Why do we exist?

>>19149717
We do exist because more chemical reaction take longer to complete then lesser complex ones. A compound that is able to attract stronger then one who isn't have the potential to gain more energy. And you and I are the aftermath of that reaction long ago. Enjoy it or not. That's up to you. The only ones who care about you are those close to you. Care for them. And enjoy the accident we called a human life.

Why don't we exist?

Before everything existed, nothing existed, and everything was within nothing. Everything made a godawful din being all packed together into nothing like that, so obviously, everything had to move out to get lives and houses of its own and stop mooching off of nothing.

File: 0036 - mPWN7uP.jpg (294KB, 1148x1122px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1148x1122px

>>19149717
i dont really know.

when i did acid and met god, he made it seem like a literally struggle against himself. He is bad, he is good etc etc.... see, we're all him, but either we're his good or his bad (yeah, there are neutrals) but for the most part we adopt one of those traits. the problem is he wouldnt tell me which i am.

really buddy, im drunk ranting, i really do not know, no one really knows... even if god himself explains it all to you, you just wont fucking know

>>19149717
Because we don't not exist.

>>19149822
I got the same vibe when I did a whole bunch of DXM and met the devil. He said he was one side of an insane, masked god, who changes from "good" to "bad" on a whim.

The conclusion seemed to be that no matter which it was, it was in pain because of it, and it couldn't do anything about it until it united with itself. Something about abandoning/reconciling morality but not in the sense that you would think like becoming a sociopath or something.

I dunno though, I'm hoping that was just some deluded nonsense going on in my head.

For the pizza everyday amen.

>>19149868
>>19149822

This sounds oddly familiar.

>>19149717
We can't understand the why, we can only fathom the how.

>>19149777
A much more pertinent question, and nice holy trips

well the whole universe was in a hot dense state then 14 bilion years ago expantion started weight.

We exist to experience and our experience creates new experiences.

we exist because we are possible states/forms. Our purpose to experience and explore all the possible conscious states. Here's some soul food. https://youtu.be/mdIT61EUlSM?t=3269

>>19149747
>>19150952
bluepill.jpg

Inevitable emanation from the source of sources

File: ^26289FC3038D727458A7C8B26D4A361398AB3E6183CBF2E87C^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg (12KB, 206x180px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 206x180px

>>19149717
we dont need a reason/purpose to exist; we just happen to exist

make of existence what you will

>>19149717
This is what you are: matter, energy, and soul. And if you do not understand your soul it means you do not understand you, save for understanding what's around you. You are your consciousness in activity. Your death is your consciousness being kept inactive, frozen. Learn this:
the soul has to have a medium of expression, a point of consciousness and an environment. What's your medium of expression? What's your environment? Go find an answer for these questions, and you will have found your self.

>>19149717
God wanted new randomly generated experiences.
Boom, universe happens, living things, new experiences, drama.

>>19150952
the earth began to cool the autotrophs began to drool

WE all exist by chance, probably. Existence, everything, probably exists because someone made it that way. It wouldn't be hard to make our universe exist out of nothing, if you did it from a universe where you don't necessarily have to exist in order to exist. So either we're lucky this reality makes a lick of sense, or somebody thought this would be fun.

See simulation universe theory

>>19149717
Everything (mathematically I would argue) possible exists. There is no magical "substance stuff", but rather just mathematical structures that when stacked one over the other im increasingly complex systems then we subjectively experience as both our consciousness or as if there was "something" (magical substance stuff). We are one of the many expression of actual nothingness so to speak.

I don't think it's interstong to think about why humans exist. I've been wondering more about how does even the concept of existence exist. It has to be so that the concept of existence has always been. If existence doesn't exist there couldn't be a god or big bang etc either

>>19151218
There was the dude that said, "I think, therefor I am."

He made a point there...

>>19151251
Just what the "I am" refers to escapes everyone though.

