Why is there space? Why is there anything? If there's a God, why would he exist? Seriously, why is there ANYTHING at all?When I think about there being nothing, I think of a dark black void, but why is there a dark black void? Why is there anything? Am I getting my question across? Why isn't there just nothing?
>>14132376the material world exists because of metaphysics.metaphysical causality could be entirely different from physical causality, conceptually speaking. so that explains why space or 'anything in this world' exists, but for God and other such matters, you will only have the possibility to find the answer in death, if only you're worthy enough for the immaterial, which you're probably not.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRPsHQvwBhc
>>14132376Because I wanted it that way.
>>141323761. Because nothing is not a thing. It is not an ontological possibility.2. Because you are ultimately pure consciousness, which is the necessary ground of reality itself. You have always been and will always be, and so long as your mind is present, can always ask questions like this one, which are sustained by that same consciousness. I don't know why the universe with its specific elements exists, though. Why space? Why time? Why color? Why shape? These questions can't be answered, in my opinion. But the above two steps are the best answers I can otherwise provide.
>>14132376It pleased the principle of existence that it should be so.
>>14132394Bitch I was gonna say that
Nothing exists; refute this.
>>14132376it seems to me the universe exists in order to foster life. the most common chemical elements in the universe just so happen to be able to fuse into organic matter, living matter. life then begins to see in what ways it can interact with its environment and indeed, how the environment may interact with organic matter.there is no better human invention than domesticated animals, in my view (of course, industrialisation makes this harder to stomach right now, but it’s true). that we fold differing genetic creatures into our collective culture is a beautiful thing.even prior to industrialisation, humans were an environmental force, bringing their pets and their pests with them to new lands, causing environmental changes. It doesn’t scare me if my race dies, or if our particular industrial culture dies, if it doesn’t nurture the continuation or life on earth, then so be it. but i think a new era of domesticated life may be possible, and replenish and replace what we call ‘nature’ or ‘wildlife’ which was lost during the current human-caused mass extinction eventit appears right now that terraforming other planets or ever meeting another life form on another planet is just impossible because of the vast distances implicated, but maybe this is part of the game of the universe. that we can find each other and combine, co-operate, or destroy each other, before the universe itself collapses and begins again
>>14133038How banal. >>14132812This is it.
>>14133041>how banaldo you think the inner workings of the universe are supposed to be edgy?
>>14133045No, I just think you're picking a very boring and ill-thought-through reason for why the Universe exists. In what way does the universe exist in order to foster life? We are the only living things in the nearest 10 billion miles for all we know - if the Universe does exist to foster life, it's doing it terribly.
God created Earth so humans could find him
>>14133049He said that it exists in order to foster life, not some specific quantity of life. Work on your reading.
>>14133057Literally meaningless distinction. The Universe has so far managed to foster one planet out of trillions with life on it. In that sense, the Universe is far better at fostering barren rocks than it is fostering life. We are an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
>>14133049Becuase organic compounds aren’t made out of strange esoteric radioactive elements, we are made pretty much solely out of the most common elements in the universe. So yea, there is a shit load of diverse and inhospitable places, and infinite space out there, but that also means there must be a lot of life out there, even if it’s too far for us to actually contact.Good point, but it’s yet to be seen if life other than our mainly water-based variety exists
>>14133059>cannot distinguish between quality and quantity
>>14133068In this case, quantity vs quality is meaningless, because there is only one observable type of life. It is, by definition, both the only quality and the only quantity available to us - so to distinguish between life as if there can be differing quantities and qualities is entirely meaningless. >>14133061You make a fair point. I suppose the only issue then is the question: why does the Universe foster life?
>>14133037I exist because I can think I exist
>>14133091>You make a fair point. I suppose the only issue then is the question: why does the Universe foster life?good question. i guess the ‘why’ is more of a ‘how’. it does it because it can. But if the ‘why’ is more toward a ‘meaning’? What is the purpose of life being here? There’s no single answer to thatas Nietzsche describes, the human intellect is interested only in itself. Nothing more. My dog loves sniffing piss and then pissing on top of that piss. His life would be pointless without it.Maybe the question should be, what would there be if there were not this mix of atoms and Life? Nothing
What makes you think that nothing is possible?There's no place you can go in all of the universe where there's nothing. Even in places were there are no things, there is still space for those things to exist in. There are still rules and laws present which enable things to exist.We invented nothing. We've never, ever observed nothing. Nothing is a human concept.If nothing is impossible, then it's inevitable that there should be something.
