Why have anything exist at all?

a reply to: Nothin

Beyond the framework of the limitations of scientific-impossibility is an endless ocean of potentialities that is unquantifiable from within that box of limitations.

Definitely not a materialist or naturalist, then. Sorry.

Am not any kind of "...ist".

In the sense of not being having any worked-out philosophy of your own, I am sure are correct. Unless you believe that mysticism or theology are philosophies -- which, of course, they aren't.

Nothing further to discuss, in that case. Sorry for mistaking you for something you clearly are not.

originally posted by: LeeMich83
What is the point in anything existing at all, the universe or indeed anything else beyond it. Life is fleeting and their is a chance before and after life there is nothing at all. Why have life at all, why have the universe, what purpose could it possibly achieve?

Does the universe exist only because its impossible for nothing to exist? I know a lot of people will say God created the universe and created us. But why have a god in the first place what is gods purpose for the universe. Why create man, put them on earth and then judge them after the fact.

What I am saying is if nothing existed at all nothing would be any different, so it is my conclusion that it is impossible to have nothing at all, we are here because we can be and thats that.

The Universe exists because it always existed. And by "It", I mean consciousness. And what is its point/purpose? To experience itself in an infinite amount of ways.

Simple, yet also the most complex thing in existence.

The story goes Adam and Eve were without clothes and did not realize they were naked. God thought this was better than being aware of being naked without clothes. The awareness they obtained seemingly was inferior to the prior one. But that's just me reasoning. Since God did not want to remove the Tree of Life, He did not want them to eat of, from the garden He had to remmove Adam and Eve from the garden, and He did send them to a place with different laws and rules, with cursed fields and maybe different kinds of animals also.

We're at an inferior place, and since we are still here the God had not changed his mind yet or did not do anything to get it back to as it was (is it even necessary to do so).

They were without clothes and now we are with clothes in need of shelter. We gained awareness and were left with worse so there might be something to find when we succeed in losing something.

a reply to: Untun

So this tree was more important to God than Adam and Eve?

Getouttahere

a reply to: Astyanax

Could be, how important do you think we, you?, are?

a reply to: Untun

In my own eyes? Central. I'm not a saint or a parent.

Now here's one for you. Explain to me how a tree can be more important than all of humanity in God's eyes.

I'll wait.

a reply to: Astyanax

What is there to explain about it? I don't think we're the first thing under God, more likely we're somewhere at the bottom of the list.

originally posted by: Untun
The story goes Adam and Eve were without clothes and did not realize they were naked. God thought this was better than being aware of being naked without clothes. The awareness they obtained seemingly was inferior to the prior one. But that's just me reasoning. Since God did not want to remove the Tree of Life, He did not want them to eat of, from the garden He had to remmove Adam and Eve from the garden, and He did send them to a place with different laws and rules, with cursed fields and maybe different kinds of animals also.

We're at an inferior place, and since we are still here the God had not changed his mind yet or did not do anything to get it back to as it was (is it even necessary to do so).

They were without clothes and now we are with clothes in need of shelter. We gained awareness and were left with worse so there might be something to find when we succeed in losing something.

Except science and the proof of evolution completely debunks that story with empirical evidence. Humans arrived on earth very late in its inhabitance and intelligence was evolved through survival of the fittest. There were other intelligent homosapians like Neanderthals and a few other branch species. It just makes the story about the garden of eden absolutely nonsensical and if the story the bible is based upon is utter nonsense then what about the rest of it?

a reply to: LeeMich83

There's a theory that from the womb of the land a bi-pedal being emerged, man and woman, breathing, as a result of the land adapting to itself, lost in an endless universe with a whole life to live with the intent to provide nutrients to the soil after a few decades.

The land made from the soil, a man, to serve as soil when he dies. The land thought, let's not be land for a while and it made itself man and woman from itself, kicked itself in the stomach and started breathing.

It's a fine theory.

Tell me, what sounds more silly? Formed by a creator, or formed by lifeless intent?

a reply to: Untun

What is there to explain about it?

How on Earth one inanimate object can be considered more important than the future of humanity -- obviously.

I don't think we're the first thing under God, more likely we're somewhere at the bottom of the list.

You seem to be new at this. Nobody cares what random people on the internet think, unless and until they give us a reason to care -- aka the reason why they think it.

Sorry, but your response doesn't really come up to the mark. Better luck another day.

a reply to: Astyanax

You should learn a thing or two about creation. It's impressive.

[post]originally posted by: LeeMich83
What is the point in anything existing at all, the universe or indeed anything else beyond it. Life is fleeting and their is a chance before and after life there is nothing at all. Why have life at all, why have the universe, what purpose could it possibly achieve?

I doubt there is a point to it. There certainly doesn't need to be one IMO.

Does the universe exist only because its impossible for nothing to exist?

I think so. It's impossible for "nothing" to exist, by definition.

What I am saying is if nothing existed at all nothing would be any different, so it is my conclusion that it is impossible to have nothing at all, we are here because we can be and thats that.

Giving properties to "nothing" (a state where "nothing would be any different") is describing "something". A genuine "nothing" can't have any properties. We certainly can be here and as far as we know, that's reason enough.