>>19150937
indeed

>>19151189
it's not nothingness it's balanced somethingness.

>>19149717
There isn't a reason

We all just suffer some mass schizophrenia

File: 1496770618534.gif (410KB, 221x196px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 221x196px

>>19149822
This guy is right.

You are alone in this universe.

You are God.

I am God, albeit another aspect of God.

>all of existence is just you distracting yourself from the fact that you really are all alone

But of course, that is a very upsetting idea to focus on. I pondered on it for awhile, spiraling down into disparity. Now I have come to the realization that in order to have any kind of motivation for life you have to CHOOSE.

Choose your own meaning for life. It can be anything. But the key is it needs to satisfy you. I have settled for being the type that is other-serving instead of self-serving, although i suppose it doesnt really make a difference.

You are helping yourself either way.

>>19149717
Some asshole quatum particle decided to be a special snowflake and gained some sweet kinetic energy. This triggered a chain reaction that resulted in you and everything ever.
The best you do to gain some "meaning" in this universe is science the fuck out of everything and do something that would delay unavoidable heat death of universe. Suits you enough?

>>19149868
>>19149822

This pretty much Schelling's entire philosophy, the contradiction in reality being the contradiction in the Absolute itself, and the only way out isn't rejecting evil but reconciling these two poles of God in oneself, in other words becoming that being that is able have a high (lol) enough perspective of itself that it heals its own antimonies.

Gotta say, you guys def hit on something real

File: download (19).jpg (5KB, 306x165px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 306x165px

>>19151379
Exactly, every self is a singularity, you were born as the person you are because how you process your reality is the ONLY WAY such a thing as existence is even thinkable... for you. This simultaneously applies to every other being in the universe

Imagine a point in the center of the circle that's connected to every point on the circles surface. The points on the circumference are all absolutely differentiated from one another, but are all derived from a single source, a single "here-ness" or non-spatial center that your consciousness essentially is.

We're all God coping with his transcendental aloneness

File: 1497423399493.jpg (116KB, 640x496px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 640x496px

We are God's companion, his painting, his golom (the mythical being, not that LOTR character), and his Frankenstein monster. He is trying to reflect HIMSELF in a medium that is less that He is.

I agree with based Anon who says he isn't good or evil. He is beyond that concept because he's perfect. He can't commit evil, but because he's perfect, he can only try to express that perfection.

Reality is God's dream OP.

>>19151379
God by definition is that one person that is greater than all other things.

If there is more than one God, then which God is greater than all the other gods, i.e. God?

Your not alone on this planet, and your not alone existentially.

There is God.

And God is not you.

I think therefore I am.

I am not omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, eternal, always existing, therefore I am not God.

>The universe exists so that creatures endowed with free will can freely evolve, self-manifest, without the Creators input.
>And then later, when those creatures have become manifest, it exists to serve as a medium for their communion with their Creator.

God, the Creator is perfect.

If the creation of God is perfect, then the act of creation, at least some form of it, is perfect.

Whether or not you believe in a Creator, you cannot deny that creation is the only reasonable goal of existence.

>>19151218
If you think about it, non-existence is also a type of existence.

>>19151712
To continue, we are the Divine being staring into the deep well of emptiness, of *that which is not*, and seeing it stare back at him. We are a dark pool in which Perfection sees a distorted vision of itself. We must be horrifying.

I seriously consider sometimes the possibility that there could be no real understand between such a God and us. We would have no way to understand each other. It's implausible that either could accept a being that is so different. He could try to understand our "language" but, being perfect, couldn't change his nature or logic to relate to us. And we couldn't change ours, being imperfect.

We create the God we wish to become.

>>19151724
I agree. The only desire a perfect being can have is the desire to love, the desire to experience itself in things which it is not and have those things experienced Itself as well.

