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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

In the immortal words of Grandpa Simpson: "legend has it my great-grand pappy stumbled upon this recipe when he was trying to invent a cheap substitute for holy water." :beam:

So, do things exist, or do they not?

Contrary to popular belief, there are no winners in a butter eating contest.

-The philosophies "things exist" and "things do not exist" are two sides of the same coin, but it's a coin which is so thin that it has no edge; truth rests upon that edge.

-The statements "things exist" and "things do not exist" are spoken aloud, while truth's one-and-only voice, is silence... Once we are done discussing these matters, truth always gets the last word, speaking louder than anything we have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why does anything exist?

Because it does.

---

You just blew my mind. :hippie:

Quote:

---

Why does anything exist?

---

The whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek, hiding from itself by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the result being that we are all IT (the cosmic self) in disguise.

I therefore assert that our concept of ourself as an "ego in a bag of skin" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely processes of the whole.

So: why? To keep ourself(s) amused. And to thus better understand our 'bigger', cosmic self by means of understanding our parts, individually.

I used to ask these questions, then I got an all-consuming job and had barely any time to do anything, so I ditched them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I used to ask these questions, then I got an all-consuming job and had barely any time to do anything, so I ditched them.

---

This is what I must do. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I used to ask these questions, then I got an all-consuming job and had barely any time to do anything, so I ditched them.

---

Which, ironically, is just as valid a method of reporting to/informing the Cosmic Self about who he/she/it is, by experiencing (and remembering) who you are.

The whole argument fails because "all material must have been created" is just an empty assertion. Until you can actually provide evidence for that, we have no reason to accept that it has indeed been created, removing all supposed need for an "immaterial creator", whatever that means.

By the way, you left out a premise in point 4 and 5. In logic, all conclusions must have at least two premises that it draws from. The only conclusion we can draw from "material objects exist" is that "material objects exist". As I see it from your other points, it should rather be something like this (correct me if I've misunderstood you):

P1: Material things exist
P2: All material things must have been created by an immaterial creator
C: Therefore, an immaterial creator must exist

However, as I said, P2 is invalid, which invalidates the conclusion. One could also ask: what created the immaterial creator? If you can say that "the immaterial creator" didn't need to created, then we can just say that material things didn't need to be created instead, thanks to Occam's razor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?)

---

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I do know enough to say that the Big Bang wasn't a creation event, but rather a transition from one state to another. We really don't know the origins of the universe, and AFAIK the furthest we could ever postulate back is 1 planck unit of time (5 x 10^-44 s) after the initial event. We don't and might never know anything beyond that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

---

It was some theoretical mathematic proof put forward by some guy. Just like the one that says everything is just a pixel on the edge of the universe.

@TCV: Don't take what I said too seriously, that's just off the top of my head. At the end of the day, I just can't get my head round why anything exists at all.

This thread is a big disappointment. I come on to a gaming forum asking for the answer to all existence and you can't even give me an anwer. Honestly people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

In logic

---

Logic is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

@TCV: Don't take what I said too seriously, that's just off the top of my head. At the end of the day, I just can't get my head round why anything exists at all.

---

I wouldn't worry about it. Who's to say there is a reason why, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Logic is a lie.

---

BLASPHEMY!!! :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

I wouldn't worry about it. Who's to say there is a reason why, anyway?

---

I think I am going to have to make myself go with this advice for the meantime. These long summer holidays make me go crazy when I don't have academic stuff to focus my attention. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Logic is a lie.

---

I must agree with the Celtic Viking.

Logic leads us to...more logic....:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

@TCV: Don't take what I said too seriously, that's just off the top of my head. At the end of the day, I just can't get my head round why anything exists at all.

This thread is a big disappointment. I come on to a gaming forum asking for the answer to all existence and you can't even give me an anwer. Honestly people...

---

You exist by the will of God; because he would have others after his own kind. The rest of existence is merely a frame of reference to stop you going loopy.

Happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

P1: Material things exist

---

That is unproven.

And un-prove-able.

What can be proved (by acclamative testimony) is that we can sense the existance of what seem to be material things.

We can see, smell, hear, taste, and touch them. As we can see, smell, hear, taste, and touch ourselves, which, we find, are different from those not-us material things.

So now there is I (the one doing the seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and touching) - and not-I, the sawn, heard, touched, and tasted other.

You can take it from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This thread is a big disappointment. I come on to a gaming forum asking for the answer to all existence and you can't even give me an anwer. Honestly people...

---

What?

I gave you the ultimate answer. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

and touch ourselves

---

Hmmm......... I'm going to bed soon.........to sleep and stuff.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

That is unproven.

And un-prove-able.

