For the simple purpose of that I may meet and love and spend the rest of my life with my love.

Wow... I just came across this: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0605.../060501-8.html
Damn that's quite a coincidence (me finding that just now)

EVERY THING EXISTS BECAUSE GOD CREATED IT.

...


If you say so... but why?

Doesn't everything exist for our own purposes? is there one single philosophy that is generalized enough to fit every man and woman, every sexuality, every politician, etc. I think this thread is simply useless unless it is seen for exactly what it is, which is a venue, or "forum" if you will, for your current lifes philosophy. It's not about proving as much as it is about having a place to express your veiw. I don't think this is debatable? I don't think everything exists because God created it but it isn't my place to question it.

No. The Universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Of course, that merely pushes the ultimate answer out one step further. From whence came the Great Green Arkleseizure?

My theory is this. The concept of God, Time, Space and the Universe is to complex for human understanding. We do ourselves an injustice trying to understand it rather than just accept its exsistance. Infinate space, time, and balckholes are nothing more than our attempt to label nothingness.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.

How is the desire for understanding an injustice? If you want to get right down to it, it's that same desire that seperates man from beast. All myth and legend are the sum of our attempts to comprehend the events and the world around us. As we expand our knowledge and horizons as a species, the nature of the mystery deepens. Instead of being presented with an enigmatic ball of fire that treks through the sky every day, we now find ourselves questioning the fabric of our universe and the nature of our being.

Philosophy is all about trying to understand, rather than accept. So are all modern sciences. The computer I use to type this out now is a by-product of those attempts; our knowledge of particle physics and the properties of electrons are key to the workings of the device and said knowledge arose out of the desire to understand the nature of matter, that which forms the world around us.

There certainly is a level of acceptance necessary within our daily lives. I may not understand the exact nature of time or gravity, but accepting that they are is what allows me to function. I would not, however, want to live in a world of blind acceptance. A world where no questions are asked is a world where no human progress is made.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that because a certain facet of existence is complex, said facet is beyond our intellectual grasp.

Not for THIS Human....heh

why is everyone getting tied up in knots? To use the word 'why' has implications.
If I ask you why you ate the cake I am expecting a reason . . your motivation for 'eating' the cake.
The word 'why' therefore implies that there has been some action by some agent which can be explained.

You cant ask a tree why the wind blows. Because the tree has no involvement in the wind blowing. Neither does the wind.

So to ask why there is matter and energy is to imply a creator of some sort . . . . . . . which I guess was Golden Shower's intent . . . . . and Kentucky Lady duly obliged!

I am because i taste salt in my blood.
 

I have examined the the design of man and of steam boilers. I find an element of similarity in all areas except running the 440. I am capable of reason and logic, than Darwin did with animals what I have done with two of the earths primary sources of hot air...therefor I exist, I am not able to prove your existance, so you must touch your face on the mirror so that you may feel your soul thank you for the section 8 release

Because nothing doesn't last forever. And when nothing stops, boy does it go out with a bang.

Well, if you really want to go into this...are we really existing right at this very moment? Is it the universe's dream that we're a part of? And, without realizing, we're just a character in this never-ending made up "reality", forced into this horrible play that we don't even have a choice about, never becoming satisfied with the answer that we're searching for because that's exactly the point. We may just be a random thought, carried out by the universe's desire to entertain itself, creating imaginary people, *us*, and yet IT may have already moved onto another random thought...forgetting about us so long ago, that we're not even a glimpse, a SHIMMER in it's memory.
We may be nothing at all...nothing with such an amazing Director, that we were given personalities in such detail, that we will forever be stuck, unsatisified and unable to ever come up with the answer that will make this all just go away...

Everything exists so that philosiphers have something to think about before they ask if you want fries with that. :)

This subject brings to mind the words of an old Buddhist philosopher named Bodhidharma (Tamo to the Chinese).

In other words, reality and what appears to be reality are difficult to separate, especially if one looks to outside sources, which may themselves be illusions). Tamo believed that the one must turn to introspection (gap of awareness) and focus the mind on itself in order to cut through illusion. One definition of reason is "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." So could it not be conceivable that we are somewhat responsible for the existence of what surrounds us?

We don't exists; we tend to exist.

You just can't define something into existence. As a philosophy professor I had once said, “Existence is not a quality.”

That's debatable. Well, okay, probably not debatable, but something that can be disagreed about.

this is a very interesting thread, alot of great ideas posted here.

I just started thinking about this one day. My question is, is the void of space, really nothing? If it was nothing, how could I exist in it? How could I float through it , if it was nothing? How does electromagnetic energy travel through the ether, and is the ether nothing?

Also, if the void of space, is something, then what is the absolute nothing? is it, solid matter? I mean, wouldn't absolute nothing be something you couldn't even exist in? something that wouldn't have a 3 dimension reality, which space does?