>>14132376Because you touch yourself at night
>>14133104There is no proof there is an “I” thinking
>>14133326you are questioning the concept of “I” but you don’t question the concept of “proof”?
>>14133335What do you mean? It seems natural that events must take place within or as part of something, but if we discard any common sense conception of reality this isn’t the case. There’s no reason why there has to be a me for thinking to be attached to or within.
>>14133278exactly, the universe exists because it is ‘Something’that opinion is so based it will never be accepted
>>14132812You have not explained why existence exists. The denial of the ontological possibility of nothingness does not necessitate existence. Existence is the sufficient condition for the denial of the possibility of nothingness not the other way around.
>>14133038dude the universe isnt fucking starcraft lol.like a protein twisting and writhing with kinetic energy we are meaningless matter which has briefly and randomly arranged into a useful shape.
>>14133428give me one reason why you don't kill yourself
>>14133376What other way around?
>>14133428i didn’t say that wasn’t the case. amino acids and enzymes and random patterns of co-operation, destruction, starvation. what you say and what i said don’t cancel each other outbut yeah, i hate startrek and starwars and realise how gay what i said sounds, but i really can’t be arsed trying to explain my understanding of the universe in edgelord terms
>>14133431I can think of no reasons why I should.
>>14133488plus, as i also stated, those proteins twist into forms with a consciousness, and that part is entirely up to us to decide on, consciousness is not inherently meaningless>my dog is a piss connoisseur>life without music is a mistakeetc etc
>>14133376Existence exists necessarily. The question of "why" presupposes causality, while existence is the ground on which causality is sustained, and is itself acausal, outside of its bounds. There is only existence, nothing else has any referent, and nothingness is merely a term given to formally denote "lack of referent" while itself still being a part of the inescapable, all-pervasive referential matrix that existence encompasses.
>>14133428>>14133431Fear of Death but also the affirmation of Life. That's two.>>14133433The other way around in your argument.>1. Because nothing is not a thing. It is not an ontological possibility.Nothing not existing does not cause existence, it's just the definition of nothingness in a world that does exist.>>14133488But I think you are bound to a Christian dialectic in your insistence of meaning through systems of life as the pastoral flock. You can't come out on the other side of nihilist atheism until you abandon every avatar of the big Other.Read together, there is undoubtedly tension between my responses but I think it's more honest that way. Life is incomprehensible without some form of auto-narrativizing structure.
>>14133529Good post, I'll have to think about this more. I've been coming at this after reading Spinoza and I'm looking for others to read on this topic. any recs?
>>14133531>Nothing not existing does not cause existence, it's just the definition of nothingness in a world that does exist.Are you suggesting there's a nothingness beyond human definitions?
I see reality as this impossible intricate structure that emerges out of its background eternally. Pic related is not intended to be, but I think it's a great symbolic representation of what the universe is. Light and (fundamentally empty) order hemmed in by non-sense. The universe is a transcendence factory. What's beyond this room and the darkness outside it?
all this sophistry and eventually we will just find out it was literally just god all along
>>14133531that’s fair enough, and i accept there is a weird Christian Shepherd Final Episode of Lost-ness to the whole idea. it’s not entirely christian though as they just think all animals are dumb cunts and beneath usI just think there has to be a different view of nature and ecology vs civilisation. becuase it’s obvious to me that dichotomy doesn’t workWhat is your idea?
>>14133558I was and although this is probably a defensible claim on some level I will admit that I do not have the training to do so. I mean, for the sake of the argument, is it not possible that there "could be" some incomprehensible reality wherein existence and nothingness are not so cleanly cleaved? I'm honestly just musing now.
>>14132376>When I thinkGet a load of this instantiation of being
Consciousness dreamed it into being
>>14133590Rather than exist beyond our comprehension, I would say true nothingness shouldn't exist even beyond our comprehension.
>>14133630how can we say anything at all about that which exists beyond our comprehension?
>>14132376Nobody knows, is too fucking complex, we need bigger much bigger brains, like those wojak memes. To me a pantheistic approach is the most healthy one, the "universe" like an eternal thing, the "big bang" is when the universe reboots itself, completly wrong for sure, but for me is simple as that.
>>14133636We can't, but I'm saying it doesn't exist to our comprehension and beyond it, otherwise it would be an incomprehensible somethingness.
