other existence beyond, is not natural. Again, just because you personally can't understand how something could be the case in nature (be it quantum mechanics, parallel universes, or anything else) does not give you any
license to just assert that it must be "not-natural".