Causality depends on A. patterns within the universe (laws) and B. arrow of time. Laws of physics don't depend on intuitions about causality, but rather, it's the other way around. But A and B may not exist outside nature; therefore causality principle doesn't apply outside nature.

right so maybe in "nature" there are irregularities like say a resurrection of a 1st century carpenter but still are nevertheless not supernatural just not very well understood but with time or knowledge or whatever these kinds of events will become clearer to us.

If it's natural, it's not supernatural. I see point in referring to any natural thing as supernatural just because it's random or because we don't understand it very well.

all i am saying is that moral relativims ie. oh it's just their culture it's ok, but for them not for me, is wrong.

yes but maybe it's just a part of nature maybe it's random and not well understood but still natural no?

Well, that depends on whether there's anything true of space or time regardless of what their best models say about them.

Funnily enough, classical metaphysicians have often remarked on the generality of metaphysics. But, what must be true of things has important, guiding implications for our worldview and science.

As an aside, Moliere's joke about opium causing sleep because of its dormative power is intended to poke fun at the idea of 'powers' that classical metaphysicians have posited.

Apparently, they're explanatory useless tautologies. But, as Ed Feser points out in Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, "opium causes sleep because it has a power to cause sleep" is not a tautology ('causes sleep' =/= 'power to cause sleep'), and in any case should be considered as trivially true if it were, instead of false as it is. Opium's sleep-inducing power may be minimally explanatory, but it tells us it's not just some big coincidence that opium induces sleep :P

true metaphysical conclusions would hold *regardless* of which model of reality is correct, and thus what science finds or fails to.

OK but then the implication of that is I should ignore any so-called metaphysical arguments that make reference to things like time and space which we know are just approximations to what might really be going on in a quantum theory because they can't be real metaphysics.

My concern is that if you want to talk about things in enormous generality that generality often causes you to have not very much to say. The larger the set of things you want to say true things about the smaller the set of things you can say which are true.

If it were, what would be the difference between the natural and the supernatural? People call it the supernatural for a reason, don't they?

That might be jumping ahead just a little. Our conscience in a sense conveys to us a need to change.

I did not construe your statement about change as limited to change in our moral behavior. In my observation, people in general do, in that respect, change for the better over time. You may stick the label "conscience" on our sense that we need to do this. To me, it's just an instance of most people's willingness to learn from their mistakes.

For example, if i'm addicted to alcohol, i might feel my conscience is encouraging me to deal with my addiction.

Yeah, you might, a I'm sure a lot of people do. But I was addicted to alcohol for many years, and I never felt guilty about it. I just felt stupid.

Thus i need a source outside of myself (like how AA encourages their members to seek strength from their higher power). In that sense it's a philosophical idea with theological overtones.

The consequences of my stupidity were painful, and when the pain became unbearable, I did decide to get some help from AA. I stayed with them for a few years, and I said all the right things so that I could feel like I belonged there in the meetings. But I could never be entirely sincere when uttering all those things about the Higher Power. When I couldn't stand the feeling of hypocrisy any longer, I quit the meetings. That was about 15 years ago, and I'm still sober, without any help from AA's theology.

Now accepting the authority of someone who "tells us we must grow and change" first entails faith.

I suppose it takes a kind of faith to accept any authority on any matter. I'm not sure it's the same thing Christians are talking about when they talk about having faith in God.

The strength to change is always rooted in God's unconditional love

You say so.

That is a wild assertion. In many cases, they believed they had the ultimate truth, not that everyone does as they like. History and historical figures are much more complicated then you are trying to make it out to be.