Near perfect existence

[Davian]

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. Of course I will give you my reasons.

Basically, it seems to me that you want to allow for the existence of matter and space and energy outside of our universe, despite the empirical evidence and data we have which would seem to render this view problematic.

I fail to see where he did so.

This hypothesis seems less preferable to one which would not require us to set aside the empirical evidence and data from the observations we have gathered which seem to indicate that there is no matter or energy or space-time external to our universe.

Citation please.

As one who thinks it would be intellectually dishonest to just disregard the empirical evidence and observational data we have from the cosmological disciplines, I have to take what they seem to indicate into account when attempting to develop a comprehensive weltanschauung.

What about other fields of study, such as astrobiology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, genetics, geology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, etc? Or do you cherry-pick as you see fit?

I also think you are wrong when you argue that what I am arguing for is something that only religious people would do. I can give you references to brilliant men who are not religious who would argue that the coming into being of the cosmos would seem to indicate that it was the result of something which transcends the cosmos. You must remember, there are many theists who are not religious.

I have yet to meet one that does more than pay that last statement anything more than lip service.

 

[Davian]

I'd be interested to hear what you think of this YouTube video showing how the Big Bang never happened.

Let me know what you think

I skipped to the 22 min mark, to watch him misrepresent a bunch of science for few minutes. Nothing new there.

Cosmological arguments do not inform my worldview, or my theological position. If the science were actually turned upside down tomorrow, it would not say to me "gods exist!". I would watch with curiosity as they figured out what theories to toss, and which ones can be updated.

 

[Davian]

Forgive me sir, for thinking that someone with the name of "Ana" was a woman. Surely you could understand why I might think that.... no?

That still throws me off. Try parsing his name thusly: An atheIst.

 

[anonymous person]

Is a date of over 3 billion years ago incompatible with your theology?

Such a date is not incompatible with what I consider to be the more essential and core tenets of my weltanschauung (worldview). In this specific regard, I am quite free to simply go where the evidence leads me.

Indeed. Hence my asking of you if you can do other than tell us what it is not. How do we delineate the "immaterial" from the non-existent?

Well, in this context, let us assume that the universe is indeed all of physical reality i.e. all matter, energy, and space-time.
Let us also assume that the universe was not, then was, i.e. that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe, then, there was the universe.

What shall we say?

Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions, or we can take Dennett's line found in his book Breaking the Spell. He writes the following concerning the cause of the universe: "What does need its origin explained is the concrete Universe itself, and as Hume...long ago asked: Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.

So we have the universe just coming into being from nothing by nothing, or the universe creates itself. Now I don't know about you, but I just find these hypotheses to be less viable than one which does not require us to affirm that something can create itself or that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions.

In light of the aforementioned, a hypothesis which can account for the creation of the universe ex nihilo, it seems to me, would need to contain some sort of cause.

The naturalist, because he cannot allow for the existence of anything which cannot be accounted for by matter being acted upon by the physical laws of nature, is forced into a corner of sorts when it comes to formulating viable hypotheses.

The man who is not a naturalist with only the presupposition that from nothing, nothing comes, is far more free to follow the evidence where it leads.

The cause of the universe, it seems to me, would necessarily have to have certain attributes or properties.

1. The cause would have to exist. This seems to me to be pretty self-evident.
2. The cause would plausibly transcend the universe.
3. The cause would plausibly be a volitional agent who can freely choose to create the cosmos, thereby causing an effect to originate instantaneously at the first moment of time prior to which there was an atemporal or timeless state of affairs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Such a date is not incompatible with what I consider to be the more essential and core tenets of my weltanschauung (worldview). In this specific regard, I am quite free to simply go where the evidence leads me.



Well, in this context, let us assume that the universe is indeed all of physical reality i.e. all matter, energy, and space-time.
Let us also assume that the universe was not, then was, i.e. that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe, then, there was the universe.

What shall we say?

Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions, or we can take Dennett's line found in his book Breaking the Spell. He writes the following concerning the cause of the universe: "What does need its origin explained is the concrete Universe itself, and as Hume...long ago asked: Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.

