Why does anything exist?

This is the sort of problem that bothers me in the early hours of the morning for some reason. Anyway, I've never been able to make sense of it. I'm really more into theology than... whatever you call this sort of thing, but I'm sure other backroomers of a more philosophical orientation can help out. More or less, my current thoughts on the matter go like this:

1. All material things must be created (is this true?)
2. All of the material things in existence can trace their creation to a single point in time, the Big Bang (or is that correct, any scientists?)
3. There are therefore two ways in which material things can be created:
a) having been formed through previously existing material objects
b) having been formed by a immaterial creator
4. Material objects exists
5. Therefore an immaterial creator exists

As for the immaterial creator, you would have to go into more detail to consider it's attributes and whether you could consider it as God, or more as a deism style creator.

Probably I talk a lot of rubbish here but I want to generate some discussion on this. So... any thoughts? :smash:

Does anything exist?

I think that #1 will contradict with the Law of Preservation of Matter, which (i believe) states that matter can be neither created nor destroyed but only change states.

1. Not really
2. Probably
3. No
a) No
b) No
4. Probably
5. Maybe

This seems akin to the Thomosian Ontological proof, though it isn't actually.

Anyway.

1. If a material thing exists, and was created it must have had it's creation either:
A. From another material thing
B: From nothing

This, however, assumes that material "things" are created. Given that all matter and energy merely change states, disperse, or congregate, we have no proof of some "thing" being created.

In other words, there is not point at which energy can create more energy, without sacrificing matter, or vice versa.

This raises the question of whether anything has ever been created.

The Big Bang theory states that our universe, as we experience it, has a single temporal point of generation.

However, we do not know if this a point at which nothing became something, or if something completely alien simply became something similar.

That's about as far as my understanding will go.

So basically, jury is out for the forseeable.

I know the answer but I won't tell you... :clown:

A point on conservation of energy; as far as I know, although it is a massively important fundamental principle of physics, it is nonetheless an empirical law - there's no reason anyone knows of that it automatically must be universally true, the only reason we have for thinking it is true is that we have never yet found an example of it being false*. For all we know it could simply be an artifact of this particular Universe; the conditions before the Big Bang might not have had such a law, and therefore no automatic prohibition on matter spontaneously popping into existence from nothing.

Which is not to say that this necessarily was possible before the Big Bang, just that we have no basis to assume physical laws that are true now were also true before the Big Bang. As far as I'm aware there's actually no way we can ever make any observation of conditions before the Big Bang (any evidence which might have been present would have been obliterated by the extremely hot conditions in the early Universe) so any speculation on what caused the Big Bang is basically untestable.



*Actually, in modern quantum field theories energy conservation follows as a natural consequence of the symmetry of physics under translations in time, i.e. the idea that the laws of physics are the same today as they were yesterday. However, it is quite possible to write down a QFT where this is not the case - we just only bother to work with theories that have energy conservation built in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

1. Not really
2. Probably
3. No
a) No
b) No
4. Probably
5. Maybe

---

Explain! :whip:

Forty-two.

You seem to be thinking up some form of cosmological argument. It's very old, goes back at least to Plato, and has many, many forms.

Essentially, the crux of any cosmological argument is the principle of sufficient reason which can very broadly be stated as there must be an explanation for any being (any positive fact). There are other things as well such as the notion that an infinite regress is a logical impossibility.

Of course, while the argument is valid (in a technically logical sense which you can take to mean that should the premises be true than it must follow by the syntactical rules of logic that the conclusion is true), like all arguments, it is based on premises, and these premises themselves are scrutinized.

The two objections most notably are the denial of the principle of sufficient reason, and (to a lesser extent) the denial that an infinite regress is logically impossible.

One other thing I note in your line of thinking is that you bring up an attribute of "immaterial" to the creator, and it can be argued against that there is no inferential link that necessitates the acceptance of the attribute of immaterial.

If you want a more in depth look at these things there is a ton of material on it, just search the internet or a library. A good modern intro to the cosmological argument is given by William Rowe. He's an atheist, and he criticizes it, but I think he's fairminded and his criticisms are well formulated. Of course there are responses back and forth.

