Explain how anything can exist. I find it very odd that things exist.

>>8311556
sage in all fields

>>8311556
>I find it very odd that things exist.
Look about you, things clearly exist, the Universe has no rhyme or reason is just exists and science is solely based upon the observation of this reality, not to assign it some mystical existential purpose. In other words, an hero yourself, you personification of AIDs made manifest.

>>8311556
Don't be a retard
The universe clearly exists
The fact that there are things in it is a judgement that your idiot brain imposes on the universe because it finds spatial awareness by means of 'separating this thing from that thing' conducive to navigation.
Objectively, the universe is just a soup of particles. If you consider that the universe doesn't exist for any reason at all, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the fact that "things exist in it" also is a fact for no reason at all.

>>8311569
>things clearly exist

>>8311579
>The universe clearly exists

If it's so clear to both of you then how about proving it. The universe might as well not exist at all, implying a simulation of sorts taking place.

Similar to asking the question, does a character in a videogame "exist"?

>>8311635
>"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."
So, I at least exist. I guess I must be 'God', right?

>>8311569
Yet science measures data with average values when comparing measurements and blame it on "environment" and "fluctuations". It deems anything that can't be explained a singularity yet there is tons if them in nature. Something can only exist if theres an observer yet science doesnt even test subjective experience which is most of what life is. Good.

>>8311641
You can exist without thinking, too

>muh latin phrases

>>8311645
>Yet science measures data with average values when comparing measurements and blame it on "environment" and "fluctuations".
No, they normally blame it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error

Don't be intellectually dishonest.

>>8311646
>You can exist without thinking, too
So you're admitting that non-living matter exists? Great, that means you accept the Universe, good job.

>>8311661
I accept the universe I just don't understand how it can exist when clearly it takes 0 energy not to exist, so it's much easier. At the same time I wonder what non-existence would be like, if it's possible at all.

>>8311661
So theres an observational error every time but the point is its never possible to find two exact measurements at any point in "time"

>>8311665
If you didn't exist, you would have no awareness (as you lack consciousness).

>>8311669
What are you trying to say?

>>8311666
Yes, so?

>>8311556
because we happen to live in a universe where things can exist

maybe in another universe the physical laws are different and never allowed for things like stars and planets

>>8311666
>What is human error?
Sorry, I forgot we were perfect beings with flawless reaction time and the ability to create utterly infallible technology. Your arrogance becomes you.

>>8311556
All that is is one, whole, eternal, and unchanging. Panta rhei, your conception of change and movement within the world, is merely an illusion.

>>8311671
You wouldn't know if you didn't exist. The only facet of 'existence' you can observe is the fact you exist and the universe around you does.

How am I not myself?

>>8311556
I know what you mean man. I know what you mean.

Maybe we're nuts

>>8311569
>>8311579
Jesus fucking Christ.

There is no way to tell that the universe exists without pulling the semantics card.

>>8311724
Well, I exist, so I am the universe.
Checkmate.

>>8311729
>I exist
Citation needed.

[Also that's the semantics card I was talking about.]

>>8311739
>[Also that's the semantics card I was talking about.]
So, by saying: >>8311641
You assert I still don't exist, because I used language to communicate it? Then, what is the purpose of language?

>>8311729
The point is not if you exist or not, the point is if the universe exists or not.

Unless you're implying you = universe

>>8311747
The Universe is existence, it is reality, therefore, if I am the only thing in reality as the rest of you seem to think you don't exist, that makes me the Universe.

File: 1321987863313.jpg (724KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1366x768px

>>8311751
Solipsism?

>>8311755
>Solipsism
I guess?

>>8311762
But how does that explain existence?

>>8311763
How doesn't it?

>>8311556
By not not existing.

File: i-dont-know-what-the-fuck-is-going-on.jpg (99KB, 630x741px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 630x741px

>>8311764
I don't even

File: 1428594542257.png (103KB, 624x434px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 624x434px

>mfw sciencucks can't explain life without resorting to philosophy

lmaoing at your religion

>>8311769
Precisely.

>>8311772
Science is the lovechild of philosophy.

>>8311635
prove things don't exist.

it is a far more profound statement to assume everything we perceive isn't real

>>8311787
It's the logical conclusion to philosophy but usually """scientists""" are extremely arrogant towards philosophers.

>>8311793
because philosophers put forth nothing of even intellectual value

>>8311569
>jumps straight into defending science
t. Stupid Atheist

File: philosophy.png (3MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1716x1710px

>>8311793
>>8311797
Left is in favour of philosophy, right is not.

>>8311800
Agnostic actually, raised in a Church of England family and went to a C of E school.

>>8311797
Goddamn son, whats it like being completely fucking retarded?

I'm surprised you can post words on the internet. Congrats.

>>8311802
You basically told op to kill himself for thinking the universe might be more than it seems.

You arent a fucking agnostic

>>8311802
You are arguing with a particularly American brand of anti-intellectualism masquerading as intellectualism. People dismiss complete areas of knowledge and thought because they don't understand it and then act like the fact that they somehow passed freshman physics courses makes them qualified to talk shit.

File: 31032008016082400120699ep6.jpg (93KB, 677x650px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 677x650px

>>8311797
Science is a branch of philosophy, you uneducated plebeian with pedestrian opinions

>>8311802
trifling

>>8311808
are these people """scientists""" or philosophers?

if science is a philosophy, why bother making a distinction the two?

>>8311815
Science is a descendant of philosophy, both look for logical answers, one provides the theories the other tangible proofs.

>>8311806
It was banter? I'm British, so culturally, that is banter.

Also, that:
>You arent a fucking agnostic.
That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

>>8311807
Quite so, I've noticed this as a recent trend of 'intellectual' thought.

>>8311815
>trifling
>Gosh, you're so much more than any of those men on the left.

How about no?

Actually address their points, rather than simply dismissing them.

>>8311824
The American distaste for philosophy feels like something that has been cultivated on purpose in our society. It couples with our obsession with vanity and self-promotion and the degradation of our values and morals. I would almost say that it has been something marketers would be quite happy about.

>>8311835
I suppose it explains in the increase in general degeneracy (not just within the arts) within the Westernised hemisphere.

>>8311820
1. argues that the mathematical basis of science is analogous to the platonic ideal. incidental and does not show that philosophy as a whole has value
also "I think that..." it's an opinion, not an argument

2. argues that contextual information gives insight. "a knowledge of the historic and philisophical background gives..."
an understanding of how things were understood gives you more intellectual tools to work with.
you are conflating this with an appreciation for philosophy as a whole

3. conjecture. he asserts "it (reality) is not real."
he goes on to describe Vedantic philosophy, but not how it proves nothing is real nor how its ideas are useful in a material/physical sense

4.I don't understand the historical context to his statements; so i do not understand the implications and misunderstanding he is alluding to.

>>8311579
The question wasnt why, rather how. Its an unanswerable question in ops context but its like saying how is there existence as opposed to nonexistence