So we have the universe just coming into being from nothing by nothing, or the universe creates itself. Now I don't know about you, but I just find these hypotheses to be less viable than one which does not require us to affirm that something can create itself or that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions.

In light of the aforementioned, a hypothesis which can account for the creation of the universe ex nihilo, it seems to me, would need to contain some sort of cause.

The naturalist, because he cannot allow for the existence of anything which cannot be accounted for by matter being acted upon by the physical laws of nature, is forced into a corner of sorts when it comes to formulating viable hypotheses.

The man who is not a naturalist with only the presupposition that from nothing, nothing comes, is far more free to follow the evidence where it leads.

The cause of the universe, it seems to me, would necessarily have to have certain attributes or properties.

1. The cause would have to exist. This seems to me to be pretty self-evident.
2. The cause would plausibly transcend the universe.
3. The cause would plausibly be a volitional agent who can freely choose to create the cosmos, thereby causing an effect to originate instantaneously at the first moment of time prior to which there was an atemporal or timeless state of affairs.

Still waiting on the empirical evidence and observational data on what is external to the universe....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

the universe was not, then was.

If we can agree on this, then I think we shall be well on our way.

Then we can't move on just yet. This implies creatio ex nihilo. What reason do we have to think that the universe originated ex nihilo?

 

[Davian]

Such a date is not incompatible with what I consider to be the more essential and core tenets of my weltanschauung (worldview). In this specific regard, I am quite free to simply go where the evidence leads me.

Within the constraints of your theology, of course. You can't be wrong about that, I gather.

Well, in this context, let us assume that the universe is indeed all of physical reality i.e. all matter, energy, and space-time.
Let us also assume that the universe was not, then was, i.e. that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe, then, there was the universe.

Or, something that was not our universe, and then our universe. It may be that the English language is insufficient to describe the situation in layman's terms.

What shall we say?

Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions, or we can take Dennett's line found in his book Breaking the Spell. He writes the following concerning the cause of the universe: "What does need its origin explained is the concrete Universe itself, and as Hume...long ago asked: Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.

So we have the universe just coming into being from nothing by nothing, or the universe creates itself.

Or, we don't know. Or, we have insufficient information, and cannot know.

Now I don't know about you, but I just find these hypotheses to be less viable than one which does not require us to affirm that something can create itself or that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions.

I cannot speculate on the causal conditions that might have existed at the instantiation of the cosmos.

In light of the aforementioned, a hypothesis which can account for the creation of the universe ex nihilo, it seems to me, would need to contain some sort of cause.

I won't speculate. I understand that you are working backwards from a worldview that requires for there to be a cause.

The naturalist, because he cannot allow for the existence of anything which cannot be accounted for by matter being acted upon by the physical laws of nature, is forced into a corner of sorts when it comes to formulating viable hypotheses.

I don't see how a false dichotomy forces anything.

The man who is not a naturalist with only the presupposition that from nothing, nothing comes, is far more free to follow the evidence where it leads.

The man that believes in gods can allow for anything to be possible. "The universe will be created next Thursday. As the universe hasn't been created yet, what we think is happening now is just false memories we'll have once it exists."

No need for evidence. Or, to take it seriously.

The cause of the universe, it seems to me, would necessarily have to have certain attributes or properties.

1. The cause would have to exist. This seems to me to be pretty self-evident.

If a cause was needed, at the time. Why would that 'cause' still have to exist, once the alleged need for it was "past". Oh right you need it for your theology.

2. The cause would plausibly transcend the universe.

I have no idea what this means, or how you established its plausibility.

3. The cause would plausibly be a volitional agent who can freely choose to create the cosmos, thereby causing an effect to originate instantaneously at the first moment of time prior to which there was an atemporal or timeless state of affairs.

I don't see how a temporal event - a choice - could be made prior to the existence of time as we know it. Oh right you need it for your theology.

Now, explain to me how you get from this "cause" to a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Such a date is not incompatible with what I consider to be the more essential and core tenets of my weltanschauung (worldview). In this specific regard, I am quite free to simply go where the evidence leads me.



