Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

[William]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

[fredonly]

The idea that fundamental laws were pre-existent before the formation of organized entities could imply a certain level of order or intentionality inherent in the fabric of reality.
If assuming the laws existed prior to them actually emerging as organized things, then this implies mindfulness.

My framework is the ontology of David Armstrong. He was a physicalist, and denied the actualized existence of abstract objects.

In this ontolology, all actually existing objects have 3 constituents: a particular, a set of intrinsic properties, and a set of relational properties. None of the constituents exist independently, they only exist in objects.

Example: a triangular object has the properties associated with triangularity. Triangles do not exist independently of the actual objects that are triangular.

Similarly, laws are relational properties, and they exist in objects - not external to it, as some "organizing principle" imposed on objects from outside them.

An electron that unites with a proton does so because of the attraction relation between them. The attraction relation is not externally imposed; it is a constituent of the electron-proton object (i.e. a hydrogen atom).

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #51]

In that framework, is it saying that all things which have, do and will exist, are intrinsically fundamental within the Bedrock Particle and come forth from that?

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #52]
No. Fundamental=the bottom layer of physical reality, that form into higher level objects due to their properties and relations.

It's analogous to the way the standard model of particle physics identifies quarks and leptons as the basis for the atoms for each of the elements, each distinct only because of the specific way the quarks+leptons are arranged. Those elements have properties that account for their interactions with one another, but these elemental properties are fully accounted for by the arrangements of the quarks and leptons. This gets us to chemistry, but the concept applies all the way up.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #53]

In that framework, is it saying that all things which have, do and will exist, are intrinsically fundamental within the Bedrock Particle and come forth from that?

Those elements have properties that account for their interactions with one another, but these elemental properties are fully accounted for by the arrangements of the quarks and leptons.

That explanation appears to be cart before the horse. Unless you are saying that the quarks and leptons are the bedrock particle matter.

The hypothesis may put the problem of evil to rest but does not account for either the problem of infinite regression or the problem of consciousness.

The reason I think this is the case has to do with the existence of the universe (in its current overall form including how it got to this stage) and the lack of explanation for what started the process which has become what we within it (conscious beings) experience it as, here on this planet. In order for infinite regression not to be a problem, the universe would have to NOT had a beginning. Since the hypothesis based on the evidence tells us that it did have a beginning, we need to explain that beginning without resorting to supernaturalism.
The bedrock particle did not just spontaneously (magically) "begin" to arrange itself into form by accident, and one day far into the future will eventually fade back into its inert state, leaving no evidence of its ever existing...
The problem of consciousness also has to be explained, as there appears to be no reason why consciousness should exist within this process of an apparently spontaneous beginning and a rather pointless formation of extremely intricate and complex formations, all of which are temporal.
Different hypothesis have to be developed which allows for these problems to be solved, and without resorting to supernaturalism.

Do you agree?

[fredonly]

That explanation appears to be cart before the horse. Unless you are saying that the quarks and leptons are the bedrock particle matter.

The bedrock isn't necessarily a single particle, and it may not be particles at all (e.g. it could be 1 or more quantum fields). I used quarks and leptops as hypothetical bedrock particles, to illustrate how complex objects form from simple objects without some external thing causing it to organize. There is self-organization because there are various TYPES of bedrock objects that have relations with one another.

The hypothesis may put the problem of evil to rest but does not account for either the problem of infinite regression or the problem of consciousness.

Problem of evil? We haven't discussed it, but it's only a problem for theism - not naturalism.

What "problem of infinite regression" are you referring to? The metaphysics assumes that as we drill down from complex objects to simpler ones, we reach a bottom rather than an infinite series of ever smaller and simpler things. I haven't discussed a temporal origin, but the metaphysics is consistent with either an infinite or finite past. So I don't understand what problem you're looking to solve.

The reason I think this is the case has to do with the existence of the universe (in its current overall form including how it got to this stage) and the lack of explanation for what started the process which has become what we within it (conscious beings) experience it as, here on this planet. In order for infinite regression not to be a problem, the universe would have to NOT had a beginning.

What's wrong with there being an initial state of affairs? My personal view is that this is likely.

