...answers on the back of an envelope in ten words or less.

The mental form we have when we think of nothingness is adequate for understanding the singularity, pure potentiality. It is its own causality and yes it's crazy to think it's a person with a higher nature

It is its own causality and yes it's crazy to think it's a person with a higher nature

And it's not crazy to say "it is its own causality"?

I'll try to give a reasonable answer to your points.

1. If the observable universe had not manifested would sufficient preconditions necessarily have been absent?

This is impossible to know. First, there is the assumption that there actually were preconditions. Second, there is the assumption that the laws of the universe are the same today as they were at inception. This is outside of our knowledge.

2. If preconditions existed outside of what is observable what would the most basic effective characteristics of that state or force be?

This is also impossible to know, unless we see observable evidence of its impact. For example, we knew about lightning. As we studied lightning, we started to realize there was something that "caused" the lightning, due to the fact that if it suddenly just "appeared" it would violate other observations and conclusions about reality. So I would suppose if you observed something that seemed impossible to just appear, within our understanding of physics, we would believe that there was likely an underlying cause we could find.

3. What are the most basic reasonable implications about the nature of preexisting conditions based on observable physical law?

I think this was answered by point 2. We believe there is a pre-existing condition to a cause when it seems the cause appearing without any prior pre-condition, violates our understanding of the universe.

4. Which of those implications is most likely to cause human beings to attribute personal character or deity?

If you're saying why do people think God caused the universe, its simple. The universe is complicated. The world is complicated. We don't think its possible to just, "Happen" without any prior explanation. We also don't think its probable that something as complex as life just happened by chance. People are more likely to believe in agency over chance. Think about people who purchase lottery tickets. They think purchasing it and wishing on it makes its likely enough they will win, even though statistically, you just won't.

5. Is it possible to know, derive meaningful understanding of, and predict the future action of an unobservable force based on present observations of the material universe?

In some ways, yes. Have you ever heard of the doppler blue shift? Doppler blueshift is used in astronomy to determine relative motion:

The Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward our own Milky Way galaxy within the Local Group; thus, when observed from Earth, its light is undergoing a blueshift.
Components of a binary star system will be blueshifted when moving towards Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

We often times use the results of an unobservable action, to judge and predict what that unobservable existence has done, and might do.

Since I see you're talking about God (its ok to say it) people likely believe God to be an orderly being because of the current day of our universe. If we believe there is a prior cause, and that prior cause intended things to be this way, then we attribute the characteristics of that cause based on the state of the world today. Since mankind is pretty important in our minds, and a lot of us think we're hot stuff, its natural to believe that God did everything to create us. So why?

Since we cannot observe God directly, we must examine ourselves and the world and try to predict what kind of God it is. At least, as a new idea. Of course the idea of God can evolve from there into a great many concepts as the world has shown.

6. Is it necessary for such a precondition or force to remain intact subsequent to initiating material consequence?

Nope. I suppose the reason why people think God would still exist is
A. If you're powerful to start an entire universe, you're powerful to keep existing beyond aging
B. Humanity has no concept of what a trillion years is
C. We're social animals. We like to feel like we matter to others, and that we're cared for.

7. Is it reasonable to ascribe continuing agency to this preexisting condition or unseen force?

Depends on how you define the force. Since the force in question can't be known itself, you can invent whatever attributes to it as you like for a hypothesis. If you believe the force still exists, you would likely need to show certain things that happen today, that seemingly could not happen without that force in question. An example of this is a miricle.

8. How might an investigator reorient further investigation, self-concept, and disposition toward such a precondition or force if able to know its characteristics more concretely?

Again, I believe you would have to look at the world as it is today and find evidence of its impact that can only be attributed to it, and nothing else.

And it's not crazy to say "it is its own causality"? — Punshhh

What causes God? He explains himself? Why not the world? Why can't the world have all the reality it needs to exist? God's existence is easily disproven. Kick a kitten in the face and you'll see the proof (actually, don't do that)

So it is crazy to say, "it is its own causality".

That's cleared that up.

To understand that Life is it's own Casuality. And that things by their intrinsic quality can be "self causing" would go a long way to refuting materialism determinism infinite regresses and monotheism.
A beautiful concept.

