In fact it is everything squeezed into an infinitely small amount of space. This is often misinterpreted as stuff coming from nothing. To a cosmologist (but perhaps not the rest of us), there is a very big difference between a singularity and nothing. If true, then there is no need to invoke a cause for stuff that was already here (but mushed up really small).
I agree up to the point where you say 'there is no need to invoke a cause.' Why? The situation is still not 'self-explanatory' in any philosophical sense. The physics still points beyond itself, in the sense that the physics certainly doesn't contain a mechanism that is any sense 'self creative'/'self-sustaining.'[/QUOTE]
There is no
need to invoke a cause. As Kant pointed out, the cosmological proof of God (that is, the proof that proves God's existence by calling him the First Cause) cannot actually prove God's existence - merely the possibility of his existence. There is a way out of the cosmological proof, namely by acknowledging an infinite chain of causes. (And the only way to avoid that loophole is by refering to the failing ontological argument.)
As for natural laws, these are a property of existence.
Definitely do not agree with this. There is no clear reason why the physical laws are the way they are and not otherwise. It seems quite possible to have an 'existence' with a different set of physical laws.
Possible, but not necessary, ofcourse.
The most interesting aspect of this question, in my view, is that the human mind is incapable of even formulating anything that looks like an 'explanation' for my existence, or yours, or the fact of the universe.
We seem perfectly able to formulate basic explanations. We just have a lot of them, and don't seem to be able to pick one with good reason.