Well, in this context, let us assume that the universe is indeed all of physical reality i.e. all matter, energy, and space-time.
Let us also assume that the universe was not, then was, i.e. that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe, then, there was the universe.

What shall we say?

Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions, or we can take Dennett's line found in his book Breaking the Spell. He writes the following concerning the cause of the universe: "What does need its origin explained is the concrete Universe itself, and as Hume...long ago asked: Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.

So we have the universe just coming into being from nothing by nothing, or the universe creates itself. Now I don't know about you, but I just find these hypotheses to be less viable than one which does not require us to affirm that something can create itself or that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions.

In light of the aforementioned, a hypothesis which can account for the creation of the universe ex nihilo, it seems to me, would need to contain some sort of cause.

The naturalist, because he cannot allow for the existence of anything which cannot be accounted for by matter being acted upon by the physical laws of nature, is forced into a corner of sorts when it comes to formulating viable hypotheses.

The man who is not a naturalist with only the presupposition that from nothing, nothing comes, is far more free to follow the evidence where it leads.

The cause of the universe, it seems to me, would necessarily have to have certain attributes or properties.

1. The cause would have to exist. This seems to me to be pretty self-evident.
2. The cause would plausibly transcend the universe.
3. The cause would plausibly be a volitional agent who can freely choose to create the cosmos, thereby causing an effect to originate instantaneously at the first moment of time prior to which there was an atemporal or timeless state of affairs.

Refer to this discussion on the KCA with Joshua260.

 

[Davian]

Refer to this discussion on the KCA with Joshua260.

"It's like déjà vu all over again." - Yogi Berra

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, in this context, let us assume that the universe is indeed all of physical reality i.e. all matter, energy, and space-time.

To my understanding, this is not how cosmologists define the 'universe.'

Let us also assume that the universe was not, then was, i.e. that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe, then, there was the universe.

First, you are asking us to assume creatio ex nihilo from the outset. Second, notice your use of temporal language ("... then, there was the universe.") If time is essential to the universe, then this statement no longer makes sense.

Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions,

No, that's not necessarily the case, "if we are naturalists."

So we have the universe just coming into being from nothing by nothing, or the universe creates itself. Now I don't know about you, but I just find these hypotheses to be less viable than one which does not require us to affirm that something can create itself or that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions.

You'll have to elaborate.

In light of the aforementioned, a hypothesis which can account for the creation of the universe ex nihilo, it seems to me, would need to contain some sort of cause.

First, you are assuming that the universe did indeed originate ex nihilo. On what basis? Second, you are asserting that things that originate ex nihilo require a cause. On what basis?

The cause of the universe, it seems to me, would necessarily have to have certain attributes or properties.

1. The cause would have to exist. This seems to me to be pretty self-evident.
2. The cause would plausibly transcend the universe.
3. The cause would plausibly be a volitional agent who can freely choose to create the cosmos, thereby causing an effect to originate instantaneously at the first moment of time prior to which there was an atemporal or timeless state of affairs.

How is a volitional agent able to exist and function independently of matter, energy, and spacetime?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well for our discussion, if we can agree that matter is that which has mass and takes up space (common usage) and that material is that which consists of matter (adjective), we will be well on our way.

Photons take up space, but have no mass. Gluons are also thought have that characteristic.

Are photons and gluons material?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, in this context, let us assume that the universe is indeed all of physical reality i.e. all matter, energy, and space-time.

Okay.

Let us also assume that the universe was not, then was, i.e. that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe, then, there was the universe.

Sorry, but I can't assume this, because it involves a contradiction for me. Time is a property of the universe. There's no reason to think that time has any definition outside of the universe. We may reasonably talk about the universe at t=0 being replaced by the state of affairs at t=1 because there is a process of change of the universe between the two, but it makes no sense to speak of a change from t=-1 to t=0, because -1 is undefined. It isn't a part of the change of the universe, but is something we rationalistically conjure out of undisciplined imagination. We can't say that there was ever a time in which the universe didn't exist.

Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions, or we can take Dennett's line found in his book Breaking the Spell. He writes the following concerning the cause of the universe: "What does need its origin explained is the concrete Universe itself, and as Hume...long ago asked: Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.

