quote:

---

Why does the Universe exist?

---

It just goes to show that science and philosophy are not alien to each other. For someone who actually takes the time to learn up on modern physics, the field of ontology becomes a lot more clear.

Eh, you're right that Philosophy and Science are not very alien. And yet, you must also notice that this link is trying to answer a "why" question, and is thus only in the realm of Philosophy, Science answers "how" questions.

Also, I remember alexander likening the question "what is the purpose of the universe?", to the question "what is the purpose of rust?". Meaning, of course, that they were all just natural processes, and didn't need a purpose to continue on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
That page on Everything Forever is very well thought out and provides good insight on the "why is there something instead of nothing" question. . . . It just goes to show that science and philosophy are not alien to each other. For someone who actually takes the time to learn up on modern physics, the field of ontology becomes a lot more clear.

---

It was a very good essay. I agree with you that physics helps to explain how things arose as well as the conditions in which things now exist, but the most interesting ideas of ontology to me are contemplating from what does it all arise, and why it did arise. To say, as the author does, that existence cannot NOT exist has very powerful implications, because I think it suggests that what things arise from is eternally enduring, infinitely extended (spacially), and absolutely deterministic (in the sense that everything is governed by the potentials and limitations of the base/root nature of existence).

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
LG, take a look.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
LG, take a look.

---

Read the first page. He wrote some good stuff about 'nothing'. But essentially, I disagree with his conclusion - that the universe has always existed.
When he said that the universe has always existed, I presumed he was talking about material existence, and time (change). It is my opinion that existence is eternal, but that material-reality and time are finite... and emanate from a fundamentally unchanging (timeless) source. It is this source which I suggest has existed eternally - timelessly.

---

And here I thought your biggest problem would be with his calling God "subjective".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
And here I thought your biggest problem would be with his calling God "subjective".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
And here I thought your biggest problem would be with his calling God "subjective".

---

Oh, forgot that bit.
Though I realise that there have been a million-and-one definitions of God (which are all obviously finite and subjective), I would have to disagree with this point also.
I believe that the concept of 'God' (like any other concept), can be defined using rationale. It doesn't even matter whether 'God' exists (at this point). The fact is that a reasonable analysis of that concept is capable of defining that concept.
Logically, a 'God' cannot be finite. Otherwise, any 'thing' can be a God - since all things are finite. In my opinion - which I base on reason - the concept of 'God' must embrace the greatest possible attributes: omnipresent; omniscient; omnipotent. Simple reasoning.

---

Actually, doesn't that seem like a bit of a non-sequitor, lifegazer? You say that because God is finite, then all finite things can also be God, this seems like a flawed syllogism, but that's just IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

Read the first page. He wrote some good stuff about 'nothing'. But essentially, I disagree with his conclusion - that the universe has always existed.
When he said that the universe has always existed, I presumed he was talking about material existence, and time (change). It is my opinion that existence is eternal, but that material-reality and time are finite... and emanate from a fundamentally unchanging (timeless) source. It is this source which I suggest has existed eternally - timelessly.

---

Well I think the important thing here is that non-contingent existence cannot fail to be. The ground of being, be it God, the physical universe or whatever, cannot fail to exist and makes the whole question of "why" a mere problem of our intution. We mistake the existence of contingent things (matter, atoms, etc.) with non-contingent things, and that is the source of the confusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
Actually, doesn't that seem like a bit of a non-sequitor, lifegazer? You say that because God is finite, then all finite things can also be God, this seems like a flawed syllogism, but that's just IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
Well I think the important thing here is that non-contingent existence cannot fail to be. The ground of being, be it God, the physical universe or whatever, cannot fail to exist and makes the whole question of "why" a mere problem of our intution.

---

quote:

---

We mistake the existence of contingent things (matter, atoms, etc.) with non-contingent things, and that is the source of the confusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
When he said that the universe has always existed, I presumed he was talking about material existence, and time (change).

---

Actually, LG when I read it, it seems that the author agrees with you. He is saying that while existence is eternal, time and change are not. There is a timeless existence that has always existed.

"What is essential here is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fliption:
Actually, LG when I read it, it seems that the author agrees with you. He is saying that while existence is eternal, time and change are not. There is a timeless existence that has always existed.

---

His style is a bit too vague for my liking. From this paragraph, I gathered that by 'universe', he was talking about material-reality... and that there is no origin to material reality.
I did read through it quite quickly, but I don't remember him discussing time in any great detail, nor the possibility that the material-universe could have a timeless (essentially unchanging) source. In effect, this source would be acknowledged to be the origin of change (time).

Like I said, I only read page 1, and quickly at that. So maybe I misread him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
Space-time as a whole would be eternal and unchanging, and that seems to be the view the author is pressing here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
LG, take a look.

---

Read the first page. He wrote some good stuff about 'nothing'. But essentially, I disagree with his conclusion - that the universe has always existed.
When he said that the universe has always existed, I presumed he was talking about material existence, and time (change). It is my opinion that existence is eternal, but that material-reality and time are finite... and emanate from a fundamentally unchanging (timeless) source. It is this source which I suggest has existed eternally - timelessly.

---

Let me note here that existing eternally can't mean timelessly. Existence implies time and space. There is no existence outside of time and space.

One may think of categories of existence outside of time and space, but these are not material categories of existence.

For something to exist eternally, time has to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
Space-time as a whole would be eternal and unchanging, and that seems to be the view the author is pressing here.

---

That's a logical contradiction, since space-time is constantly changing.

---

Although I disagree with you on the issue of the origin or source of material existence ( I think that material existence has no cause or origin or source), it is true of course that space-time (that is: because of the eternal motion of material existence) is constantly changing.

The 'why the universe exist' issue, I agree on with the author of the website, but not his views on material existence in an 'eternal' (that is: timeless) way.

Those two things do contradict.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fliption:
Actually, LG when I read it, it seems that the author agrees with you. He is saying that while existence is eternal, time and change are not. There is a timeless existence that has always existed.

---

From near the bottom of the main page:-
"The principle that Non-existence cannot be, and therefore existence has always been isn't a formula, or an equation, or a first cause. It doesn't create the universe. It doesn't even relate to cause and effect. It is simply a mental recognition about nature, one which is enlightening as it dissolves our seemingly innate expectations that the universe somehow began in the past. Suddenly in knowing this, the notion disappears that there is some alternative to a universe being here."

His style is a bit too vague for my liking. From this paragraph, I gathered that by 'universe', he was talking about material-reality... and that there is no origin to material reality.
I did read through it quite quickly, but I don't remember him discussing time in any great detail, nor the possibility that the material-universe could have a timeless (essentially unchanging) source. In effect, this source would be acknowledged to be the origin of change (time).

Like I said, I only read page 1, and quickly at that. So maybe I misread him.

---

Here is why we disagree. Material existence (the universe) has no souce or cause or whatever. There is no alternative to material existence, because non-existence cannot be.

Even time does not have a beginning (for it would have to have a beginning in time, which contradicts itself) and existence has no source.

What could be the source of existence? Non-existence? No, of course not!
Existence just means eternal motion of a material world, in whatever form or content.

The 'universe' as we witness today, in it's present material form might not have been this way in an eternal way. In fact the GR theory requires it to be expanding or collapsing, which means it did not exist eternally in this way.

So another form of material existence must have been there prior to the universe in it's existent state we currently witness, and guess to have been there around 14 Gyears.