What can be proved (by acclamative testimony) is that we can sense the existance of what seem to be material things.

We can see, smell, hear, taste, and touch them. As we can see, smell, hear, taste, and touch ourselves, which, we find, are different from those not-us material things.

So now there is I (the one doing the seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and touching) - and not-I, the sawn, heard, touched, and tasted other.

You can take it from there.

---

*Knocks on computer*

That seems pretty material to me. ~;)

But yes, I know what you mean. However, I have never been a fan of solipsism, as it's such a useless philosophy. If this universe is just my imagination, how would I ever know that? Even if I somehow found out it was, what could I do about it?

The basic assumption that the universe exist and that we can learn things about it works, and it has given us (and continues to give) a lot in terms of results (computers, the internet, cell phones, houses, health care... and the list goes on). That's why I hold to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

BLASPHEMY!!! :stare:

---

It's rather illogical to believe that the (human) concept of logic is without flaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's rather illogical to believe that the (human) concept of logic is without flaw.

---

P1: If I say logic is flawless, then logic is flawless
P2: I say logic is flawless
C: Therefore, logic is flawless

Any questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

P1: If I say logic is flawless, then logic is flawless
P2: I say logic is flawless
C: Therefore, logic is flawless

Any questions?

---

P1: If you are not flawless and say logic is flawless then it is not.
P2: You are not flawless.
C: Logic is not flawless.

P2 has been proven now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

P1: If you are not flawless and say logic is flawless then it is not.
P2: You are not flawless.
C: Logic is not flawless.

P2 has been proven now.

---

Your logic is flawed. :beam:

But I suppose you did prove that he cant prove that logic is flawless. But in that proof you also prove that you cannot prove that it isnt flawless.

For logic is in the eyes of the one doing the logic-ing.

Why don't try and turn it around;

Nothing exists. Or rather, everything is nothing at the same time. Nothing is permanent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Motep

Your logic is flawed. :beam:

---

So I was right all along... :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So I was right all along... :juggle2:

---

pretty much. I was trying to err on the side of logic, but about halfway through, I realized how flawed my logic was, so I gave up on myself. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Why don't try and turn it around;

Nothing exists. Or rather, everything is nothing at the same time. Nothing is permanent.

---

That's a pretty fair distillation.

I often thought it was interesting that the Perfection of Wisdom Texts in Buddhism (which deal with these topics) evolved over the course of 400 years. They all point at the same thing, however they went through a phase where the works became enormously voluminous "The Perfection of Wisdom in 100,000 Lines", and later went through a phase where they became incredibly small; down the point where someone worte a Sutra which is the "Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Why don't try and turn it around;

Nothing exists. Or rather, everything is nothing at the same time. Nothing is permanent.

---

But something exists... even if we just imagine it, or if it's not material and only virtual/whatever. There should be nothing at all, just blackness everywhere, in fact there wouldn't even be blackness, because that's something we can imagine. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

I often thought it was interesting that the Perfection of Wisdom Texts in Buddhism (which deal with these topics) evolved over the course of 400 years. They all point at the same thing, however they went through a phase where the works became enormously voluminous "The Perfection of Wisdom in 100,000 Lines", and later went through a phase where they became incredibly small; down the point where someone worte a Sutra which is the "Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter"

---

There is the Heart Sutra, which deals with the Buddhist concept of "Emptiness":

Quote:

---

Shariputra, all dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced. Not destroyed, not defiled, not pure, and they neither increase nor diminish. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or dharmas; no field of the eyes, up to and including no field of mind-consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, no way, and no understanding and no attaining.

---

Which seems contradicting, but (in my point of view) explains that nothing is permanent, and that the complete acceptance of this fact leads to being a Bodhisattva.

Koans have got to be the most thought killing invention man has ever devised...

Or the most thought-inspiring...it really depends on how you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But something exists... even if we just imagine it, or if it's not material and only virtual/whatever. There should be nothing at all, just blackness everywhere, in fact there wouldn't even be blackness, because that's something we can imagine. :dizzy2:

---

You've come up with some real gems there, Rhyfelwyr!

If you could manage to not start off with an initial assertion "But something exists..." and exaustively examine the rest of what you've said, I'll guarantee that you'll have a much less boring summer vacation than you seem to have been having so far.

I once heard it said, "if you are looking for water, you're better off digging one well that is 100 feet deep, than digging 100 wells which are one foot deep" -Same amount of digging, but the first route has a much better chance of finding what is being sought.

You seem to have a the ability to go to the heart of the matter; if you develop a tendency to you beyond even that, I would confidently say that you can find the answer to the intial question you asked "Why does anything exist?" -To get the ultimate answer is to go to the heart of the matter, to go beyond even that is the dissapearance of the questioner.