The point of the question is to bring understanding to what is meant by a natural process that causes the universe.
If the process occurs then it either just happens or it too is caused by some other natural process that is yet to be detected.
Or the process does not occur. It causes the universe, but it is without beginning or occurrence.
Whether he can’t or won’t, until he does the unexpected, presuppositionalists maintain the upper hand. What they are completely unable to effectively respond to is this “bald claim”.
Let’s look at a real world process. Some atomic nuclei are unstable, and they will decay at some point. For this to occur, particles have to get past what is called the Coulomb barrier. In classical mechanics, the particle would have to climb over that barrier, but that is not what actually happens. Instead, the particle tunnels through the barrier. At one moment the particle is in the atomic nucleus and the next instant it is outside of the nucleus. It is never in between. This is called quantum tunneling. More to the point, nothing causes this to happen other than the probability that it can happen.
So how does this fit into your questions and ideas? If the universe came about in a similar uncaused fashion as we see occurring in real time in the real world, what does that mean for this discussion?
I’d have to consider that example further. My comments dovetailed off your initial comment about how a natural process might be uncovered that explains the universe.
Another topic that may be worth discussing is virtual particles. These are particles that just pop into existence, and then pop back out of existence. There is nothing causing this other than it just being a property of the universe. In fact, these particles occur in pairs, and if they pop in close to the event horizon of a black hole one of the particles in the pair can be pulled into the black hole. This allows the other particle of the pair to radiate away from the black hole. This is called Hawking radiation.
Yeah I don’t feel very concerned about the universe’s making sense. After all making sense isn’t anything a universe is likely to attempt. It is we who try to understand stuff but I wouldn’t expect answering these strange questions to increase my understanding of anything. Apologetics as one encounters it on the internet always feels like an internal conversation looking to rope in onlookers. I prefer not to gawk if someone wants to do something like that in public.
“Gawking”, I’ve heard is an art-form. Although I’m not proficient at it, I find it fun to try now and then.
That Terry is what you call irrationalism and I’m surprised to see it being valued in a forum that seeks to integrate faith and science.
I’m largely unfamiliar with presuppostionalism, but am interested to see what else you have to say about it.
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ve learned my lesson: you’re not a fan of “walls of text”. 
I might surprise you if it’s philosophical
I have a weak heart.
It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience
True.
and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
Only true that we cannot reason them into accepting Christianity.
Presuppositionalists claim that Christians cannot consistently declare their belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true.
That may be their limitation, but other people are quite capable of reasoning from different sets of presuppositions to different sets of conclusions.
Presuppositionalism contrasts with classical apologetics and evidential apologetics.
I certainly agree with their rejection of classical and evidential apologetics.
It has been argued that being part of the universe, we represent the universe attempting to make sense of itself.
That is only one part of it. It is also in response to others engaged in similar activities to rope onlookers into THEIR way of thinking.
That could be seen with respect to Hegel’s view of reason becoming conscious of itself.
I’ve often wondered if the way rational arguments can disprove atheism, but cannot prove theism, represents a synthesis of classical and presuppositionalist apologetics.
The “therefore know for certain” of Acts 2:36 shouldn’t be overlooked in Christian apologetics.
This phenomenon I am more familiar with, and it goes right back to my initial delineation of whether it just happens or it’s being caused by something that doesn’t happen.
What does that mean?
That’s another of saying the process does not occur. It causes the universe, but it is without beginning or occurrence.
How do virtual particles and quantum tunneling fit into these definitions? Are they without beginning or occurrence? When quantum tunneling happens does it not happen?
Your account doesn’t help. A particle - anti-particle pair spontaneously coming in to existence ex nihilo below an event horizon increases the energy of the black hole. Above it there’s a strong chance that one or both will be pulled in. What happens is that photons do this spontaneously all the time, unless they are inhibited as in the Casimir effect. What happens in black holes is that photons arch up to the event horizon and spontaneously form such a pair. One goes up and one goes back down. The up is now just above or on the surface of the event horizon and meets another opposite particle. They annihilate and the light probably escapes. That evaporation reduces the energy of the black hole. From memory, such as it is.
I think that is a fair description though it is hard for me to imagine how the sense we manage to make accrues to the universe as a whole. Are the beings within the universe integrated in the ways the
cells in our bodies are? Would it matter? Still it is true.
Oh I know and they annoy me even more because they so over state intuitions that are no stronger (probably less so) and certainly no more justifiable. Worse, while apologists are often smug and condescending toward atheists, many more online atheists are rude to the point of psychopathic cruelty toward believers; I do not prefer their company. But i do wish apologists would be content with arguing for the soundness of their own position and not work so hard to enlist the unwilling.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.