Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 06:56 pm
Is there a reason for the existence of the universe? Suppose, there is a reason. There are two possibilities. Either the reason is within the universe, or the reason is outside the universe. The latter possibility is not possible since there is no "outside" to everything. So, we are left with only one possibility, namely, the reason for the universe is within the universe. Here, we have two possibility also. The reason could be 1. the reason is a part of the universe, or 2 the reason is the whole universe itself. Both possibility is sort stupid on reflection. It both case, it means that there is some object with the essence to exist. This is to suppose existence is a predicate. In either case, it rest on the notion that some entities has the property of existence. This is questionable. One solution is to say god has this property of self-existence, which than bring the universe into being. Atheist would question why the universe don` t have this property. If
there are any object with self-existing properties, then i assert that they must be mathematical objects. Such object bring about the world. I doubt this also, since math objects don` t have any spatio-temporal, or causal effects.
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 07:33 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148383 wrote:
Is there a reason for the existence of the universe? Suppose, there is a reason. There are two possibilities. Either the reason is within the universe, or the reason is outside the universe. The latter possibility is not possible since there is no "outside" to everything. So, we are left with only one possibility, namely, the reason for the universe is within the universe. Here, we have two possibility also. The reason could be 1. the reason is a part of the universe, or 2 the reason is the whole universe itself. Both possibility is sort stupid on reflection. It both case, it means that there is some object with the essence to exist. This is to suppose existence is a predicate. In either case, it rest on the notion that some entities has the property of existence. This is questionable. One solution is to say god has this property of self-existence, which than bring the universe into being. Atheist would question why the universe don` t have this property. If
there are any object with self-existing properties, then i assert that they must be mathematical objects. Such object bring about the world. I doubt this also, since math objects don` t have any spatio-temporal, or causal effects.



The universe is not restricted to only 2 possibilties..
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 07:45 pm
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;148393 wrote:
The universe is not restricted to only 2 possibilties..



Why is your reply so damn short? I don` t understand it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 08:08 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148383 wrote:
Is there a reason for the existence of the universe? Suppose, there is a reason. There are two possibilities. Either the reason is within the universe, or the reason is outside the universe.


Why shouldn't God be outside the universe?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 08:39 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148383 wrote:
Is there a reason for the existence of the universe? Suppose, there is a reason. There are two possibilities. Either the reason is within the universe, or the reason is outside the universe. The latter possibility is not possible since there is no "outside" to everything. So, we are left with only one possibility, namely, the reason for the universe is within the universe. Here, we have two possibility also. The reason could be 1. the reason is a part of the universe, or 2 the reason is the whole universe itself. Both possibility is sort stupid on reflection. It both case, it means that there is some object with the essence to exist. This is to suppose existence is a predicate. In either case, it rest on the notion that some entities has the property of existence. This is questionable. One solution is to say god has this property of self-existence, which than bring the universe into being. Atheist would question why the universe don` t have this property. If
there are any object with self-existing properties, then i assert that they must be mathematical objects. Such object bring about the world. I doubt this also, since math objects don` t have any spatio-temporal, or causal effects.
1) how should we know?

2) why are you asking a question to which there are no answer?

3) are you a fan of the pharse "I think, therefore I am" ?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:45 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148399 wrote:
Why shouldn't God be outside the universe?


Did i say god is outside the universe?

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 10:47 PM ----------

HexHammer;148404 wrote:
1) how should we know?

2) why are you asking a question to which there are no answer?

3) are you a fan of the pharse "I think, therefore I am" ?


1, ha?

2, ha?

3, ha?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 03:12 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148412 wrote:
1, ha?

2, ha?

3, ha?
Thought so. :listening:
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 03:24 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;148468 wrote:
Thought so. :listening:

Thought about what? I suppose something unrelated.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:18 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Why do you say that only mathematical objects can be self-existent?

My view is that the universe does not contain a reason for its existence. This is because nothing in it can be said to be self-existent or self-caused. Everything in it owes its existence to something else; and this can be said of every observable particular. This has been used as the basis for the cosmological argument, which is that there must be a first cause. If there is no cause for anything, then how does anything come to be? And for that matter, what is the basis of reason and rationality? If there were not some ground at a prior level to reason itself, how would reason gain a foothold?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:21 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148412 wrote:
Did i say god is outside the universe?

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 10:47 PM ----------





No, you did not, and in fact you said He was not outside the universe. And I asked you why you said that.

---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 07:29 AM ----------

jeeprs;148491 wrote:
Why do you say that only mathematical objects can be self-existent?

My view is that the universe does not contain a reason for its existence. This is because nothing in it can be said to be self-existent or self-caused. Everything in it owes its existence to something else; and this can be said of every observable particular. This has been used as the basis for the cosmological argument, which is that there must be a first cause. If there is no cause for anything, then how does anything come to be? And for that matter, what is the basis of reason and rationality? If there were not some ground at a prior level to reason itself, how would reason gain a foothold?


The problem is that it does not follow from the premise that every part of the universe has some cause, that the universe has a cause. To suppose it follows is to commit the fallacy of composition namely, that just because the parts have a particular property, so must the whole.