>>19149822
I got a similar idea on acid.
>tripping alone in my room
>there is a crucifix which has been hanging on the wall since i was like 7 years old
>look at it, think about the concept of a begotten deity
>arrive at the conclusion that such symbols are retroactively placed into life so that people who see them recognize the circular nature of life, death, and divinity
>the idea being that the smaller divine pieces of the whole (individual human consciousness) would be able to keep themselves "spiritually sane" by seeing and coming to terms with all of the implications of not only God being begotten, but thus every small fragment of himself that God throws into the world for the sake of experience (consciousness)
>at the same time makes me afraid to claim that each person is in fact the same God, due to the power that such a claim carries

>>19151741
Your definition of perfect isn't perfect.

>He could try
>We would have no way
>It's implausible that either could accept a being that is so different.

God can do anything, although wills only good.

>We must be horrifying.

And God, being omnipotent, doesn't fear anything.

Your God ain't God.

If God wills that something of his nature becomes known, then it is so.

>>19151750
Your saying God created the world so that he could experience life through us.

That isn't loving, that's selfish.

Not God.

>>19151760
I understand, but think your idea is unrealistic. Just saying god is god so it could do anything isn't really thinking it through for me. Maybe I'm trying to wrap my mind around something that it can't grasp.

You think there's nothing God can't do? Could he ever fail in what he tried to achieve?

>>19151772
It is loving, because love can only exist in a universe ruled by death and entropy. Love is born in the black soil of death.

>>19151772
Not at all. More so he could let others experience himself. He's unable to make himself better by the act, or suffer for not doing so.

File: angel_heaven_wings_god.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>19149717
"His purpose was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to the eternal purpose that He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

>>19151724
The totality is god. Therefore everyone within the totality is god. you are wrong.

>>19151724
God is a metaphor the multiverse universe. The universe created itself by being in balance of all vectors. All things in the multiverse are god.

>>19151779
>I understand, but think your idea is unrealistic.

Transcendental. Timespace is clay, Adam and Veish, Tiamat and Apsu.

God

>Maybe I'm trying to wrap my mind around something that it can't grasp.

You can grasp it, that's why he encoded it in fairy tales, so that children could learn how reality works.

>You think there's nothing God can't do?

Double negative. Yes, there is nothing that God cannot do, if it is willed.

>>19151786
>It is loving, because love can only exist in a universe ruled by death and entropy. Love is born in the black soil of death.

Love is the willing act of, creating, or bringing into existence, something, anything, and/or sustaining it in existence.

Absent fear, because God has no equal, nor superior to be fearful of.
Absent need, because God has no needs.

Love exists before timespace is brought into existence.

God is his own Love, and God is Alive.

>>19151788
>Not at all. More so he could let others experience himself. He's unable to make himself better by the act, or suffer for not doing so.

That may be one side effect of reality, but it is not the reason why it was made.

>>19151826
Then the love a mother has for her child in this reality is an even more perfect love, because she's not a transcendent self-possessed absolute existing in the primordial nothing

It's not that we're one-upping God but rather that God's love is becoming EVEN MORE perfect in and through us

>>19151815
At one point the universe did not exist, then it did. God did that.

Before the universe came into existence.

God (your "totality")

Who knows, maybe another (totality) spacetime bubble.

Yet God is always greater.

>>19151821
>God is a metaphor the multiverse universe.

If a multi-verse were to exist, and there is zero evidence that it does, then God still created it.

And God is not a metaphor, but an all-powerful being of unlimited intelligence.

>>19151854
That doesnt make any sense. The totality is ALL inclusive. IT INCLUDES ALL THINGS. that is the only true creator.

>>19151854
The universe ALWAYS existed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be reshaped.

>>19151863
>>19151868
The principle of the universe's self-causation IS God

>>19151863
You assume the necessity of a creator. But the question belies who created the creator... and an endless spout of questions arises that all lead to the fact that... there is no creator. It's simply a balanced formatting of fields. The all inclusive field that contains everything is god. It's the 'creator'. sorry that you have been brainwashed by people spouting personifications of deities.