>>14133553Thank you. And personally I have a limited background in Hindu non-dualism, specifically Advaita, which would corroborate notions like I mentioned there. Specifically, instead of using the term "existence" and thereby imparting your mind the impression of an abstract principle inhabiting a distant world, I'd say that existence is merely a synonym for your own consciousness, which has all the properties of the former, and is the reason you can ponder these questions at all. Your mind, which asks questions of this kind, is sustained within your consciousness, which happens to be the entity embodying the properties aforementioned. Thus, so long as a mind is present, it can ask this question till infinity, the query floating within the space of your immortal consciousness. I don't personally have other, specific recommendations. Apologies. I'm sure a quick internet search will yield some.
>>14133335Prove that I don't question proof
>>14133531I'm the one who posted the "nothing is not a thing" comment. I am not the anon you responded to here, but just to clarify I was not saying that nothing not being a thing "causes" existence, merely correcting the notion that nothing could exist in the first place. Existence exists necessarily, in my view.
Nothing is impossible. Negation of being is a linguistic necessity to allow distinctions and thus action or (in?)action, and more importantly the recognition of time
>>14133699How much of our language and logic is a psychological crutch?
Do you think we’ll ever know? What is beyond the physical universe? It feels like a cage
>>14133686Prove that i need to prove anythingi am a chair
>>14133707fucking all of it. have you ever heard of American Politics?
>>14132814>afterword by richard dorkins
>>14132376This is what nothingness looks like.
To understand why there's something rather than nothing, one needs to look at thing from the outside. However, we can't do that. Therefore, it will be unanswered.
>>14134723and it's solved that easily.
>>14132376What makes you confident that there is always an explanation to be found? Maybe this is just how the world turned out to be, and there is no reason why things aren't otherwise. It's a brute, objective fact. Bask in the comfiness this realization provides you, for now you are free from the vain imagination of the metaphysicians.
>>14132812>Because nothing is not a thing. It is not an ontological possibility.This is a purely verbal argument. When somebody considers conceptually the possibility that there could be nothing, he isn't taking nothing to be a "thing", and then asks whether this thing could exist. You start by imaginatively removing things in your view like your room, your house, your town, the planet earth etc. until you are left with an empty black space. Of course you cannot imaginatively remove that as well because you can't literally imagine nothing, but you can analogously reach the concept of nothingness as the denial of everything that exists. Construed in this way, the phrase "nothing exists" involves no formal contradiction.
>>14135380The word exists suggest being in time. Nothing does not exist, or else it wouldn't be nothing. You're imagining the denial of everything that exists as a state, rather than not existing at all.
>>14135644>Nothing does not exist, or else it wouldn't be nothing. You're imagining the denial of everything that exists as a state, rather than not existing at all.The point of my previous post was precisely that you are strawmaning the question by insisting that we conceive of nothing as if it was a thing, or a state. Yes, because 'nothing' is not a thing or a state or affairs it can never exist. Completely true. But what the question asks is not why is it not the case that nothing "exists", it asks why beings exist instead of failing to do so.
>>14136154How could things fail to exist if there is no alternative? Failing to do so would imply the very thing you yourself said can never exist.
>>14133659>nobody knowsif you really want to know, you can find me on /x/
>>14136469But there IS an alternative, it's just that the alternative is not a "state of affairs" properly speaking because there aren't any affairs to be had in absolute nothingness.There is a subtle but crucial ambiguity in the phrase "nothing exists". It can be read either as "nothing" exists (there are no things existing), or nothing "exists" (nothingness has existence). The former is a perfectly fine sentence, while the later is self-refuting.
>>14132812>1. Because nothing is not a thing. It is not an ontological possibility.Ontology is downstream from the void. In nothingness there are no syllogistic contradictions, those come later with language, and nothing to stop something from coming from nothing which only becomes superficially contradictory with the advent of that something looking back at itself within time.
>>14135644>Nothing does not existExactly, that is why it is nothing, doofus!
>>14132376There's no such thing as nothing. You are playing semantic games with yourself.
>>14136640>"nothing" exists (there are no things existing)For no thing to exist nothing would have to exist. That's the definition of nothing.
