The Fundamental Question: why does anything at all exist?

[Psychonaut]

Only a nihilist monist view of the universe/multiverse has any prospect of making sense of existence, e.g. the idea that nothing (or mathematically, zero) is ontologically or logically equivalent to everything.
I never said I advocated monism or even theism for that matter, in that post; I just said you could define the word "God" as anything you want.

Are you, perhaps, familiar with mathematical concept of the Riemann Sphere that twins zero and infinity? It makes for a fascinating contemporary addition to Nihilist (or, zeroism, in the sense of Buddhism or Tantra) metaphysics.

[Bari]

Actually that doesn't answer the question, only delays/postpones it ... until it dawns on you: "Who created God then?".

That is the point. If "God" could have existed without the need of another god creating him, then the universe could just as well have existed without the need of a god creating it.

- According to religion nothing created God. He is the the reason behind everything that has been created or will be created. There has never been anyhing before him.

"God" could have existed without the need of another god creating him, then the universe could just as well have existed without the need of a god creating it"

Exactly. Reason is a definition made by human beings. There was a process behind Big Bang which was the reason for it to happen, but not a reason or explanation satisfying human definition.

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.

[Osweo]

I don't really care. I can see that something does exist, and there's plenty in it that needs explaining before we can tackle the bigger questions. We'll probably never be able to answer this main question anyway. Therefore, a far more relevant question is 'How should we interact with this Something that exists?' Worrying about things that might exist but might not must surely take a lower priority than ordinary real life questions of how we should live our lives.

I'm incredibly sceptical of those who believe they really have something to say in answer to this 'fundamental question'. I don't believe a human intellect can really tackle the immensely complex physics that is really needed as basis to look at this matter.

[Loddfafner]

The answer is the same as for the joke about why a dog licks its nuts...



... because it can.

[SuuT]

The answer is the same as for the joke about why a dog licks its nuts...



... because it can.

I think that is that crux of it, as well.

If something could be nothing I'm certain that it would at least try it.

[Lutiferre]

I don't really care. I can see that something does exist, and there's plenty in it that needs explaining before we can tackle the bigger questions. We'll probably never be able to answer this main question anyway. Therefore, a far more relevant question is 'How should we interact with this Something that exists?' Worrying about things that might exist but might not must surely take a lower priority than ordinary real life questions of how we should live our lives.

I agree, though this question still is fascinating. It can be fascinating without being top priority.

I'm incredibly sceptical of those who believe they really have something to say in answer to this 'fundamental question'. I don't believe a human intellect can really tackle the immensely complex physics that is really needed as basis to look at this matter.

Well, a lot of the article I posted really deals with whether the question makes sense, and whether it's answerable at all.

The only thing that is for sure is that its an awe inspiring question, as it says in the beginning.

[SteelRose]

I know all about this subject.

Examining this question without examining the related human psychology is foolish; it's like a group of people looking at microscope slides without seeing if their microscopes are properly focused.

How one perceives the answer to this question depends upon a person's mental focus. One can see the answer clearly by having a mental focus of fine clarity, or one can distort and invert the answer by having a mental focus of crude blindness.

In order to see the answer to this question, one must have a mental focus that is sufficiently fine that one can comprehend defined abstractions in general. -That allows one to comprehend the fact that synonyms of the universe: 'existence', 'reality', and 'everything', are a-priori abstract logical concepts, which can only be relatable to other a-priori abstract logical concepts, and not relatable to particular entities. Being as the universe as a whole is a defined abstraction, it does not have a beginning, nor an end, nor a chronology; only particulars that exist within the universe may have such attributes.

Upon further examination, one comprehends the meaning of the abstract logical term 'real'. One sees that it is synonymous with 'true', which means that everything that is logically possible is actual. -That is why things exist. It is a matter of basic, though abstract, logic; hardly awe-inspiring. A philosopher named David Kellogg Lewis likewise knew that the possible is actual; he called this philosophy 'possibilism'.

...But that is what one sees if one has a mental focus of constructive fine clarity. If, on the other hand, one has a mental focus of disruptive crude blindness, then one not only does not see the aforementioned truths, but one also sees an 'anti-truth' in it's place. The mental focus of crude blind disruptiveness is disruptive to the fine abstract logical concepts, such that one destroys any such concepts within one's mind, much as one would smash a miniature ceramic sculpture with a sledge hammer. In the wake of this internal destruction, one replaces the finest of things with the crudest of things; one replaces defined abstraction with an all-consuming undefined particular, that is to say, a god, and the sense of awe thereto.

That is epitomized by the words of pastor Rick Warren:
"Everything that we can see, and everything that we can't see, exists because of you [the god] alone. It all exists for your glory."

Extending from this belief in theistic cosmology is the big bang belief, created by the catholic priest Georges LeMaitre, which serves to mesh theistic cosmology with empirical astronomical observations. As the telescopes became more powerful over the years, being able to look further into the past, the 'scientific calculations' have been conveniently adjusted to extend the age of the universe back further. It used to be said that the universe is around 2 billion years old; now it is said to be around 12 billion years old, which, conveniently, is just slightly further back than modern telescopes are capable of seeing.

[Lutiferre]

Upon further examination, one comprehends the meaning of the abstract logical term 'real'. One sees that it is synonymous with 'true', which means that everything that is logically possible is actual. -That is why things exist. It is a matter of basic, though abstract, logic; hardly awe-inspiring. A philosopher named David Kellogg Lewis likewise knew that the possible is actual; he called this philosophy 'possibilism'.

(Onto)logical possibility is still something, so possibilism still doesn't answer why that something exists rather than nothing. It just postpones the issue into the concept of an eternally existing logical "possibility", the existence of which is unexplained.

[Anthropos]

Welcome back, Lutiferre.

[Wulfhere]

Why does anything at all exist? Because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask that question.