>>19151850
Yep.

The purpose of space-time is to generate, manifest, autonomous willing agents.

It is finely-tuned for the development, via natural processes, of life. (Maybe some miraculous nudges along the way)

Then we become self-aware, the universe becomes self-aware, and sees order and logic in the cosmos, and reasons; since God is perfect, let's do what God does, and what did God do?

Created all of this!

So let's do the same, in our way, in our capacity.

A child, a project, a game, a song, an engine, a this, a that.

The things we do even though we don't get paid to do it, and there is no concern for the prospect of reward.

In a sea of moral relativism, this is the only reasonable ethic.

Your role model is the creator of the universe.

>>19149717
To kill things and observe beauty.

The 'higher intelligence' that people reffer to is actually secretly the entanglement of all consciousness through the union of all fields in the highest dimension. It's known as the 'akashic' record of all conscious beings. People commune with it and confuse it for god. But alas, it's not god, but rather god's eyes, and ears. God's body is the multiverse.

>>19151863
A thing is created.

God is not created.

God, the Creator, creates things.

But is not a thing himself.

God, the Creator, created thingspace.

But is not bound by it's laws or limits.

Just as the painter is not his painting, nor the canvas, or brush, but the willing agent that works through all these things, and created these things.

>>19151868
>The universe ALWAYS existed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be reshaped.

God can do anything.

Standard Model of physics, the model that fits pretty much all the observable data, suggests a beginning to space-time itself.

Forget energy and matter. we're talking about the base code that supports these programmes, coming into existence.

>>19151880

>The principle of the universe's self-causation IS God

If the universe doesn't exist, it can't cause itself into becoming, it requires a causeless causative agent.

And the universe isn't causeless, because causality exists.
>>19151884
>But the question belies who created the creator

No it doesn't.

Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause, just as the universe is seen to have a beginning.

God is that which has no beginning, and no end, being timeless and spaceless, as creator of timespace.

The all-inclusive field, timespace, had a beginning. It started existing, in an orderly fashion too.

>>19151921
How can a non-thing create things. That doesn't make any sense at all. All things.. are things. To do an action and have intelligence would imply it to be a thing. To assume a intelligence was necessary at all is an assumption of the highest caliber. You're really brainwashed by abrahamic religion.

>>19151921
The multiverse is timeless.... again. How are you this thick headed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed thus it is timeless.

>>19151921
If you see things as a string of events from the perspective of higher dimensions it's really just a timeless amalgam of transductive geometries.

we are cells in a bigger system, which is a cell in a bigger system, which itself is a cell in a bigger system. It continues until it implode on itself into smaller cells, which are cells in a bigger system.

>life goals: gas the kikes, or see this cell turn into mars. That's what that virus is capable to to.

>>19151921
See, though, the causative agent of the universe the nothing out of which it arose - the pure potentiality for being (and because this impersonal potentiality nevertheless gives us all the richness and familiarity of subjectivity, it is also fair to characterize it as a "personal" God) is God. God is the source-principle of being in that it both generates being and the being that is able to have a CONCEPT of its own being.

So it's both something like a "natural" phenomenon, a field or whatever, and a personal creator, because latent in this field is that which is not reducible back to "merely" a field or agglomeration of atoms, etc.

The answer to the debate you're engaged in is: you're both right

>>19151930
What is a thing?

Something that exists in timespace, our universe.

Look! A thing is here.

God
(Time(Earth(Life(Free Wi(evil)ll)dinosaurs)Humans)Space)

Everything in the timespace bubble is a thing. A thing is something which exists in the timespace bubble.

>>19151960
God cannot be a non-thing. it's still within some framework of something else that allows. Our universe is within a multiverse which contains everything. you can't have something non inclusive to that system. it's not possible. the end.

>>19151959
You used more assumptions up about the source field understanding it's own being. we as sentients understand our own being. and we are within the framework of the 'universe' we are god's eyes.

File: WLC_feature-390x250.jpg (19KB, 390x250px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 390x250px

>>19151944
>The multiverse is timeless
No evidence that a multi-verse exists.

And, how can time emerge out of a timeless multiverse?

How can order arise out of chaos?

Unless the chaos, the timeless multiverse, has omnipotent powers and the willing agency to create something other than....

Wait, that's God your describing, not a multi-verse.
>>19151959
>The answer to the debate you're engaged in is: you're both right

More like, both wrong.

Or I'm right and he's wrong.

We can't both be right.

And I can't be WRONG!"

William Lane Craig for all your needs, I'm actually pretty bad at arguing this case.

https://youtu.be/7xcgjtps5ks

The thread started off with an ethical question, descends into cosmology.

/x/ is going down hill.

>>19152005
Time is an illusion of perception.
Order arises out of chaos as more stable versions arise out of chaos through probability and transduction.

>>19151986
God will be what God will be.

If a thing is that which begins to exist, then God is not a thing.

If a thing is a potato, then God is not a thing.

If a thing is that which we percieve, then maybe God can sometimes be a thing, if it is so willed, but that doesn't mean that God is necessarily a thing, only that God is God, capable of anything.

>>19152005
god is just a coined term for the all inclusive field e.i the multiverse. Call it what you want to call it.

>>19152025
what kind of shitty rhetoric are you spouting. please use your analytical mind. it's basically nonsense. A god must be a thing, because only THINGS can do other THINGS (actions).

>>19152017
Reconcile your views: not-God exists insofar as it is the ground for God.

The only truth is nothingness, and that nothing, being pure negation, negates itself and becomes God. The absence of God IS God.

>>19152040
that makes absolutely no sense at all. There's no such thing as pure negation. We exist because pure negation cannot exist.

>>19152017
But in the chaos, true chaos, there is the possibility of a universe devouring, unkillable, immortal cosmic horror emerging.

And since multiverse theory says WOOOH anything and everything can happen!

Then where is Cthulu?

And why hasn't he devoured all of existence?

The answer is, he doesn't exist. We exist in a universe of laws, order and definition, that has a definite past, and definite beginning, in definite initial conditions.

And God created it.

Time is timespace. It is one and the same. If time is illusion then so is space, and everything that exists within timespace.

And, there's no evidence for a multiverse. All the evidence suggests a beginning, and where there is a beginning, there is a Creator.

>>19152040
The absence of anything cannot be anything. you are spouting nonsensical jibberish.

File: 1497286566540.jpg (467KB, 1250x1920px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1250x1920px

To learn to love unconditionally,
to give without expecting,
to appreciate without taking for granted,
to make this temporary experience beautiful.

>>19152046
where is cthulu? what kind of strawman arguement is that? there may be a cthulu somewhere out there on another planet, not a supernatural cthulu but an animal that resembles him. Supernatural entities that have been envisaged by the human mind can most likely not exist in any framework in other than the mind.
Nothing can devour the entire universe of laws, for the laws allow for infinite time and space.

File: plato-allegory-of-the-cave.jpg (100KB, 900x508px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 900x508px

>>19152037
>A god must be a thing, because only THINGS can do other THINGS (actions).


Where did you get that belief from? What reason do you have to believe that?

Cart before the horse?

God must be a thing because I see things affecting other things, and my definition of God is not based on logic or reason but on the belief that God doesn't exist, and only things exist.

Therefore, for God to exist, God must be a thing.

????

The mother must be the baby because I don't know who the mother is.

>You need to bend that spoon some more

>>19152064
it's not a belief. it's logic. It's the understanding of the english language. You're spouting more gibberish. I'm done. You're throwing way to many non-sequitur, and non-equivalences.

>>19152064
for anything to exist it must be a thing. Only things can exist. A premise of nonexistence is that whatever it your talking about not existing does not exist. it's not in the spectrum of reality. of any reality.

