“Why?” is the ultimate question. It can be personified on an infinite level down to the very creation of everything… But, why creation? My only answer - which I’m sure many of you will agree with - is; why not? What is the point of having a universe?.. What is the point of not having a universe?
If infinite substance isn’t a legitimate answer, what came before something… Nothing. So why go from nothing to something?.. Why not? Not to mention “how?” or “what?” The question “why?” has to be choice… But what’s choosing? Is it God? Is it the universe itself (which some would argue IS God)?
I would just like to hear theories that others have on this… I have my own, but I’ll have somebody else kick off this thread.
P.S. - I’m relatively new and I’m sure this has been discussed before, but I just want to re-open the case.
In the observable universe, something does not come out of nothing. Based on what we know of how universe works we must infer that there must have been something always.
If that were indeed the case (which we cannot prove) then it would be classified as (an unexplainable) miracle and because there would be no way of corroborating it with anything that we see in the world, any discussion about it would stay strictly in the realm of one’s imagination.
A) “Why?” is NOT the ultimate question. Why? Because after you answer “why?”, you must address what you “should” do about it. That is one of the “why” answers.
B) The universe exists because it is logically impossible for it not to. The problem is merely that people have trouble with real logic. The bottom line concerning this question rests in the impossibility of infinity as anything other than a concept.
Why? Once you enter the world of conjecture, all answers have the same credibility. Oh, the usual egocentric answers will claim superiority of one over the other - as long as they ignore the obvious: “Damned if I know.”
What’s your favorite color? Have a favorite flavor? …Why?
The question “why?” without qualification is meaningless. Why what?
If you then say, “why the universe?” this presupposes that the universe is purposeful in itself, or was created for a purpose by something else.
Since this operates on presuppositions, you must first account for these presuppositions.
Namely, how purpose can be applied to the non-conscious and what is “other” to the universe that could be responsible for it’s creation. You would then have to prove both of these before anything else could be done.
The concept of ex nihilo is illogical in that it states that something existed before it existed in order to bring itself into existence. A contradiction.
The something/nothing duality is also illogical because “nothing” merely refers to an absence of the subject and is not a state of being in itself. “Something” refers to a conceptualization derived from human perception of a dynamic process (reality), where there are no static absolute “things” or “thingness”.
Perspectivism again… and the hint of bliss in ignorance.
Every man’s opinion is valued simply because he holds it, isn’t that right darling? Just like every man is a unique, pretty little flower just because he is alive…
As far as I can tell, one says that we can’t have knowledge of what you call ‘objective’ truth because we haven’t the means to gain it, while the other say that we can’t have knowledge of ‘objective’ truth because there’s no such thing.
Not to drop a fly in the ointment, but for there to be no objective truth requires the objective truth of it. For it to be impossible to know objective truth requires that one know that objective truth.
You guys seriously need a little more self scrutiny.
And I don’t think we can obtain 100% logical certainty without first agreeing an arbitrary base.
If the truth requires 100% logical certainty, it’s going to be based on arbitrary ground.
If the truth must be free of any arbitrary element and it should be logically correct, then there is no such truth.
As far as ultimate question goes, I think it’s “?”
Just the bare sense/feeling of question without any perspective.
No, it doesn’t! Perhaps what you mean is that for it to be known that it’s impossible to know objective truth requires that one know that objective truth.
The only objective truth is that there are no objective truths…
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes…
This is infantile. To negate the absolute you must first presuppose it, as this is what language demands…
Does a rock have a purpose?
Purpose implies need and a conscious objective. A movement towards completion on the part of an awareness. Awareness is confined to sentient beings … which are not interchangeable with the entire universe.
Therefore the universe does not have a purpose. To state that there are beings in the universe with purpose does not extend this purpose beyong those beings.
To state that “being”, as in the sense of an existing phenomenon, is founded upon purpose is ridiculous.
What is the “truth”, “subjective truth” and “objective truth”, anyway?
I FEEL that people often talk about truth when they have over boosted certainty level about something.
And people may dare to talk about “objective truth” when they think everyone else should agree with the over booster they use.
Some are more reserved and talk about “subjective truth” and it’s limited to oneself.
Maybe it’s the way to protect the over boosted certainty because others cannot touch something “subjective”.