And that's what's wrong with this limited set of options. It asks us to deal with options that fail to understand time. Another option is that while causes exist within the universe, the universe as such is uncaused. It did not "come into being from nothing" or come into being from some cause. There is no creation ex nihilo, and therefore no problem to solve here.

So we have the universe just coming into being from nothing by nothing, or the universe creates itself. Now I don't know about you, but I just find these hypotheses to be less viable than one which does not require us to affirm that something can create itself or that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions.

None of those options are viable since they all rest on a mistaken and troublesome premise. And there will soon be special pleading for God, since God will be asserted to escape any need for causes.

In light of the aforementioned, a hypothesis which can account for the creation of the universe ex nihilo, it seems to me, would need to contain some sort of cause.

If so, then the creation of God ex nihilo would also have to be explained. God didn't just create himself, did he?

The naturalist, because he cannot allow for the existence of anything which cannot be accounted for by matter being acted upon by the physical laws of nature

Don't forget photons and gluons.

See why these definitions are important? It's so easy to equivocate on the terms.

The man who is not a naturalist with only the presupposition that from nothing, nothing comes, is far more free to follow the evidence where it leads.

No, he is only more free to follow the imagination where imagination leads. And it leads to such pseudo-scientific places as "Spirit Science".

The cause of the universe, it seems to me, would necessarily have to have certain attributes or properties.

1. The cause would have to exist. This seems to me to be pretty self-evident.
2. The cause would plausibly transcend the universe.
3. The cause would plausibly be a volitional agent who can freely choose to create the cosmos, thereby causing an effect to originate instantaneously at the first moment of time prior to which there was an atemporal or timeless state of affairs.

And there is the special pleading I mentioned. You forgot:

4. The cause would have to be causeless, contradicting our requirement that everything must have a cause and that nothing comes from nothing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Actually, the question was:

If it is not material, what is it?

Yes. Will you answer it - as opposed to keeping telling us what it is not?

The question you ask assumes that that which is immaterial consists of something. But why think that that which is immaterial or incorporeal consists of anything?

"Consisting of" was your choice of words. You introduced it.
Your answer suggests that you can´t say more about it than what it is not, and that it doesn´t consist of anything. Is that correct?

Rather, I think I would say that the immaterial cause of the universe is a spiritual being which possesses certain attributes.

Define "spiritual" without evading to ex-negativo claims.
Describe the attributes and how you arrive at concluding them.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm going to offer my responses after I get off of work. I want to answer them in such a fashion as to not be engaging in apologetics but to answer them in a manner that qualifies them per the rules of this forum for posting.

 

[anonymous person]

What empirical evidence and observational data? I wasn't aware there was any of this regarding what's external to our universe.

You have said there is no evidence that anything is eternal. Should you not therefore also apply this to this hypothetical matter and energy and space you think might exist outside our universe?

 

[anonymous person]

Sorry, but I can't assume this, because it involves a contradiction for me. Time is a property of the universe.

I agree.

There's no reason to think that time has any definition outside of the universe.

I agree.

We may reasonably talk about the universe at t=0 being replaced by the state of affairs at t=1 because there is a process of change of the universe between the two,

The phrase the universe at t=0 implies that the universe existed prior to the first moment of time. This view would seem to run counter to your assertion that time is a property of the universe.

What evidence is there that there was an atemporal or timelessly existing universe which undergoes a change at t=1?

but it makes no sense to speak of a change from t=-1 to t=0, because -1 is undefined. It isn't a part of the change of the universe, but is something we rationalistically conjure out of undisciplined imagination. We can't say that there was ever a time in which the universe didn't exist.

You are addressing a strawman. I said that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe. I never said that there was a time when there was no universe.

And that's what's wrong with this limited set of options. It asks us to deal with options that fail to understand time. Another option is that while causes exist within the universe, the universe as such is uncaused. It did not "come into being from nothing" or come into being from some cause. There is no creation ex nihilo, and therefore no problem to solve here.

Of course you can believe that. I choose not to because such a view seems to me to run counter to the evidence and observational data we have which implies that the universe is not past eternal, but came into existence roughly 13 billion years ago.

None of those options are viable since they all rest on a mistaken and troublesome premise. And there will soon be special pleading for God, since God will be asserted to escape any need for causes.

But did you not just posit that the universe needs no cause?

It seems to me that something exists necessarily. It is either the universe or that which caused the universe to be. Since we have evidence that seems to indicate that the universe does not exist necessarily, it seems to me that we at least have a reason to entertain the notion that if there is evidence that the universe has a cause, that this cause may just exist necessarily.

If so, then the creation of God ex nihilo would also have to be explained. God didn't just create himself, did he?

Do you have evidence that God was created, i.e. that God does not exist necessarily?

No, he is only more free to follow the imagination where imagination leads. And it leads to such pseudo-scientific places as "Spirit Science".

It is reason, not imagination, that leads me to believe that something cannot come from nothing without any causal conditions. It is reason, not imagination, that leads me to believe that the universe is not past eternal, but came into being some 13 billion years ago.

And there is the special pleading I mentioned. You forgot:

4. The cause would have to be causeless, contradicting our requirement that everything must have a cause and that nothing comes from nothing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Our requirement?

You mean your requirement. I have never argued that everything must have a cause.

 

[quatona]

It seems to me that something exists necessarily.

Ah, it seems to you like that.

It is either the universe or that which caused the universe to be. Since we have evidence that seems to indicate that the universe does not exist necessarily, it seems to me that we at least have a reason to entertain the notion that if there is evidence that the universe has a cause, that this cause may just exist necessarily.

Actually, I fail to see why - in the absence of space, matter, time etc. - causality is needed for something to come into or be in existence.
Causality is observed as a governing physical principle within the universe.
Once we start assuming that the universe came to be under conditions that aren´t anything like the conditions within the universe, there is no consistency in assuming such conditions for its origin.

I have never argued that everything must have a cause.

Cool. So why again are you postulating that the universe needs a cause for coming into existence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The phrase the universe at t=0 implies that the universe existed prior to the first moment of time. This view would seem to run counter to your assertion that time is a property of the universe.

By t=0, I mean the first instant of time. You may replace that with t=1 if a one-based system suits you better.

What evidence is there that there was an atemporal or timelessly existing universe which undergoes a change at t=1?

I'm not claiming that there was an atemporal or timelessly existing universe. The universe at t=0 (or t=1) is temporal. It has just started its process of change, and is changing just as the universe at the next t value is.

I'm not presenting a scientific case here. This is a philosophical case. After all, that's what you are doing in the post to which I am replying.

You are addressing a strawman. I said that there was a state of affairs wherein there was no universe. I never said that there was a time when there was no universe.

I fail to see how a "state of affairs" does not refer to a time. What does "state" mean here, if not to refer to a slice of time?

Of course you can believe that. I choose not to because such a view seems to me to run counter to the evidence and observational data we have which implies that the universe is not past eternal, but came into existence roughly 13 billion years ago.

What evidence shows that the universe came into existence roughly 13 billion years ago?

As far as I know, there is no such evidence. Not if by "come into existence", you mean something appearing ex nihilo.

But did you not just posit that the universe needs no cause?

Yes, and that means I'm not engaging in special pleading. I'm not saying that God needs a cause, but the universe doesn't.

It seems to me that something exists necessarily. It is either the universe or that which caused the universe to be.

I agree.

Since we have evidence that seems to indicate that the universe does not exist necessarily

We have no such evidence.

Do you have evidence that God was created, i.e. that God does not exist necessarily?

I'm asking a question pertaining to logic. I'm saying that if the existence of the universe must be explained because "nothing comes from nothing", then logically so must the existence of God. I'm pointing out the special pleading.

It is reason, not imagination, that leads me to believe that something cannot come from nothing without any causal conditions. It is reason, not imagination, that leads me to believe that the universe is not past eternal, but came into being some 13 billion years ago.

You didn't stipulate the need for reasoning as a presupposition. You said that the only presupposition needed was "from nothing, nothing comes". That is a presupposition that even Jordan, the author of "Spirit Science", would likely agree with.

