Existence?

[WICKED]

It will come as a surprise to anyone whose read my things that I will try to be less of a douche in this one.

As you may or may not know about me, I am either atheist or agnostic, depending on what kind of mood I'm in. The biggest reason that I am such is because the existence of God doesn't make logical sense to me. If everything that exists exists because God made it so, then how did God's existence come to be? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Bible answers this anywhere. The funny thing is, if you trace the universe back in time from a scientific standpoint, the question of existence is still not answered.

And thus, I pose the question to all of you:

Why existence?

[Preechr]

The short answer is that that's up to you.

[WICKED]

The thing is that I really want to know what people of all of all schools of thought have to say on this subject. Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought. This egocentric species of ours seems to like to trace events UP TO and including the "creation" of our universe and leave it at that. Why existence exists [a double positive?] is usually left unanswered.

[King Hadas]

Your question might sound extremely wise and deep but in context with reality it's actually pretty stupid.

[Sethomas]

Actually, Leibniz beat himself up for not being able to answer the question Why does something exist rather than nothing? Philosophers have essentially given up on it, as even the atheist Owen Flanagan asserts.

The conceptualized god is necessary as being any cause that lacks causation for itself. If you want, you could put the Plank-sized nugget in the place of god before the Big Bang, but I've argued elsewhere against the cogency of doing such.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by WICKED

Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought.

Mighty arrogant of you to assume this, but then you're like 17 and full of yourself, aren't you?

Most questions about the nature of reality that start with the word "why" are unanswerable. Might as well ask an ant what a lawnmower is.

[kahljorn]

To an ant a lawnmower is a VRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEREREEEREREEEEERER
CHOPCHOPCHOPCHopCPCHOCP

The answer to the question of existence can be found in sacred geometry, in which there is an answer. Just like there is an answer in any form of mythology, whether babylonian or Greek. For example, most mythologies have something called the "Great void" or an, "OCean of chaos" or a "Great dragon of the ocean of chaos and void". Usually, these 'dragons'(because they are almost always dragons, like tiamat) are usually slain by some God or King( tiamat was slain by marduk) and out of their innards are made the universe. In sacred geometry the Circle is considered female and void and supposedly the universe came out of it.
Other than that, it's easy to assume that the natural state of existence would be nothingness, but maybe that's not the natural state, at least in how you understand nothing . Or maybe the natural state is nothingness, like the Nirvana of Hindu and you just can't understand nothingness in the right sense because you don't understand the nature of the universe. Good ol' hindu's, inventor of the Zero.

[kellychaos]

If I were vain, I would assume that I created all that my sense experience perceives. How can you prove you to me? But then, vanity would then lead me to exclude all the ugly that I perceive. Why would I do that? So then, I'm back to zero. Damn Hindus! :/

P.S. I am so full of shit.

[kahljorn]

According to hindus a piece of zero lies within you. Loser.

[kellychaos]

Zero is part of my subset as well as the negative and irrational numbers.

[WICKED]

It doesn'y make any sense that philosophers have given up on it, though. If they are the "lovers of knowledge" that their title says they are, why wouldn't they be in constant pursuit of the answer to the most basic of questions?

Anyway, is it even really a philosopher's problem? I'd like to say it's a job for science, but that could be almost as ludicrous.

Once again, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Emu]

Scientists don't answer the "why" questions, they answer the "how" questions.

And philosophers have all but given up on the "why existence" question because it's nigh impossible to answer. Although I'm sure you've got it all figured out, right?

[CaptainBubba]

If one believes in infinite time isn't the origin of existence kind of a moot point? Kinda like trying to find the beginning of a line, or the end of a ray?

I know alot of religious people think otherwise so discounting them.

Also I know alot of scientific people think the universe will conmtinue exapnding until all matter is so far spread from eachother and so "cold" that time will even end, so discounting this theory too I guess, since it suggests time can be realistically finite(read: not just in mathematical and scientific theory, but truthfully, permanently frozen time) in some respect.