I don't know what your purpose is, but my purpose is to find my soulmate.

>>19152043
Nope, to say nothingness can't be this or that is to suddenly impose restrictions on it, to give it a list of things that determine what it is or isn't, ie still dependent on the something to be what it is.

The negation must be so pure, so absolute, it negates itself even as the principle of negation. Nothingness isn't reality with an infinite list of constraints of what it can't be, but reality without ANY constraints - pure potentiality.

>>19152057
If multiverse true; anything and everything can and will happen.

Multi-verse traversing, inter-universal cosmic devourer is a thing that can happen within the infinity of configurations. A being that would accomplish it's task even as it begins, being able to transcend normal space-times.

If such were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Nothing but that cosmic entity would exist in the multiverse.


>Nothing can devour the entire universe of laws, for the laws allow for infinite time and space.

Says who? You. Cthulu doesn't care what you say about laws. He spontaneously emerged out of the chaos as a possible expression of infinity. He just happens to be the expression of infinity which ends infinity, which is inevitable within an infinite possibility spacetime.

I.E. If EVERYTHING happens, then the inverse too, NOTHING happens!

Something did begin to happen.

13.8 billion years ago.

>>19152090
But it's by definition. Nothing implies it doesnt exist. which means it's of no reality. which means you are spouting babble.

>>19152099
Non-reality is the ground of reality. The universe just is, out of nothing, that nothing is God. To define nothing is to make it something.

>>19152093
cosmic devourer: that's an assumption, their are most definitely constraints on what can and cannot happen. everything that can and will happen only implies to things that CAN happen. to say a cosmic devourer is implicit of a multiverse is a large assumption. And since we are all still here and alive I could also assume that their isnt a cosmic devourer.

>>19152108
Nothing cannot exist. Reality comes out of itself. The fault lies in logics like yours where you assume nothingness is a state of existence.

>>19152108
Nothing cannot exist. Reality comes out of itself. The fault lies in logics like yours where you assume nothingness is a state of existence. it's not any state. nothing cannot be, for only things can be.

>>19152085
>for anything to exist it must be a thing.

No, it must be caused into being. When it comes into existence, then it is thing.

It doesn't take on the quality of thingness and then pops into existence. It is caused to be a thing.

What type of thing it is, determined by forces and laws.

God is not subject to forces and laws.
God's identity is not subject to anything within spacetime.

Even before things came to be, God is!

>>19152117
I never said such a thing, I said nothingness is pure potentiality, the universe coming out of itself is PRECISELY the universe coming out of nothing, out of its own innate, logical potential for existence, that's God.

>>19152124
im done. you're clearly not getting the message and going in circles with backwards logic. I tried to present an accurate description but you go on talking babble about nothingness.

>>19152129
There is no state of nothing. Again, causation only happens in things. Things cannot come out nothing. That's a non-secuitor. Please understand.

>>19152110
>their are most definitely constraints on what can and cannot happen

Who made the constraints!

Another multiverse? On top of the multiverse?

Then who put the constraints on that meta-verse?

>everything that can and will happen only implies to things that CAN happen

Infinite chaos says anything can happen.

And a multiverse of rules says only certain things can.

So who made the rules?

>I could also assume that their isnt a cosmic devourer.

And thus no multiverse. Or indeed naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of our universe.

All structure is either the result of natural processes or design, and since nothing precedes the universe, or the fine tuned, orderly, only some things can happen, multiverse, then the universe/ine tuned, orderly, only some things can happen, multiverse must be by design.

There was never nothing, because nothing can't exist, not even a space with nothing can't, because the space is not nothing. Therefor, space is permanent, have always been and will always be, but it do change form, like most women it gets bigger and smaller in cycles, except your mum, who only gets bigger and soon need an own space.

