|
Listen, depending on your approach you can question rather anything does exist. Assuming you conclude in favor of existence then you need to ask if mere existence necessitates purpose. That is, assuming things do exist, why do you think there has to be a reason for it? Cause and effect reasoning isn't a given and in the last few decades has come into serious question as applied in many fields.
The most I can offer you as a 'real' answer to your question is some very simplistic possibilities. Either a) existence was formed from anti-existence for a purpose and that is the reason, b) existence was formed from anti-existence without purpose and there is either no reason and/or the existent perceivers create its reason, or c) existence is the perpetual state of things and there is no such thing as anti-existence. You really want to mess with your own head, accept (c) in the context of time not existing.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|