Since the hypothesis based on the evidence tells us that it did have a beginning, we need to explain that beginning without resorting to supernaturalism.
The bedrock particle did not just spontaneously (magically) "begin" to arrange itself into form by accident, and one day far into the future will eventually fade back into its inert state, leaving no evidence of its ever existing...

This is a cosmological question, and there ARE cosmological hypotheses that account for a finite past. I'm a fan of Sean Carroll's. In his model, the initial state is a quantum system. Quantum systems have quantum fluctuations(QF). A QF of sufficient energy results in a "universe" (a big bang) with a thermodynamic arrow of time. There could be many of these, but they are causally independent. QFs themselves aren't temporal events- they are eigenstates of the initial state. Seems to solve your issues.

The problem of consciousness also has to be explained, as there appears to be no reason why consciousness should exist within this process of an apparently spontaneous beginning and a rather pointless formation of extremely intricate and complex formations, all of which are temporal.

David Armstrong's metaphysics is comprehensive, and includes a physicalist theory of mind.

But sure: there's no "reason" there are minds other than the natural, unplanned development of complex objects from simpler components. So life happened to come about, and it evolved. What's the problem? Theists assume an enormously complex mind just happens to exist, uncaused. It seems to me more plausible that minds came about gradually, and accidentally, over billions of years.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #55]

The bedrock isn't necessarily a single particle, and it may not be particles at all (e.g. it could be 1 or more quantum fields). I used quarks and leptops as hypothetical bedrock particles, to illustrate how complex objects form from simple objects without some external thing causing it to organize. There is self-organization because there are various TYPES of bedrock objects that have relations with one another.

So there is no one bedrock particle as your framework originally suggested?

Material Reality and Ontological Bedrock: As material reality is the only existing reality and there is an ontological bedrock—a fundamental, uncaused entity—then no further explanation might be logically possible within that context. Adding further quantum fields only complicates an already complicated reality.

Bosons form one of the two fundamental classes of subatomic particle, the other being fermions, which have odd half-integer spin. Every observed subatomic particle is either a boson or a fermion. They are thought of as fundamental but are they?

The gluon is considered to be a massless vector boson with spin 1. The gluon can be considered to be the fundamental exchange particle underlying the strong interaction between protons and neutrons in a nucleus.
Scientists' current understanding is that quarks and gluons are indivisible—they cannot be broken down into smaller components.

Quarks can have a positive or negative electric charge (like protons and neutrons). Gluons have no electric charge.

In classical quantum chromodynamics (QCD), quarks are the fermionic components of hadrons (mesons and baryons) while the gluons are considered the bosonic components of such particles.

From the above data, we can say that the bedrock is made up of two types of particles that are apparently different from each other. In that, we have identified the Bedrock particle as two types interacting with each other.

The hypothesis may put the problem of evil to rest but does not account for either the problem of infinite regression or the problem of consciousness.

Problem of evil? We haven't discussed it, but it's only a problem for theism - not naturalism.

To be specific, the problem of evil is only a problem for supernaturalism, the type which philosophically claims true the idea of a supernatural creator who is all knowing all powerful and all benevolent.

There also appear to be differing types of naturalism, as not all naturalists are also materialists.

What "problem of infinite regression" are you referring to? The metaphysics assumes that as we drill down from complex objects to simpler ones, we reach a bottom rather than an infinite series of ever smaller and simpler things.

I am referring to the problem of infinite regression in relation to the idea that the bedrock has always existed but this current universe is believed to have had beginning, and is hypothesized will one day end.
The problem of infinite regression comes about if no natural explanation for why the universe began is not given, as the only other explanation offered is supernaturalism and supernaturalism brings with it the problem of infinite regression.

What prompted the bedrock to begin to organize itself into functional form?

We can hypothesis that the bedrock has always existed and will always exist, but still need to explain beginnings and ends....especially beginnings, since Cosmologists appear to hold the consensus in agreement that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

I haven't discussed a temporal origin, but the metaphysics is consistent with either an infinite or finite past. So I don't understand what problem you're looking to solve.

A finite past allows for the idea of supernaturalism to fill the gap. So we can focus on an infinite past but also have to explain why there is a beginning.

