Mind or Material: Which One Best Explains the Beginning of the Universe?

If the universe began to exist, then what cause it to begin its existence? This short writing lightly tackles the expectations and explanatory power of naturalistic and theistic worldviews.

Naturalism has no expectations for a finite universe. Naturalism posits that nothing exist outside the universe, or natural. So the expectation of the universe's status cannot be in any way dynamic (changing in time) in the sense of a beginning. Since no entities Transcendent to space, time, and matter exist, there should be no evidence of a finite universe anywhere, at least on the outset.

Contrasted with a theistic worldview that posits a being Transcendent to space, time, and matter with a free will that enables it to have causal adequacy. From a naturalistic perspective, the universe is either self-existent, or existed in a prior material state. The issue with a prior material state is that previous causal conditions must have been met for that state to be achieved. You run into an infinite regress of material cause.

But if you posit a will prior to the universe, it can cause an event without prior materialistic causal conditions. Human minds can create a material state unlike the prior one without material conditions directly affecting or determining a change or event to occur. This is like me writing out "I love Jesus" on some paper with an ink pen. No material conditions or chemical reactions can explain why the writing was deposited on the paper, my volition to use my intelligence to leave a message that carries information is a much better explantion (and the only one adequate to explain the message) than chemical reactions between the ink and paper. Things like the temperature and humidity of the air, the material of the paper and wether you have a water based ink are not adequate explanations for the message being left. A current material state (one where water based ink has evaporated and dried to the paper's fibers in the shape of English letters that carry meaning according to the agreed upon mechanics of English) was produced by a mind (Me) without prior material conditions (like the chemical reactions between the paper and ink) being met. In other words, there is no combination of natural and physical interaction that can explain the current state of affairs. Likewise, a mind pre-existing the universe could cause an event without prior material conditions. As an example, I raise my arm. There may be conditions to meet for such to be permitted to happen (like having an arm, nervous system, etc.). But those are not conditions that determine my arm actually raising when I decide to raise it deliberately.

Moreover If I go on a run, and I have periods of 2 mins where I sprint as hard as I can go, what material conditions determined me beginning to sprint? No material conditions whatsoever can explain how or why I started sprinting for intermediate periods, heck, it can't even explain why or how I went on a run in the first place.

A prior material state or event would indeed need to be produced by a prior material state that met the correct conditions to produce the next state, and so on... On the other hand, Libertarian agency or free will, implies that a mind can create a chain of cause and affect without being compelled by material conditions to do so. Going back to my arm being raised. I was not compelled by the material state of my human body containing an arm to then "raise my arm". Therefore there was no previous material conditions that were met for me to raise my arm, a chain of cause and effect were produced without material intrusion. The same thing occurs when we examine my ink and paper example. There was no prior material condtion that would have cause me to write, or random chance to produce the written massage "I love Jesus" on the paper. The chemcial reactions may explain "how" the ink got on the paper, but fails to explain "why" it is there, or "how" the message originated.

Therefore, Theism does offer a better and simpler explanation than materialistic models do for explaining the observed evidence of a universe that has not existed forever, but has been expanding, and extrapolating back, terminated at a starting point some time in the finite past. Moreover all naturalistic origin models multiply unobserved material causal entities, violating Okham's Razor and lowering its explanatory confidence entirely. Compared to a theist positing one causal entity that doesn't result in logical absurdities.