The question, "if there is no cause for anything, then how does anything come to be?", is to beg the question that everything must have a cause in order to be. It is like asking the question, "if you are so smart, then why are you not rich?", which begs the question of whether being smart makes you rich.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148492 wrote:
if you are so smart, then why are you not rich?


Spend far too much time sitting here, doing this.:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 10:04 PM ----------

actually on a more serious note, I thought the whole point of philosophy was to ponder, if not find, general causes. I mean, the Universe consists of a very large number of individual items, is it meaningful to talk of causality as if it were simply a series of explanations for each thing, or kind of thing?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:33 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;148503 wrote:
Spend far too much time sitting here, doing this.:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 10:04 PM ----------

actually on a more serious note, I thought the whole point of philosophy was to ponder, if not find, general causes. I mean, the Universe consists of a very large number of individual items, is it meaningful to talk of causality as if it were simply a series of explanations for each thing, or kind of thing?


It is meaningful (why not)? But my point is that you cannot validly conclude that because the parts of the universe are caused, that the universe as a whole has a cause. That does not mean it does not, of course. An invalid argument may have a true conclusion.

I don't think it could be the whole point of philosophy to do any one particular task. And isn't it science's task to find out about causes, anyway?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 10:37 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?

Yep, for me to come into being. The universe has been trying for billions of years and countless animals and humans to try and get me to come about. It finally succeeded and now it has nothing else it need do. The universe doesn't care about any of you other people, it was making all of you, as an attempt to get me as a result. All those stars, planets, rocks, worlds, creatures, beings were all failures up until I was born. The universe isn't very good at getting things right, but eventually it does.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:11 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;148491 wrote:
Why do you say that only mathematical objects can be self-existent?

My view is that the universe does not contain a reason for its existence. This is because nothing in it can be said to be self-existent or self-caused. Everything in it owes its existence to something else; and this can be said of every observable particular. This has been used as the basis for the cosmological argument, which is that there must be a first cause. If there is no cause for anything, then how does anything come to be? And for that matter, what is the basis of reason and rationality? If there were not some ground at a prior level to reason itself, how would reason gain a foothold?


It seems to me that there are a priori reason to think there is no reason for why the universe exist. It is not necessary tho. You can reject it my saying something is is it` s essence to exist, but i doubt anyone want to make such a move.

---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 06:14 PM ----------

kennethamy;148492 wrote:
No, you did not, and in fact you said He was not outside the universe. And I asked you why you said that.


Because if god exist, then it is surely something, and thus, part of the universe.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:31 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Agreed ther eis no outsdie of the universe, ALL IS ALL.
The universe is th ehouse, not even the wilderness exists outside th ehouse.
Not sure if chaos might be outside, but this just means chaos is a nothing, chaos doe snot exist.
Not sur eid chaos might be outside.
Doe schaos need a home?

The reason is all the universe, anyhting everything has reason and meaning even self contianed which i dont really believe in. It still IS for something, for just itself or for anything else?
Even if the universe is ignored it is ther eto be ignored.

I think we are the only comparative example, becaus eall we know is us, self reliance doe snot exist, everything anyhting is relied upon, something some one else.
We would not be were it not for some other.

The universe does not need to predicate, facilitae perhaps?
The universe is a=only as such by how it is needed.

What is stated as property of the subject of a proposition?
What is?
What isn't?

We may very well be the whole shabang, the whole reason, leading led predicate?

The universe may truly be all ours.

Just as we may very well be all the universes.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148510 wrote:
you cannot validly conclude that because the parts of the universe are caused, that the universe as a whole has a cause.


So - which parts are caused, and which parts are uncaused? OK, see that solar system over there, that is in the Uncaused zone, while that one.....

The only way to make sense out of it is to be able to differentiate the 'causal' realm from the 'conditioned' realm. In the traditional cosmologies, the causal realm corresponds to the 'deity' at the highest level, and the conditioned realm to the world of appearance. I don't expect that to be accepted here.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:49 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148664 wrote:


---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 06:14 PM ----------



Because if god exist, then it is surely something, and thus, part of the universe.


Yes, but, of course, it is claimed that God is not a part of the universe, but is the creator of the universe. This is just a verbal matter, depending on what is meant by, "the universe". If "the universe" is defined as "everything excepting God" the issue goes away.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:49 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Yes, but, of course, it is claimed that God is not a part of the universe, but is the creator of the universe. This is just a verbal matter, depending on what is meant by, "the universe". If "the universe" is defined as "everything excepting God" the issue goes away.




which do you reject?

1. God is something.
2. something is part of everything( universe).
----------------------------------------------
God is part of everything( universe).
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:57 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148698 wrote:
which do you reject?

1. God is something.
2. something is part of everything( universe).
----------------------------------------------
God is part of everything( universe).
depends on what you mean by "something".....if you define something as a material thing then no, God is not something(at least in the traditional understanding of God by most religions).
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 07:06 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
God is beyond existence and non-existence. Read up on Systematic Theology by Paul Tillich, Apophatic Theology and the Divine Unknowing.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Is there a reason for the existence of the universe?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 10:00:18