The reason I think this is the case has to do with the existence of the universe (in its current overall form including how it got to this stage) and the lack of explanation for what started the process which has become what we within it (conscious beings) experience it as, here on this planet. In order for infinite regression not to be a problem, the universe would have to NOT had a beginning.

What's wrong with there being an initial state of affairs? My personal view is that this is likely.

There is nothing wrong with the concept as long as it is understood that such would constitute an infinite series of beginnings and endings, representing the overall state of organization of matter while the unorganized matter represents a timeless infinite eternal thing between an ending of one universe of organized matter and a beginning of another universe of organized matter.
Essentially the unorganized matter/state of unorganized matter is the real or quintessential state of the universe, while organized matter is the temporal manifestation from the quintessential state.

This is a cosmological question, and there ARE cosmological hypotheses that account for a finite past. I'm a fan of Sean Carroll's. In his model, the initial state is a quantum system. Quantum systems have quantum fluctuations(QF). A QF of sufficient energy results in a "universe" (a big bang) with a thermodynamic arrow of time. There could be many of these, but they are causally independent. QFs themselves aren't temporal events- they are eigenstates of the initial state. Seems to solve your issues.

In part, that is another way of saying what I said above, only the "many of these" in the hypothesis I am using, are not "other universes" acting independently (supernaturally) from each other, Rather there is only one, and there only has to be only one, and since we are specifically involved within the one, there is no requirement to hypothesis for many, because - again - we introduce the problem of infinite regression re what created all these "other universes".

Sticking to the one, we can address this by saying it created itself and work on the problem of how it does this without consciousness.

The problem of consciousness also has to be explained, as there appears to be no reason why consciousness should exist within this process of an apparently spontaneous beginning and a rather pointless formation of extremely intricate and complex formations, all of which are temporal.

David Armstrong's metaphysics is comprehensive, and includes a physicalist theory of mind.

But sure: there's no "reason" there are minds other than the natural, unplanned development of complex objects from simpler components. So life happened to come about, and it evolved. What's the problem?

Consciousness is the problem as to why it exists - Essentially consciousness is "life" as evidenced on this planet in the biological forms.
It appears to be an anomaly and if thought of as simply an "accident" of a "mindless" process, such invites actual minds to question this hand-waving non-explanation.

Theists assume an enormously complex mind just happens to exist, uncaused. It seems to me more plausible that minds came about gradually, and accidentally, over billions of years.

I am unsure if I qualify as being a "theist" but refer to myself as a "naturalist" and consider mind to be a natural part of matter and to being a material thing re that. Re that, I do not consider the idea that "less complex" and "more complex" to exist as all things appear to be very complex, no matter how deep we dive to the bedrock - the bedrock particle is just as complex as the stuff built of it....or "out of it" to be even more accurate with my use of language.

As per our brief interaction on another thread you wrote that the bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.

I replied with an alternative idea that perhaps a Universal Mind which organizes the matter/quantum field into functional forms which it can diversify into for the experience and whatever else such would provide it with.

In return you wrote that a universal mind seems an extravagant conjecture, since minds are quite complex.

So what? Absolute everything in this universe is complex when we dig deep. Why should the idea of Universe Mind (universe with a mind) be viewed by actual minds within and part of the universe, as any more extravagant than a mindless universe - when we clearly are the apparent exception to that rule?

We are minds within form, so why can't the universe be a form for an overall mind and we are intricately related to said mind?

[fredonly]

So there is no one bedrock particle as your framework originally suggested?

I never suggested it was one particle. I said:

I wouldn't suggest it's a particle, since quantum fields are more fundamental than any particles. I don't know if there's one thing (with many properties) or many things (with fewer properties), but at some level, there's interactions between things - interactions that are a product of intrinsic properties. These interactions reflect relations that reflect laws of nature. It is these laws of nature that have an organizing effect.

Material Reality and Ontological Bedrock: As material reality is the only existing reality and there is an ontological bedrock—a fundamental, uncaused entity—then no further explanation might be logically possible within that context.

Correct. Understand that "entity" is any existing thing. The universe is an entity.

Adding further quantum fields only complicates an already complicated reality.

Current theory teaches there are 17-24 quantum fields (depending how they're counted). What's the problem?

From the above data, we can say that the bedrock is made up of two types of particles that are apparently different from each other. In that, we have identified the Bedrock particle as two types interacting with each other.