All energy seems to be, the interaction between positive and negative forces, all matter seems to generate gravity, and collapses into nothing when gravity is strong enough. but positive and negative energy fields, are arbitrarily named 'positive' and 'negative'. These two entities seem to desire to annihiliate eachother, to neutralize eachother and form neutrons, matter is the cancellation of these two forces, but matter itself, attracts matter, so what is the force that is propelling matter away from itself? what is anti-gravity, there is no opposing force, it seems, as in electrical forces. why? (I'm not asking a rhetorical question, i really don't know)


As the bible says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. I think maybe that's a reference to the fact that God is a written word, a spoken word, a symbol alluding to the actual thing, which is not the thing itself, but it is how we communicate our impression of that thing imperfectly to one another.

If God is a spirit, who creates the illusion of matter and this reality, then where did God come from? the gods themselves do not know, where universe came from. All they know is, they, too, are simply programmed to achieve power, through the separation of forces.

There is no conclusive, discernible reason for anything to exist that does not rely on completely unverifiable speculation. In other words, it's a massive philosophical mad-lib.

To answer the OP; because we assume we exist.

I believe the confusion and really the main issue is that this is totally the wrong question to ask. It carries a very simple but wholly important implication that goes unsaid. To ask why anything exists implies that something does exist.

There is no satisfactory proof that anything(we) exists. There are compelling reasons as to why we should assume anything(we) exists (in general these have to do with the futility of nihilism which is sort of the next logical step from believing nothing exists), but there is no unassailable proof of existence.

So let me pose this question: why are blimblams red? That in itself would be a confusing and unanswerable question because there is no answer to the more fundamental question : what are blimblams? If someone in the street asked me why does anything exist, I would respond with the appropriate question, do we exist?

Now, to go back to my first sentence. Suppose an object either has property A or does not have property A. Suppose further that indeterminacy in our system of reason implies that we can never know whether or not the object has property A. However, for compelling or even arbitrary whims we assume that the object does indeed have property A. Thus if anyone were to ask why does the object have property A, the obvious and logical answer is because we assumed the object had property A.

Edit: seems you beat me to it, refer to filtherton's post for a concise one sentence summation of what I meant

... so zee government can tax it.

...

Man is the only creature that looks for higher purpose in his life.

@ Albania:
How can nothing exist if we interact with it in some sense? We may not be experiencing or sensing it in the fullest sense of it's "existence" but we interact with it (meaning any properties we perceive are meaningless except to ourselves since we have limited sensations). Even elements of our dreams we interact with. The only difference between our dreams and the universe is that we can predict the results of our interactions through past experience.

@ OP:
But why does anything exist... Here's what I do. I think long and hard about where it all came from, then I imagine before that, and before that and before that. And really soon, I kid you not, I passed out and dreamed the best of dreams.

I think the question is, how can 'nothing' exist? Space is not nothing. It has volume, it is space. If there was nothing, not even space, you would have an infinitely 'dense' universe, where nothing, not even space exists between sub-atomic particles. This would be essentially, the same kind of 'nothing', as empty space.
empty space defines the singularity of the supposed big bang, it gives nothing context by which the nothing exists, and vice versa, by contrast of opposites, much like the positive electrical energy, is defined by it's opposite, negative energy.

perhaps, matter not only has gravitational force, but space itself, has a pushing effect, it actually pushes matter together, like some kind of air pressure.

even now, all the atoms in the universe, are 99.999% empty space, and those subatomic particles, are in turn, 99.999% empty space, so that as we go inward to infinity, we are faced with the reality, that , density and matter, is an illusion, that it is both empty space and solid matter, mixed together, in an indisolvable mixture.

Or is matter and anti-matter, the division of nothingness, into two opposite somethings, one merely defined by it's opposite, and if so, what force divides the two opposites?

but what is spirit and mind within this context? are human beings, simply matter, trying to return to nothingness, the universe and force of energy, is all trying to return to nothingness, or is it propelled to somethingness by an unexplained will. Or perhaps, it's all just the cognitive dissonance, between the two equal but opposite nothings

I guess that's why I chose the name, the universe is like a mirror, matter exists because of it's mirror reflection, in anti-matter, it exists by dividing the true nothingness into two, equal and opposite somethings. but, paradoxicly, if you were to combine the two nothings, you might still have something as yet, undetermined. Ok, now i'm just babbling. The argument is like a circle, or perhaps a sphere.

This is my favorite comment on the subject so far. I think about this kind of subatomic universe-within-a-universe scenario all the time. IMO, to "exist" requires an acceptance of numerous things or simply none at all. Defining things does appear to be an important exercise for managing our existence within what we agree on as the universe. Does our collective perception of what "is" shape our common physical reality?

I suppose it's possible that a deity or intelligence may have laid the framework for the universe, letting the experiment run it's course. Or could all aspects and events occuring within our known reality be manipulated with precise design? I may be just dreaming all of this in my parallel dimensional bedroom. I should dream of things more gratifying.

