“...the obvious implications of this: that the universe was caused by a supernatural force existing outside of space and time”
Or it was caused by the nature of that which existed before, a different kind of natural process, not a supernatural force existing otherwise. See “A brief History of Time” by Hawking.
As for the supernatural force, I don’t get phone calls from it nor emails. Why would its rules be be “Jam yesterday and Jam tomorrow but never Jam today.”?
OK, let's say the universe was caused by the nature of that which existed before.
What caused that which existed before?
An impersonal 'it' does not provide the precondition for 'rules' or any other kind of normatively, epistemic or otherwise. So why would you expect jam today? Given your own apparent presupposition of naturalism, there is no foundation for your question.
You are the one who presupposes naturalism, not us, remember? Stay on your own side of the field. Or maybe in light of your epistemic relativism I should tell you, stay and non-stay on your own side of the field.
Cordially,
Hawking says the law of gravity created itself.
Goes to show, as John Lennox has pointed out, that a logically incoherent comment is logically incoherent even when written by a brilliant scientist.
“Why would its rules be be “Jam yesterday and Jam tomorrow but never Jam today”
Your ability to ask this question doesn’t address the ontological question—whether or not this supernatural force exists.
Your question only tells us you don’t like the particular arrangement of historical events.
If you accept metaphysical naturalism you must also accept that the self doesn’t exist.
You must also accept under metaphysical naturalism that intentionality doesn’t exist.
Based on your belief in naturalism I’d say you should consider whether from now on you’ll be making any comments at all.