That's wrong. According to quantum field theory, fields are fundamental - not particles. Each of the particles in the standard model has an associated field.

And to reiterate: I'm discussing a metaphysical theory; a general theory about the structure of reality. While it's consistent with current theory, it isn't based on it. I only used QFT to illustrate.

There also appear to be differing types of naturalism, as not all naturalists are also materialists.

Yes, and not all materialists are physicalists. I happen to be presenting David Armstrong's physicalist metaphysics (for the most part). It's coherent, and is the most complete naturalist metaphysical system out there.

I am referring to the problem of infinite regression in relation to the idea that the bedrock has always existed but this current universe is believed to have had beginning, and is hypothesized will one day end.

"Always existed" implies no time at which it didn't exist. An initial state is coherent. There is no time prior to its existence. Change/time proceeds from it. Contrast this with "creation from nothing", which is self-contradictory: claiming there was a time at which nothing existed, followed by a time the universe (=spacetime) existed. It's logically impossible for there to be a time before time.

BTW, You're using "universe" in the common sense of cosmology: the entity that exists between the big bang and the eventual "heat death". My focus is on the totality of material reality which may, or may not be something more than the cosmological universe.

The problem of infinite regression comes about if no natural explanation for why the universe began is not given, as the only other explanation offered is supernaturalism

You're conceding an argument from ignorance. That's a mistake that would put you on the defensive debating a theist. I defeat that argument by pointing to a coherent alternative possibility.

...and supernaturalism brings with it the problem of infinite regression.

Not necessarily. A God could exist as an initial state of affairs.

What prompted the bedrock to begin to organize itself into functional form?

It's initial state was a "functional form" that made some evolution inevitable or at least probable. As I described in Sean Carroll's model, quantum fluctuation results in a big bang. This may, or may not, be true- but it demonstrates that it is logically possible to have a finite past with an initial state - thus defeating the theist argument from ignorance.

Cosmologists appear to hold the consensus in agreement that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

Only in the sense that the big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. There are many hypotheses that account for the big bang, none of which are based on a prior condition of absolute nothingness.

A finite past allows for the idea of supernaturalism to fill the gap. So we can focus on an infinite past but also have to explain why there is a beginning.

There's good philosophical reasons to believe the past is finite, so you're conceding defeat if you simply insist it must be infinite. A knowledgeable theist can account for either a finite or infinite past. You lose half the battle if you agree a finite past entails God.

What's wrong with there being an initial state of affairs? My personal view is that this is likely.

There is nothing wrong with the concept as long as it is understood that such would constitute an infinite series of beginnings and endings representing the overall state of organization of matter while the unorganized matter represents a timeless infinite eternal thing between an ending of one universe of organized matter and a beginning of another universe of organized matter.
Essentially the unorganized matter/state of unorganized matter is the real or quintessential state of the universe, while organized matter is the temporal manifestation from the quintessential state.

I strongly disagree! Sean Carroll's model (described in "From Eternity to Here") does theorize a multiverse, but only because his view of an initial state entails it. Each baby universe is an isolated space-time that originates from the exact same initial state. No universe is in the past (or future) of another. But multiverse could be trimmed out from it, and it remains coherent. His underlying assumption is that time is associated with thermodynamics, a product of entropy.

This is a cosmological question, and there ARE cosmological hypotheses that account for a finite past. I'm a fan of Sean Carroll's. In his model, the initial state is a quantum system. Quantum systems have quantum fluctuations(QF). A QF of sufficient energy results in a "universe" (a big bang) with a thermodynamic arrow of time. There could be many of these, but they are causally independent. QFs themselves aren't temporal events- they are eigenstates of the initial state. Seems to solve your issues.

In part, that is another way of saying what I said above, only the "many of these" in the hypothesis I am using, are not "other universes" acting independently (supernaturally) from each other, Rather there is only one, and there only has to be only one, and since we are specifically involved within the one, there is no requirement to hypothesis for many, because - again - we introduce the problem of infinite regression re what created all these "other universes".

You seem to be trying to shoehorn Carroll's model into your own predisposition. There is no "infinite regression" in it, and multiverse (if true) is not "supernatural". Also, it's a mistake to insist there's only one universe. That is a matter for physics to theorize on, so if multiverse were to be deemed likely, your model would die.