[kahljorn]

That's because you're a big faker, kelly.

The universe could never spread out enough to be "Cold". Gravity still holds true even if the expansion theory is correct. Galaxies will stay within galaxies. Even a very small amount of gravity without any larger gravity around will compel things to gravitate towards it.
Time freezing... That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I guess time speeds up when things get hot, it certainly explains why the Delorium always appeared with fire on it's wheels. Explains why microwaves cook so fast. No, but really-- what the fuck? I can understand molecules becoming more exited when it gets hot. I guess those same scientists would say time is a molecule floating around in the air, and if they could only catch it they could become a young stud again and get a slut wife.

The idea that everything must have come from nothing is a huge fallacy. Obviously it didn't, because if it did there would still be nothing here. Or maybe we're just living in a state of nothingness right now, and this conversation and everything you do or say in the world is entirely pointless and really does nothing to effect existence or nothingness or anything, just like nothing and everything else in the complete existence is just as silent.

[CaptainBubba]

The theory is that at 0 Kelvin time is frozen if I remember correctly. I recall noone can succesfully create a condition where this temperature exists though. Am I just recalling things totally wrong or is it the actual theory that you have a big grumpy fuck with?

[Pub Lover]

E=MC^2 MOTHERFUCKER!

[Aneurysm]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

The theory is that at 0 Kelvin time is frozen if I remember correctly. I recall noone can succesfully create a condition where this temperature exists though. Am I just recalling things totally wrong or is it the actual theory that you have a big grumpy fuck with?

That would be absolute zero, the temperature that a substance posseses no thermal energy, also -273 degrees C. I have never heard anything about time actually being frozen but it's supposedly the coldest anything could get ever, and has never been achieved.

[Pub Lover]

Zero Kelvin is -273.15 degrees Celsius.

[Aneurysm]

Please forgive me.

[ArrowX]

Originally Posted by WICKED

The thing is that I really want to know what people of all of all schools of thought have to say on this subject. Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought. This egocentric species of ours seems to like to trace events UP TO and including the "creation" of our universe and leave it at that. Why existence exists [a double positive?] is usually left unanswered.

Thats an impossible question to answer. Its like trying to concieve what you would see if you had eyes in the back of your head. Would they feel liek theyre on top of your curent eyes ie splitsctreen or would you get a panoramic thing.

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by StupidKraut

Thats an impossible question to answer. Its like trying to concieve what you would see if you had eyes in the back of your head. Would they feel liek theyre on top of your curent eyes ie splitsctreen or would you get a panoramic thing.

Whta if lkie.,, we al saw colrs DIFERENTLY!! OMG DEEEEEPEEEP

[Big Papa Goat]

my friend always brings up that exact thing whenever he wants to talk about philosophy

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

The theory is that at 0 Kelvin time is frozen if I remember correctly. I recall noone can succesfully create a condition where this temperature exists though. Am I just recalling things totally wrong or is it the actual theory that you have a big grumpy fuck with?

They've come damn close to reaching absolute zero, and I don't believe that it has had any effect on the measurement of time. therefore if time does freeze at absolute zero it would have a pretty steep deceleration curve because it's not giving any indication that it slows down at all.

[Sethomas]

I brought up this subject to piss off a scientist friend of mine. His solution was that there are more possibilities for existence and only one for non-existence, so probability dictates that something should exist. I then explained how he's full of shit.

[ziggytrix]

The first thing any statistician can tell you is that probabilty dictates nothing in an event that's already occured.

If I flipped a coin, and it came up heads, there is zero probabilty that it might be tails if I look again (quantum physicists, fuck off).

Personally, I think existence it not quite all it appears to be, but I've never experienced anything, nor do I expect to in my lifetime, to suggest what else there is to it. My favorite theory is that we are 3-diminsional organisms in a >3 -dimensional universe, and we simply aren't capable of percieving, let alone understanding all that there is to existence.