The Conclusion made in the second argument is that there was a reason behind the start of the existence of causal reality. I do believe that the conclusion made is true. This is because causal reality is a reality that is observed or experienced as a result of a certain occurrence. In my opinion, all causes or occurrences exhibit some result, which ultimately, lead to the existence of a certain reality.
The conclusion made in argument two has been properly supported by the premises given in the same argument. This is because the first premise in the second argument suggests that for anything to exist, it must result from a certain cause. It, therefore, follows that since causal reality exists then it must have resulted from a certain cause.
Both premises in the second argument are true. The first premise suggests that there is a cause behind everything that exists. This premise is true since everything that exists must come out or result from something. Nothing can come out from nothing and, therefore, the first premise of the second premise is true. The second premise of the second argument is true since causal reality has been proven to exist i.e. for any cause (action) there must be a result which explains some form of reality.
Naturalists propose that the relationship between natural reality and causal reality is the fact that both reality arise as a result of a certain cause i.e. natural reality exist as a result of natural causes while causal reality exists as a result of man-made or artificial causes.
Theists suppose that the conclusion made in the first argument is true in that they believe in believe in the existence of a God, god, or gods whom have power and authority over nature. Theists believe that these supernatural beings are the cause of natural reality. Naturalists, on the other hand, believe the conclusion made in the first argument is actually true since they hold the opinion that nature is a force in its self which has an impact that explains the existence of natural reality.
Naturalists could hold the premises given in the first argument to be true. The first premise holds that in order for something to exist it must result from a certain cause which is a true assumption in that nothing can come out of nothing. The second premise is also true in that nature actually exists and it has an impact which ultimately results to the existence of some form of reality.
Argument one cannot be a successful argument made by a Theist against a Naturalist. This is because Theists believe in a supernatural being that they cannot prove to exist. Theists, cannot, therefore, prove how supernatural beings cause the existence of natural reality. Naturalists, on the other hand, can prove the existence of nature. They can, therefore, show how the force of nature causes the existence of natural reality.
Marenbon, J. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.