Sticking to the one, we can address this by saying it created itself and work on the problem of how it does this without consciousness.

You're playing into the hands of theists when you say the universe "created itself". The universe evolved from an earlier state, and there may very well have been an initial state. As I said, I'm inclined to think an infinite past is logically impossible. But I'm also driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way. A finite past does not entail an external creator or teleology.

Consciousness is the problem as to why it exists - Essentially consciousness is "life" as evidenced on this planet in the biological forms.
It appears to be an anomaly and if thought of as simply an "accident" of a "mindless" process, such invites actual minds to question this hand-waving non-explanation.

In truth, there is no current scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but that doesn't justify accepting an argument from ignorance.

Theists assume an enormously complex mind just happens to exist, uncaused. It seems to me more plausible that minds came about gradually, and accidentally, over billions of years.

I am unsure if I qualify as being a "theist" but refer to myself as a "naturalist" and consider mind to be a natural part of matter and to being a material thing re that. Re that, I do not consider the idea that "less complex" and "more complex" to exist as all things appear to be very complex, no matter how deep we dive to the bedrock - the bedrock particle is just as complex as the stuff built of it....or "out of it" to be even more accurate with my use of language.

Consider a molecule: it is more complex than its component atoms. In general, objects composed of other objects are more complex than those constituent parts - because it includes those parts plus it has a particular arrangement. So I strongly disagree that there are no relative degrees of complexity.

As per our brief interaction on another thread you wrote that the bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.

I replied with an alternative idea that perhaps a Universal Mind which organizes the matter/quantum field into functional forms which it can diversify into for the experience and whatever else such would provide it with.

In return you wrote that a universal mind seems an extravagant conjecture, since minds are quite complex.

So what? Absolute everything in this universe is complex when we dig deep.

You're treating complexity as a binary thing (complex or not). An electric motor is more complex that its parts. A brain is more complex than the quarks and leptons that constitute it.

Why should the idea of Universe Mind (universe with a mind) be viewed by actual minds within and part of the universe, as any more extravagant than a mindless universe - when we clearly are the apparent exception to that rule?

Because we can broadly account for the existence of human minds through evolution over billions of years. Plus we observe stark differences in the mental abilities of other animals. We know it took time for these things to come into existence. It seems less plausible to think a mind could just happen to exist. On the other hand, if you deny degrees of complexity, then you'd have to consider last-Thursdayism equally plausible. This is the notion that the universe began to exist last Thursday, and it just happens to look older.

We are minds within form, so why can't the universe be a form for an overall mind and we are intricately related to said mind?

It's logically possible, but there's no apparent evidence for it. In principle, you can pose it as an explanatory hypothesis, but then you have to show how it's a better explanation than alternatives.

Do you deny that minds are the product of brain activity? If so, how do you account for a mind existing independent of a brain?

How does an unembodied mind affect matter, shaping evolution?

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #57]

Thanks for you reply Fred.
From the above data, we can say that the bedrock is made up of two types of particles that are apparently different from each other. In that, we have identified the Bedrock particle as two types interacting with each other.
That's wrong. According to quantum field theory, fields are fundamental - not particles. Each of the particles in the standard model has an associated field.

And to reiterate: I'm discussing a metaphysical theory; a general theory about the structure of reality. While it's consistent with current theory, it isn't based on it. I only used QFT to illustrate.
Okay - I misunderstood.
So if these QF's are not particles, what are they that we can consider them to being matter? And why should we pluralize them? Are they different from one another and thus have to be distinguished as such and spoken of in that way?
There also appear to be differing types of naturalism, as not all naturalists are also materialists.
Yes, and not all materialists are physicalists. I happen to be presenting David Armstrong's physicalist metaphysics (for the most part). It's coherent, and is the most complete naturalist metaphysical system out there.
Indeed. I had not heard of David's physicalist metaphysics until connecting here with you.
What is your current philosophical position? Materialist, Naturalist or Supernaturalist?

I think of my position as being Naturalist and I try to take an Agnostic approach re philosophical questions. I am working on building a Natural Philosophy which potentially can bridge the age old battle between Materlisim and Supernaturalism.

I have to go to work now, so will read and answer the rest of your post later.

Cheers,
W

[fredonly]

So if these QF's are not particles, what are they that we can consider them to being matter? And why should we pluralize them? Are they different from one another and thus have to be distinguished as such and spoken of in that way?

The metaphysics doesn't make the call, that's a physics question. But for sake of discussion, we can pretend quantum field theory is true and fundamental - so I'll comment based on my understanding of it.

Under QFT, each field is distinct from the others, and each exists at every point of space. An elementary particle, like an up-quark or an electron, is an excitation of the associated field -a quantum of energy. Normal matter is formed of these particles, which interact with one another. The fields can also interact with each other without being particles. This accounts for the "vacuum energy" and "virtual particles".

I had not heard of David's physicalist metaphysics until connecting here with you.
What is your current philosophical position? Materialist, Naturalist or Supernaturalist?

Naturalist, and tentatively accept physicalism. The existence of the physical is practically irrefutable. If anything else exists, I think there is a burden to demonstrate it. But I'm not dogmatic and recognize no metaphysical theory is provably true, so I'm a bit agnostic about it.

If you are interested in learning about Armstrong's metaphysics, this book is an excellent summary.

I think of my position as being Naturalist and I try to take an Agnostic approach re philosophical questions. I am working on building a Natural Philosophy which potentially can bridge the age old battle between Materlisim and Supernaturalism.

It's worthwhile to read what philosophers have written to help understand the challenges of building a coherent system. Armstrong is a good place to start because of how comprehensive he is, covering everything from the basic ontological framework I've alluded to, to philosophy of mind and theory of truth.

Enjoy your journey!

[William]

To continue:

...and supernaturalism brings with it the problem of infinite regression.

Not necessarily. A God could exist as an initial state of affairs.

Indeed, but this still doesn't necessitate the God would have to exist outside of our natural universe and be responsible for the creation of our natural universe.
The idea of a Universal Mind could be regarded as a "God".

It's initial state was a "functional form" that made some evolution inevitable or at least probable. As I described in Sean Carroll's model, quantum fluctuation results in a big bang. This may, or may not, be true- but it demonstrates that it is logically possible to have a finite past with an initial state - thus defeating the theist argument from ignorance.

Still, this idea does not explain the apparent magical aspect - it only explains that something did not come from nothing, not why something came from something. It does not explain what it was that prompted the bedrock to begin to organize itself into functional forms. Obviously the bedrock is a functional form in and of itself.

A finite past allows for the idea of supernaturalism to fill the gap. So we can focus on an infinite past but also have to explain why there is a beginning.

There's good philosophical reasons to believe the past is finite, so you're conceding defeat if you simply insist it must be infinite. A knowledgeable theist can account for either a finite or infinite past. You lose half the battle if you agree a finite past entails God.

Unless "God" and "Universal Mind" are considered to being the same. In order for that to take place, the theist would have to agree that supernaturalism is off the table.

There is nothing wrong with the concept as long as it is understood that such would constitute an infinite series of beginnings and endings representing the overall state of organization of matter while the unorganized matter represents a timeless infinite eternal thing between an ending of one universe of organized matter and a beginning of another universe of organized matter.
Essentially the unorganized matter/state of unorganized matter is the real or quintessential state of the universe, while organized matter is the temporal manifestation from the quintessential state.

I strongly disagree! Sean Carroll's model (described in "From Eternity to Here") does theorize a multiverse, but only because his view of an initial state entails it. Each baby universe is an isolated space-time that originates from the exact same initial state. No universe is in the past (or future) of another. But multiverse could be trimmed out from it, and it remains coherent. His underlying assumption is that time is associated with thermodynamics, a product of entropy.

I think you have misunderstood my argument. I was not saying that there are multiple universe simultaneously existing independently from each other. I was saying that it is the one and only the one, and that it goes through what we within it would regard as a beginning, and that the formation of interdependent objects is temporal (even that in terms of time relevant to our own planet, these temporal forms last for ages.

Thus, based on the hypothetical that this universe will one day have an end, there is no reason why we cannot think of this event as simply an end to what was, not an end to what could follow because if we accept that this current universe is a product of something which organizes itself into functional formations, (objects) there should be no reason why we cannot accept that it couldn't do it again, therefore there is no reason why we cannot accept that this process has always being doing this very thing.

