Org Mobile Site
Thread: Why does anything exist?
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.
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.
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."
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Why does anything exist?
Because it does.
You just blew my mind. Why does anything exist?
Because it does.
Originally Posted by :
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. Why does anything exist?
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.
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. 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?)
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.Those people saw too much of The Matrix.
Either that or you just exist in my imagination.
@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...
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...
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking:
In logic
Logic is a lie.In logic
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?@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.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Logic is a lie.
BLASPHEMY!!! Logic is a lie.
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. I wouldn't worry about it. Who's to say there is a reason why, anyway?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Logic is a lie.
I must agree with the Celtic Viking. Logic is a lie.
Logic leads us to...more logic....
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.@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...
Happy?
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking:
P1: Material things exist
That is unproven. P1: Material things exist
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.
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?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...
I gave you the ultimate answer. Period.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
and touch ourselves
Hmmm......... I'm going to bed soon.........to sleep and stuff.....and touch ourselves
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking:
BLASPHEMY!!!
It's rather illogical to believe that the (human) concept of logic is without flaw.BLASPHEMY!!!
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 flawlessIt's rather illogical to believe that the (human) concept of logic is without flaw.
P2: I say logic is flawless
C: Therefore, logic is flawless
Any questions?
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.P1: If I say logic is flawless, then logic is flawless
P2: I say logic is flawless
C: Therefore, logic is flawless
Any questions?
P2: You are not flawless.
C: Logic is not flawless.
P2 has been proven now.
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. 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.
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.
Nothing exists. Or rather, everything is nothing at the same time. Nothing is permanent.
Originally Posted by Motep:
Your logic is flawed.
So I was right all along... Your logic is flawed.
Originally Posted by Husar:
So I was right all along...
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. So I was right all along...
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. Why don't try and turn it around;
Nothing exists. Or rather, everything is nothing at the same time. Nothing is permanent.
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"
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. Why don't try and turn it around;
Nothing exists. Or rather, everything is nothing at the same time. Nothing is permanent.
Originally Posted by :
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":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"
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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.
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.
You've come up with some real gems there, 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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO