Why do things exist?

>>9005451
Gorilla anon I respect your work but you really need to read a book or two before asking stupid questions.

>>9005451
>one thing causes another
prove it

>but how can something come out of nothing? It can't
why?

>Yet it does.
Does it?

>Why?
That's the real of metaphysics, not physics. Go ask >>>/lit/

The tricky question is: Why is there something instead of nothing?

>>9005456
>prove it
If I punch you in the face you'll cry like the faggot that you are. This is an example of causality.
>why?
Because if it's nothing then there isn't something to come out of it; if there is, then it isn't nothing.
>Does it?
Cogito ergo sum.
>That's the real of metaphysics
No, I am basically saying what >>9005459 said but in a slightly more elaborate way.

>>9005459
define something
define nothing

>>9005459
there is something because we are here to see it

>>9005461
Who are you to define what 'is' is? Are you God?

File: 5a5669a3aca58521d7bed492074275e4.jpg (154KB, 441x662px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 441x662px

>>9005451

One thing doesn't cause another because things exist.

We know that things DO exist because if they didn't we couldn't ask if they did or didn't. Descartes solved that and any objection or argument against this is not to be listened to.
So now, we must ask "why did it happen, why do things exist?" The answer: God obviously, stop being a faggot.

We're living in a simulation, mate.

Outside of this simulation we're living in maybe physics makes sense where something can come out of nothing.

Everything just exists. It's just there. Always has been, and always will be (at least at a fundamental level).

File: mandrill-female-zoojpg-fbb3fd59fa065d79.jpg (98KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x692px

>>9005451
>how can something come out of nothing
As >>9005847
mentioned - the only thing you can prove is your own existence (the only certain thing is one asking the questions), but the funny riddle may be...

sooner or later you will cease to exist and you didn't exist for quite a long time (eternity?), before you gained your consciousness. How and when did you become conscious?

>>9007381
You cannot prove your existence because you haven't defined what existence means.

>>9007464
I can define existence as "blahblahbladerpderpblah", doesn't matter (the definition is obviously wrong), in order to do the definition, defining subject needs to exist.

>>9007557
>defining subject needs to exist.
Why? Is there a law saying that a non-existence/existence duality cannot be possible? How do you prove that Exists and Does't Exist aren't the same, or that they are sometimes the same and sometimes not?
Metaphysics aren't science, I hate threads like these.

File: buddha-1.jpg (306KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 800x800px

>>9007577
>Why?
To ask the above question.

>>9005470
>>9007691
>2017
>still thinking this is clever

>>9005877
>Outside of this simulation we're living in maybe physics makes sense where something can come out of nothing.
This is an interesting idea and I've considered it before, but I really can't fathom how it could be true even in theory.

File: idio-city-640x346.jpg (62KB, 640x346px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x346px

>>9007737
>2017
>taking Bostrom's joke paper seriously.

no, the conclusion is that you don't start with nothing

>>9007757
I didn't say anything about Bostrom's paper, his argument is obviously flawed. But we could still be living in a simulation, and there are other possible ways in which there could be another physical reality outside of our own.
But mainly the concept of a physics where it actually makes sense that everything came from nothing is just pretty interesting by itself.