>>14136642You've not said anything that wasn't already said. and it doesn't make any sense, re-read what you wrote
>>14136784It seems that this would follow because the phrase "nothing exists" is ambiguous in the English language. It would be so much easier if we were talking about this in Greek, because there "Δεν υπάρχει τίποτα" and "το τίποτα υπάρχει" are completely different sentences.When you say that>for no thing to exist nothing would have to existyou are slipping from one meaning to another. The phrases "no things exist" and "nothingness has existence" absolutely have not the same meaning, it's just that the phrase "nothing exists" can be read as either of these. You think that if you say the first you must also say the second, but this is not a tautology, it's a an ambiguity of meaning.
>>14136873You're saying that nothingness cannot exist, and yet it's possible that things could not exist, which is what nothingness is.
>>14136897no things exist = nothing>because 'nothing' is not a thing or a state or affairs it can never exist.or rephrased>because 'no things exist' is not a thing or a state it can never exist
>>14137030Saying that the statement "nothing exists" is false because nothing by definition isn't a thing is like saying that the statement "werewolves don't exist" is false because werewolves by definition aren't nothing. It's a fallacy of ambiguity.
>>14133529This is the one. Also if you follow this premise then I assume from your perspective you will never experience death as an ending because if you're experiencing something, then you still exist, and its impossible to not experience because existence is the only possible thing.
>>14137211More like the statement "warewolves are vampires" is false because warewolves by definition aren't vampires, that would be closer. >It's a fallacy of ambiguity.What other definition of the word nothing is there?
>>14133659that's a big brain response anon, proud of you :)
>>14132376God is perfect. It is expressing its perfection. Why should we be able to fathom that? Don't fall into arrogance sibling. Sumbit and know peace.
>>14136797I re-read it and it was pretty great, sorry that you can't match my genius.
>>14137351nvm, let me correct myself by saying that the statement would be equivalent to "werewolves exist" is false because werewolves by definition don't exist :,) There is no ambiguity in the fact that werewolves don't exist or that nothing doesn't exist
>>14132376>why is there ANYTHING at all?Existence is nonpurposive. That is what is meant by leela, the concept of play. Existence itself has no purpose to fulfill. It is not going somewhere. There is no end to it. Still it is going, still much is going. So it must be a leela, a play - only an outflowing energy. This can be related to me: I am not doing anything at all - even when I talk of doing things.Once you have known that you are part of the cosmic consciousness, there is no purpose. You just exist as a play. Of course the play becomes cosmic, multidimensional. You do much, and still there is no doer and there is no purpose. Those two things are not there, then it becomes a play.And this must be noted: a doer cannot exist without purpose, and a purpose cannot exist without a doer. They are two polarities of one ego. Ego feels very uncomfortable if there is no purpose. Ego is fulfilled through purposes. Something is to be done, one is to succeed in doing "that," one is to reach somewhere, one is to mark something. One has to make a signature. Ego is purposive; existence is not purposive. And unless you know that which is beyond ego, you have not known at all.So to me, everything is just a play. Neither I am, nor is there any purpose - yet things are going on. So it can be asked "Why are they going on?" They are going because there is no purpose to stop them and there is no one to stop them. You understand me? There is no one to stop them and there is no purpose to stop. So it is in their nature to go, moving, play, overflow. It is the very nature of cosmic energy to exist, to be conscious of this existence, and to play with itself.
>>14138554>werewolves by definition don't existno, that's certainly not part of the definition, just the opposite. the idea is that they do, in fact, exist. it's just the common opinion these days that they don't exist.
>>14133326Russell was wrong in attacking Descartes ‘I’. At the end of the day, cogito ergo sum should really mean ‘thinking happens, therefore thinking is’ rather than ‘I think, therefore I am’. Russell was right to say that the predicate of ‘I’ is misplaced, but ultimately the act of thinking is still testament to its own existence. That there is an observer of thought, again, means that the observer likely exists also.
>>14132812>Because nothing is not a thing.FUCK I JUST LOVE WORD GAMES!!!!!
>>14133713Prove you don't like being sat on
>>14138621werewolves collapsed into nothingness and nothingness collapsed into somethingness
>>14138638word games are what you have to do when you're trying to get a point across to someone who doesn't seem to get it, which is most of the time when the topic is something like this.
>>14132376We don't know and we probably will never know. Anyone who isn't agnostic is a turbobrainlet.
>>14138697What if someone else does know?
>>14138718Who are you referring to?
>>14138735That makes your "what if" retarded.
This thread was moved to >>>/his/7527858