If you want to just read an orgah discussion on it (and it's a pretty good one), I refer you to this thread. The discussion starts at post 120 and continues a fair bit, though a ton of stuff is discussed in it.

This thread makes me want to be a yeoman farmer who knows nothing of science, much less the various theories of existence, and who worships small carvings of a father-mother god and goddess in an attempt to raise a good harvest. Much simpler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I know the answer but I won't tell you... :clown:

---

Couldn't you at least provide us with a clue Husar?:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Couldn't you at least provide us with a clue Husar?:idea2:

---

Not anymore, Louis has already given it.

What makes you think we exist at all? I read a good article on the BBC website that claimed our reality is virtual.

Quote:

---

Why does anything exist?

---

As private parts to the gods are we...

E=m(c^2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What makes you think we exist at all? I read a good article on the BBC website that claimed our reality is virtual.

---

Those people saw too much of The Matrix.
Either that or you just exist in my imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What makes you think we exist at all? I read a good article on the BBC website that claimed our reality is virtual.

---

I think there for I am

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

I think there for I am

---

Cognito Ergo Sum is a dead end. It can't be extended in any direction; the only thing one can say with reasonable certainty is that he exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Either that or you just exist in my imagination.

---

Such is the case, but it's hard to uncover this realization by examining it in terms of "self" and "other".

If you must look at it in those terms: it is much easier to realize that you just exist in your imagination, rather than trying to realize that others just exist in your imagination.

http://www.satsangnathan.com/images/no-self.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurando

Such is the case, but it's hard to uncover this realization by examining it in terms of "self" and "other".

If you must look at it in those terms: it is much easier to realize that you just exist in your imagination, rather than trying to realize that others just exist in your imagination.

---

I see I imagined you as a really clever guy. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What makes you think we exist at all? I read a good article on the BBC website that claimed our reality is virtual.

---

Luckily the existance of the movie Matrix proves that our potential vitual creators considers the risk of discovery so low that they don't have aggresive types of counter-meassures.
That means that we can't figure it out, thus no need to bother about it.

Or to put it simply, would the agents ever allow the movie Matrix inside the Matrix?

If something is virtual that is still an existence of sorts though isnt' it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Luckily the existance of the movie Matrix proves that our potential vitual creators considers the risk of discovery so low that they don't have aggresive types of counter-meassures.
That means that we can't figure it out, thus no need to bother about it.

Or to put it simply, would the agents ever allow the movie Matrix inside the Matrix?

---

Of course they would. It is so we disregard that thoery as a fabrication of man, and ignore it.


As it stands, I am fairly certain that things exist. But my conciousness reels back from trying to figure out why, so I think of other things. I am in a suspended frame of mind untill I die (or untill I find enough conviction to take up one point or the other). If my soul goes to heaven or hell, I can say "hey now, thats what is". If my conciousness dissapears, than the whole question would become moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If something is virtual that is still an existence of sorts though isnt' it?

---

The virtual existance of which you speak is like music: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind, are like notes, but the music manifests with a byproduct that mistakenly believes itself to be the player rather than the music. -It's Silence which actually both plays the notes and listens to them, meanwhile Emptiness dances.

http://www.zenforuminternational.org...ilies/enso.gif

So is that peyote or BC bud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

So is that peyote or BC bud?

---

:beatnik: A little bit of Column A and a little bit of Column B.

Don't the anthropic principles handle this matter of "why do things exist"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurando

The virtual existance of which you speak is like music: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind, are like notes, but the music manifests with a byproduct that mistakenly believes itself to be the player rather than the music. -It's Silence which actually both plays the notes and listens to them, meanwhile Emptiness dances.

http://www.zenforuminternational.org...ilies/enso.gif

---

I don't know if what I just read is a beautiful synthesis of philosophy and poetry, or the biggest load of drunk bollox I've ever read. ~D


Oh, you rascals and your cosmic harmonies. :egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Motep

Of course they would. It is so we disregard that thoery as a fabrication of man, and ignore it.

---

But, that's the beauty of it. For every thousand people who ignore it, some won't. Thus an increased amount of people aware of the idea will always lead to more people testing it. It will therefore increase the probability of a severe discovery leak.

Why does anything exist?

Because it does.