That’s not my position. But my views are laid out in hundreds of articles, so you’re under no obligation to summarize them. I’m an “old” atheistic, existential naturalist, not a scientistic “new” atheist. Mind you, I think scientific explanations of empirical phenomena are the best we have. As to more general questions, we have philosophy and art to address them. Theology falls somewhere between philosophy and art (poetry). Theological “explanations” are phony, given scientific standards since theological narratives are nonreductive. They posit mysteries to explain mysteries, which may be emotionally satisfying but is epistemically invalid and ultimately counterproductive. It’s like burying your head in the sand.

The question of where causality in general comes from looks like a pseudo-question. Wouldn’t you have to presuppose a nonnatural cause to explain all natural causes? And “supernatural cause” or “miracle” would be just handwaving. Scientists don’t handwave because they need to test their hypotheses. They may not directly address philosophical questions such as metaphysical ones, but philosophy handles those questions with greater honour than does theology. Exoteric religion is too dogmatic and political to be intellectually respectable. It’s too obviously emotional and self-serving, indulging in mental projections, social manipulation, and various fallacies of distraction. Existential, cosmicist philosophy puts our species in its place rather than blindly humanizing the foundations of reality.