See I was good at that. Then you threw the rest in there.

It didn't have to be a bang that caused the universe but a collision of two hyper-planes of energy, hence why the mass in the universe is unevenly distributed allowing for the string-of-pearl-like behavior we see in the distribution of galxies.

Then you mention something I can understand as vacuum flucuations, which are cool.

And the universe, yeah I think there is a ying-yang nature... but there isn't enough antimatter anywhere to make us think that there is alot of it in the universe... damn shame.

But my belief is, "how can nothing really exist?"

That is indeed the question, and that question is really the pivot of all “proofs” of existence. They rely on defining existence with respect to one’s own reality. However, because of this all such proofs are at their base circular. They often boil down to: clearly I exist(this first part is usually left for the reader to fill in); it is evident that I interact with something; the process of interacting with these things must therefore be what defines existence in some way. The nail on the coffin to these “proofs” is a rhetorical question: what else could it be? Or, put better by you, how can nothing exist? To which my answer is I don’t know, and I wouldn’t even know how to attempt such a question. But, since this line of reasoning evokes such strong emotional investment it is hard even for me to dismiss it. In fact I don’t. It is my deepest wish to believe in this type of existence. My point was that no matter how comforting this is, it’s not a proof unless you take it as a self-evident given that you exist.

[It is comforting to think it as self-evident.]

So then where is the center of this circle that we are missing? How incredible it would be if I do not exist: I look out my window, I see the gray sky, my campus below, a church spire in the distance, and autumn-balded trees* far out to the horizon. Again I see that it is circular logic, yet: I am not real; I am not typing this. I am not an individual... then am I part of something? Even then that would be real, so something exists. If this were an illusion, then there would still be something real to provide this illusion.

If we are real, we are real. If we are not real, this is an illusion, and still something would be real... Could our minds ever think of an alternative? Would we have the language to describe such a state?


* What is the technical descriptor I am looking for? Deciduous trees lose their leaves and are _________ (bald from autumn)?

Questioning the basest of assumptions is, I think, the most important lesson of the modern age. Even though there exists a functional limit, sometimes going one step further almost gives me a contact high (if such a thing were possible with ideas). On most days I just tend not to think about it.

The only thing I could think to fill in the blank was "bare". It seems like there should be a much better word for it somewhere but I can't recall it.

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.

Umm...because it does?

The original question is why does anything exist?

My answer is......so we can all ask this question.

ssjtwizta is here to add a level of retardation to the situation.

its simple, you see...Magic.

Penn and Teller are responsible for it all.

'Mosh Pit Momma' confers.....

Things exist to make
imagination question,
and it wants answers!

Silly us,
to be so inane,
demanding.

Might as well blame god,
the universal patsy
we gave a name to.

MIGHT WE NOT?

I like the mathematical construct theory of the universe. The universe exists because it is a logically consistent state of one particular construct. All states of the universe (essentially meaning the distribution of energy/matter within spacetime) exist simultaneously within its mathematical definition. The passage of time is merely a perception from within the construct; past and future states are no different by nature but only when considered relative to an arbitrary present. There could be other universes of different constructs as long as they are logically self-consistent. Maybe it's a little too neat, but why not something elegant? :P

Existence is a concept. The reason things exist is because we define their being as existence.

Synonyms
are rife in language
and confound.

Of course you exist
or you wouldn't be thinking.
This becomes nonsense.

I'm going to keep bringing up that gay Viennese mathematician:

Existence is just a fact that must be communicated with a sophisticated enough language. A language we haven't yet evolved to understand or create.

Do you want fries with that?

...I love you, darlin'!

Nonsense. How can you prove that YOU are thinking? How do you know, that your thoughts, are originating within yourself? that you are willing your own thoughts?

Now I wish the phrase, 'hyper-planes of energy' had never existed.

she doesn't really 'love' you, you just give off some odor or something that she's attracted to, of she senses the way you behave and subconsciously express your dominance and aggression in a way that is suitable to her feminine desires to breed strong protoplasmic human offspring.

Humans are insects, no better, no worse, they all follow the same instincts. they only want to live because they need to establish some kind of inner dynamic entropy, a relaxation of tension, whatever it is, it's something ugly and f'ed up.

the Universe would be better if nothing existed and all smart people know this, so let's just blow everything up now, I'm so sick of it.

How does a bouncing universe explain anything? this explains nothing but what a fraud and silly ego game all 'science' really is these days. the modern scientific community is a bunch of fat, gabby hen-like quiffs on the View preening and posing for the camera, scientific truth the last thing in the world they care about. There are no more Michael Faradays in the scientific world, it's all b.s and politics. Einstein is the Jewish Messiah of science, it's all racial propoganda and hype, just more insect consciousness slowly sucking the life out of higher life forms that once existed on the planet.