In part, that is another way of saying what I said above, only the "many of these" in the hypothesis I am using, are not "other universes" acting independently (supernaturally) from each other, Rather there is only one, and there only has to be only one, and since we are specifically involved within the one, there is no requirement to hypothesis for many, because - again - we introduce the problem of infinite regression re what created all these "other universes".

You seem to be trying to shoehorn Carroll's model into your own predisposition. There is no "infinite regression" in it, and multiverse (if true) is not "supernatural". Also, it's a mistake to insist there's only one universe. That is a matter for physics to theorize on, so if multiverse were to be deemed likely, your model would die.

I am not aware of "Carroll's model" and my developing Natural Philosophy shouldn't be regarded as a "predisposition".
If multiverse do exist, they would need to be interdependent in order for them to be regarded as "natural" otherwise we would have to regard them as "supernatural".
Currently there doesn't appear to be any good argument against insisting on only one universe since there is only one universe we are experiencing as a reality, and the very word includes the idea of only one object (even that within the one object there are many interdependent/related objects.)
I am open to being shown why it is a mistake to regard the idea that there is only one universe, but for now think that is the best approach to take.

Sticking to the one, we can address this by saying it created itself and work on the problem of how it does this without consciousness.

You're playing into the hands of theists when you say the universe "created itself". The universe evolved from an earlier state, and there may very well have been an initial state. As I said, I'm inclined to think an infinite past is logically impossible. But I'm also driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way. A finite past does not entail an external creator or teleology.

As I mentioned, I am developing a Natural Philosophy which is designed to bridge the differences between Materialism and Supernaturalism. It is not my intention to alienate either side of those opposing positions and regardless of your own personal drive to defeat theism, that alone is insufficient reason for me to adopt the same approach. Indeed, I consider such motivation to being a manifestation of cognitive bias intent upon keeping the status quo operating rather than useful as a sincere device for bridging differences through philosophical ideas and discussion.

Consciousness is the problem as to why it exists - Essentially consciousness is "life" as evidenced on this planet in the biological forms.
It appears to be an anomaly and if thought of as simply an "accident" of a "mindless" process, such invites actual minds to question this hand-waving non-explanation.

In truth, there is no current scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but that doesn't justify accepting an argument from ignorance.

I do not advocate arguing from ignorance. I advocate questioning hand-waving non-explanations.

I am unsure if I qualify as being a "theist" but refer to myself as a "naturalist" and consider mind to be a natural part of matter and to being a material thing re that. Re that, I do not consider the idea that "less complex" and "more complex" to exist as all things appear to be very complex, no matter how deep we dive to the bedrock - the bedrock particle is just as complex as the stuff built of it....or "out of it" to be even more accurate with my use of language.

Consider a molecule: it is more complex than its component atoms. In general, objects composed of other objects are more complex than those constituent parts - because it includes those parts plus it has a particular arrangement. So I strongly disagree that there are no relative degrees of complexity.

Relative to human comprehension, perhaps. But my argument is that everything is complex, and even if we agree that the bedrock is the least complex of all the complexity, the bedrock is still not understood, so how is it we can believe we understand even the more complex things which came from the bedrock particle, of we have no handle on the complexities which we can measure and evaluate and form hypothesis about?

Another thing worth considering IMO is that these complexities are not separate from the bedrock, but the bedrock is integral to their existence, and so how is it we can think we understand the complexities of the objects without having an understanding of the whole, including the bedrock?

Thus, we are left with hypotheticals and human consciousness is required to lay aside presumption and prejudice if it is to come to any sound agreement and work diligently to amalgamate the apposing hypothesis into one agreed upon overall acceptable hypothesis. In that, there is still much work to be done.

You're treating complexity as a binary thing (complex or not).

I disagree. My argument for there being only ONE universe is a great example of my not treating the objects within it in a dualistic or binary manner.

An electric motor is more complex that its parts. A brain is more complex than the quarks and leptons that constitute it.

Consider the universe as this "electric motor" then and see that this is what I am saying. The whole universe, including the bedrock, is "more complex than its parts." You appear to be arguing on the one hand that its parts are more complex than its whole, (by saying that the parts which come from the whole are more complex) while on the other hand, appear now to be arguing the opposite. To me, that is more the case your argument is coming from treating complexity as a binary thing (dualism). I am not. I am saying that there is no "not" (complex OR not) but only that the whole thing is complex and the appearance of seeming "more complex objects than the objects these derive from/are built upon", is the actual binary perspective and if indeed you disagree with having a binary perspective, you may want to reexamine your philosophy and make the necessary adjustments to form a more unified perspective.

Why should the idea of Universe Mind (universe with a mind) be viewed by actual minds within and part of the universe, as any more extravagant than a mindless universe - when we clearly are the apparent exception to that rule?

Because we can broadly account for the existence of human minds through evolution over billions of years.

I accept that while the existence of actual humans is not measured in "billions of years" without those billions of years having occurred prior to the actual existence of humans, human minds would not exist.

Plus we observe stark differences in the mental abilities of other animals.

Humans may be operating with cognitive bias in that regard.
As an example, I accept that since bees do not create machinery which allow for them to explore the universe in the same way that humans can, this has more to do with function of form that of mind, which is to say, we do not know that if a bee mind is that different from a human mind, or any other animals mind. We only know that a bees form doesn't enable its mind to create such machinery.

Which is also to point out that of all the complex things we do understand a little about, the most complex appears to be the mind itself, which is another way of saying, we don't understand ourselves (as minds) even that we might understand a great deal about our forms.

Re that, to relegate the human mind as an accident re the process of cosmology, or something no more than a "non-thing" or "hallucination" of a brain, may be synonymous with understanding ourselves incorrectly. Such hand-waving explanations can't be great for the overall mental health of the human race and IMO is as destructive as religious fear and guilt.

We know it took time for these things to come into existence. It seems less plausible to think a mind could just happen to exist.

I agree with this view. Further to that, I see no reason why the universe shouldn't be regarded as being mindful, intelligent, purposeful et al re Consciousness.

There is no reason I can see that it cannot be accepted that all it would take is lots of "time" for such things as Galaxies, Stars, and Planets to develop mindfulness or that a Universal Mind is the bedrock particle of said universal objects.

We are minds within form, so why can't the universe be a form for an overall mind and we are intricately related to said mind?

It's logically possible, but there's no apparent evidence for it.

Yes there is. Re biological forms, these derive from the planet itself and this can be regarded as evidence that the planet itself is conscious. That is logically possible AND apparent evidence.
The evidence apparent might not be accepted by either Supernaturalism or Materialism but I argue that this is the case due to the restrictions those philosophies place upon the minds of those who believe in the hypothesis built through said positions, making it extremely difficult for the adherents to accept the evidence as apparent.

In principle, you can pose it as an explanatory hypothesis, but then you have to show how it's a better explanation than alternatives.

Where do/have the alternatives get/gotten us, that these necessarily give us "better" or even "best"? So far it appears that folk either accept Materialism OR Supernaturalism and deny there can be an alternative to those positions.

I disagree with that perception, and give sound logical reasonable critique for doing so.

Do you deny that minds are the product of brain activity?

If this is a statement of fact, and by "brains" you mean strictly carbon-based biological brains, sure I deny that. I agree that the evidence can look/be interpreted that way, but that is different from agreeing to such as a verified fact.

If so, how do you account for a mind existing independent of a brain?

Again it depends on what you are referring to as a "brain" - and if this is only referring to carbon-based biological brains, to account for how minds experience alternate realities without functioning biological brains, that is another complex issue which - while related to this subject, might best not be argued about between you and I until we can establish agreement of the basic stuff we already disagree with.

How does an unembodied mind affect matter, shaping evolution?

Re the Universal Mind, It is embodied in the Objects which comprise this ever-changing non-static Universe, so the question should be, "Why would we regard a Universal Mind as being able to be unembodied from the object of the physical universe?" and that question has much to do with the hypothesis to explain alternate experiences human minds have - which I am happy to discuss with you once/if we get on the same page re the bedrock particle.

In closing, I want to thank you for your obvious interest in the subject and hope you will consider my arguments enough to want to continues with this correspondence.

Cheers
W.