What are possible naturalistic explanations to the question of existence?

Question

Non-philosopher here, though I enjoy reading about it. Without getting into complex deductive arguments, suppose I say the following: Define the entities of the material world however one likes (maybe at bottom, to keep it simple: energy and forces of nature). Considered in it's entirety, it seems fair to inquire about the "cause" (define cause however you like) of this category of stuff, taken as a whole.

Now, to me it seems nonsensical to posit that something within this category is the cause of this category itself. More precisely, even if we have an infinite series of causal relations, possibly a loop, I would maintain that it's fair to ask "Why this particular series of causal relations and not another", and so even if each part of the series is accounted for, I would still maintain that a regress is an unsatisfactory answer.

It therefore seems that all one is left with is a "brute fact" argument. Maybe the series of causal relations is simply a necessary fact, or one which literally has no explanation. But physical states of the universe don't seem to be necessary, and one may be comfortable with countering a "brute fact" with a "brute rejection": it's quite unsatisfactory intellectually.

What is one left with? To me, it seems that some entity which "transcends" the property of physical existence would be the most parsimonious solution.

Again, I made no real deductive argument, and am just trying to understand the options, and what one is left to force to believe if we reject this or that premise.

Answer 1

The question of where the material world came from in the first place, is one that can't be answered by reference to this material world. The cause of this world is not a material one, even if you think that it is eternal, in which case a first cause is not necessary.
But who knows where it all came from? Theories are abundant. Most of the time they are connected with a god(s), so even scientific thought can be regarded as thinking that a god exists. Because god is in that case the whole system of explanations of how spacetime came into being. It emerged from a singularity. But from here came the singularity? It can be argued that spacetime is infinite in temporal as well as spatial extent, but that doesn't take away the question of where the infinite spacetime came from. This could be solved by the already mentioned assumption that there is no first cause. If that's what you want, okay.
For those not satisfied by this approach, the existence of gods is welcome. In non-western societies (more connected to Nature still), these even give a face to the questions of existence. This can't be said of the three main religions, which forbid even imagining the creator.
It depends on your view of the material world how existence is explained. god(s) can be connected to this view or not. The Nature of elementary particles can be involved. If you considered them without containing a soul it can get very depressing. People like Richard Dawkins consider people and all living beings to be mere machines designed by the genes (or in the case of people also memes) to ensure their survival. If he wants to think like that, okay, but he's trying to convert others too. Especially if religion is involved. Now he has the right to try to convert but the thing is that his views are taught in our schools (obligatory!) and universities. Colorful young people are turned into obedient slaves of his thoughts. Like all of the scientific thought, which denies the existence of the soul for the major part of the scientists.
Luckily, his views (repeated over and over again in his books, which can't even be considered as memes, but thoughts about memes) can easily be debunked. People and all living things simply are not machines. Machines are man-made. And we surely can't be programmed, though Dawkins and the likes show programmed behavior and thought. Evolution (which is what Dawkins talks about) has taken place, which can't be denied, but his interpretation is what he thinks about it. Aboriginals (while not thinking scientifically) have a far better understanding of evolution than he has if you ask me. You just have to read the Dreamtime stories for that. They normally don't write things up, but luckily others have. It shows a feeling of connectedness with all of Nature, past and present, that is rarely found in scientific views on Nature.
So, there are many non-scientific views that make sense. Even the scientific view if you don't confine yourself to elementary particles and fields of them. If you don't confine yourself to the view that all can be reduced to these soulless fields. One is of course free to think like this, but in my eyes, this gives a rather shallow experience of life. It's an easy view though, that basically answers everything which is why a theory of everything is so hard sought for, I guess. I like it too to think about such a theory, but to say that that answers everything? To a certain extent yes but to a larger extent no...

Answer 2

We discussed something similar here: Why should there be nothing rather than something?

I like the observation that all you need is the uncertainty principle: In the beginning there was nothing, which had absolutely no way to be sure what was there, so it exploded (into the universe).

Perhaps something like the octonion-based mathematical structure E8, as the 'super geometry' of possible sets of laws/symmetries/fundamental-constants, can be pictured as 'outside': as the phase-space of all possible universes.

Perhaps we need to recognise this is not truly a question about 'out there', but more about taking a stance, an attitude. In that context, I like the mystic Rumi's picture, in the poem Subtle Degrees: "over the ocean of non-being, droplets of spray tear loose, and fall back", an answer of a kind, and an attitude that can rearrange everything, towards direct experience of the unity of all things.