That's cleared that up. — Punshhh

Youre just being an asshole because you think everyone should believe in Super-Daddy so you feel better about your karma. There are many angles of looking at matter and what it really is. There is no need to bring in consciousnesses higher than ours

The way I see it, any possibility of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, in relation to ignorance, isolation and exclusion, would be sufficient preconditions for the observable universe.

...answers on the back of an envelope in ten words or less. — Banno

Sealed with a $10 bill inside. And forget the return address.

Minimally, the potential of evolving time space and some initial laws of physics had to be possible, even if only with an infinitesimal probability. Nothing else can be said.

If the observable universe had not manifested would sufficient preconditions necessarily have been absent? — hallrick0

Indeed, if the preconditons at stake are sufficient in nature, they would have to have been absent.

If preconditions existed outside of what is observable what would the most basic effective characteristics of that state or force be? — hallrick0

This is like asking a blind man about what he sees? Being "outside of what is observable", nothing but pure speculation is possible. If allowed to imagine then I'd say we're either dealing with something extremely simple or something unimaginably complex. This for the reason that, according to one scientist, the values of only six physical constants suffice to generate the universe. If the universe is designed with the present complexity being part of the plan then it suggeste the existence of a poweful intellect behind it all. If the universe isn't designed with its present state of complexity not intended than there's nothing to rule out the possibility that the six numbers I mentioned isn't the handiwork of an infant randomly turning the dials that fix the values of these six physical constants.

What are the most basic reasonable implications about the nature of preexisting conditions based on observable physical law? — hallrick0

They were simple - only six parameters to get right - but that this simplicty implies, if intended, a highly intelligent creator, and, if not intended, either chance or childlike simplicity.

Which of those implications is most likely to cause human beings to attribute personal character or deity? — hallrick0

The fact that, if the existing complexity were a planned event then, a being, the creator, would have to be so complex that we would have no other word than "god" to refer to him/her/it.

Is it possible to know, derive meaningful understanding of, and predict the future action of an unobservable force based on present observations of the material universe? — hallrick0

Possible. Clues may exist on what god's plan is but one mustn't forget the gap between our intellect and the mind of god. It is likely that, with our brains, understanding god is something impossible.

Is it necessary for such a precondition or force to remain intact subsequent to initiating material consequence? — hallrick0

The system, if you'll allow me to refer to the universe as one, seems to be designed to operate without further intervention once begun. There seems to be no bugs in the program - it's been running smoothly for 13.8 billion years with no crashes reported.

Is it reasonable to ascribe continuing agency to this preexisting condition or unseen force? — hallrick0

As I said earlier, the program, to use a computing term, seems to be built to run without the option for future alterations.

How might an investigator reorient further investigation, self-concept, and disposition toward such a precondition or force if able to know its characteristics more concretely? — hallrick0

For me the real issue is this: the simplicity of the universe's beginning is not impressive but its present complexity is. So, do I look at the past simplicity and give up the idea of a creator deity or do I appreciate the present complexity and take the idea of a creator deity seriously.

Okay. First, this implies God. We cannot refrain from saying "God" because the fact is, we don't know what this "pre-existing condition" is. Ultimately, we will have to place the word "God" in our sentences in place of this unobservable and unknowable force behind the universe. I do not necessarily mean a "personal" god whatsoever. I am just stating the concept of agnosticism: a man shall not profess to know that which he has no scientific grounds for.

To give a short answer to your question of being able to derive a meaningful understanding of this unseen force, according to my experience and research, we can use the facts to rationalize and answer our questions. However, ultimately, science stops at the Big Bang. It is the job of metaphysics to answer what is behind all that exists. We have no definite evidence of how conditions in the early universe came to existence.

We have our limits and we can only go as far as we can. It would be interesting to consider, however, that in the process of our evolution, we may be able to generate enough information to form a complete unified theory of the universe and eradicate all divisions between science and religion.

If the observable universe had not manifested would sufficient preconditions necessarily have been absent? — hallrick0

No. Even for preconditions to manifest themselves, there must be existing potentiality of some kind. Yes? Although physics argues "something can come from nothing," there exists potential in nothing for something to come about. This means to me:

1. Nothing is not nothingness.
2. Nothing consists of potential for something.
3. Potential for something provides necessary preconditions.

If preconditions existed outside of what is observable what would the most basic effective characteristics of that state or force be? — hallrick0

Well to answer this that would have to be observed.