Our

requirement?

You mean your requirement. I have never argued that everything must have a cause.

My requirement? I have no such requirement. It is implicit in your argument.

But let's say that it is not. In that case, I don't see how you can maintain your critique below:

You had written: Well if we are naturalists, we have to either affirm that the universe came into being from nothing, without any causal conditions, or we can take Dennett's line found in his book Breaking the Spell. He writes the following concerning the cause of the universe: "What does need its origin explained is the concrete Universe itself, and as Hume...long ago asked: Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo.

Why are you imposing the requirement on naturalists that something must come into being from nothing?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, it seems to you like that.

Actually, I fail to see why - in the absence of space, matter, time etc. - causality is needed for something to come into or be in existence.
Causality is observed as a governing physical principle within the universe.
Once we start assuming that the universe came to be under conditions that aren´t anything like the conditions within the universe, there is no consistency in assuming such conditions for its origin.






Cool. So why again are you postulating that the universe needs a cause for coming into existence?

You're saying that if the universe comes into being it does so without a cause. Why? Because the creation of the universe would be different than anything we observe coming to be in the natural world. Why is it different? Because in the case of the coming into being of the universe, there is no preexisting stuff from which it is made like there is when we think of stars forming or cars being made.

But how does the fact that there was no preexisting stuff from which the universe was made lead you to conclude that it came into being without a cause? I agree that there was no material cause of the universe coming to be, but I see no reason to conclude that because there is no material cause out of which the universe came to be that therefore the universe needs no efficient cause.

Now if one presupposes that there is no thing that exists but that can be explained by natural processes acting upon things which are ultimately explained by some appeal to nature, i.e. naturalism, then it seems to me they are forced upon pain of having to abandon their worldview, to maintain that the universe can come to be without any causal conditions whatsover.

I find such a hypothesis to be less preferable than one which does not require me to hold that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever.

Nor can one respond to an argument against naturalism by simply asserting that naturalism is true, for that would be question begging.

 

[quatona]

You're saying that if the universe comes into being it does so without a cause.

[
No, that´s not what I was saying.

Why? Because the creation of the universe would be different than anything we observe coming to be in the natural world. Why is it different? Because in the case of the coming into being of the universe, there is no preexisting stuff from which it is made like there is when we think of stars forming or cars being made.

No, it´s different because at this point we are already under the assumption that there was no time/space/matter... - to which our concept "causation" is related.

But how does the fact that there was no preexisting stuff from which the universe was made lead you to conclude that it came into being without a cause?

If you go back and read my post more carefully, you´ll find that that´s not what I concluded.

I agree that there was no material cause of the universe coming to be, but I see no reason to conclude that because there is no material cause out of which the universe came to be that therefore the universe needs no efficient cause.

We don´t know what a/the universe needs, in the absence of time, space and matter.
The concept "cause" is meaningful within the frame of reference of our universe (with space, time and matter). Only there we observe "causation" to be a governing priniciple, and on top we do not accept just any cause for anything. E.g. there is no observation of a non-material cause for a material event.
I have absolutely no idea what an "efficient cause" is supposed to be in the absence of time, matter and space.

Now if one presupposes that there is no thing that exists but that can be explained by natural processes acting upon things which are ultimately explained by some appeal to nature, i.e. naturalism, then it seems to me they are forced upon pain of having to abandon their worldview, to maintain that the universe can come to be without any causal conditions whatsover.

Not my position.
Interestingly, at this point you are the one who appeals to a principle observed in the physical universe (causation).

I find such a hypothesis to be less preferable than one which does not require me to hold that something can come from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever.

1. So this is about what you find preferable? OK.
2. You haven´t even explained what "cause" is supposed to mean, in the absence of time, space and matter.

Nor can one respond to an argument against naturalism by simply asserting that naturalism is true, for that would be question begging.

Sure, but I haven´t asserted that naturalism is true. So spare me the strawmen.

You asserted that not everything needs a cause. Yet, you appeal to the necessity of causation in this context. First thing you´d have to explain: Where did you pull the axiom that everything needs a cause, and what criteria do you use to justify exceptions from this rule.