>>19152145
nobody had to make the rules. The rules were simply what is allowed by vector maths. nobody had to make the constraints. There are simply limits to what reality can manufacture based on the framework. The framework is simplified down to quanta, vectors, and wave functions that interact. that's it.

>>19152133
I never said its a state, I said it's pure, keyword pure, potentiality. The universe is all that is, by definition, anything outside it is nothing, the universe is then simply that-which-is, it's just hanging in the air, the "air" out of which the universe bootstrapped itself into existence. That potential to do so is nothing, and God, simultaneously.

The closed, self-reflexive circle of reality can be so in reference to an "outside", nothingness itself, its groundless ground

>>19152157
And layers, if there are any? They might exist inside or outside the framework. Or both, but not necessary in phase.

again, let me posit the question.. who made the rules for the creator? why is the creator absolved of necessity for something that makes rules? the answer is there was no creator, it was just waveform patterns interacting into different forms until they were more stable.

>>19152157
Who quantified the quanta?

Why is all electrical charge a multiple of 1/3 e?

Why can't we have 5/7 or 98/102?

There is no reason, no natural process, that could compel spacetime to restrict the exchange of charge to such narrow limits.

And magic number 3 no less!

It's a fundamental quanta. No prior order caused this law. The law is intimately woven into the fabric of existence.

And since All structure is either the result of natural processes or design, and since nothing precedes the universe, or the fine tuned, orderly, only some things can happen, multiverse, then the universe/fine tuned, orderly, only some things can happen, multiverse must be by design.

>>19152158
if it is not a state than it isnt. Potentiality isnt anything. you cant have something only be a potential and also be a causal force. That doesnt make sense.

>>19152172
The Creator makes the rules, but is bound by nothing but his own will, his own ethic.

To bring us back to the thread topic.

>>19151826

>>19152174
Nobody quantified the quanta... IT QUANTIFIED ITSELF. it's just a stable format that came out of less stable formats. we exist because of the stability of this format to aknowledge that. IN MV theory there are plenty verses where things didn't work out.

>>19152172
The only creator we know of is called chaos, "chaos" or random, is life, is space, is you, is everything. Chaos is permanent.

>One people we know of who even today obey chaos, and actually use it as a world strategy.
Pump up, blow up, repeat.

>>19149717
Your existence doesn't have a meaning, you need to make your own meaning for your own life (Its like a cake, if you dont put flavor, icing, layers and other stuff on it, it will be a bland, tasteless 'cake')

>>19152193
that's what ive been trying to tell the other guy!

File: case-of-the-missing-hare-c2a9-warner-brothers.jpg (98KB, 994x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 994x720px

>>19152189
>IT QUANTIFIED ITSELF
Like a fucking magician!

>ITT, God doesn't exist, despite all logic and evidence suggesting this to be the case, because muh multiverse and self-quantizing quanta

File: 1496680280996.jpg (66KB, 960x533px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x533px

>>19149717
Not why. I unironically believe conciousness i.e. the ability to experience object and subject is a gradient. The complexity and/or orientation of the fundamental particles in our bodies allow for a differing level of reception. Think a military grade radio vs a shitty TracFone. God/Satan/yhwh/bobbity booboo whatever you want to call it is the collective consciousness. We are it and it is us. We are God experiencing itself through an massive number of different ways from a single celled organism to who knows what. There is no reason this happens or has to happen, other than for a transcendent version of entertainment.

Pure speculation obviously. Ill continue with my thoughts if you guys want

Pic very related

>>19149717
It's all here so we can have experiences.
It's like a game designer made something so he could be entertained with some awesome captures.
That's the short version. I'm not in the mood to type out the long version.

File: e45.png (438KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 720x528px

>>19152198
It quantified itself in the sense that it's a form that was stable from less table forms. thus the self quantization.

>>19149717
Why suggests intent in our creation, in nature humanity has formed without reason just as the result of cause and effect. Individually well you would have to ask your parents.

>>19152193
Chaos doesn't exist, otherwise, nothing happens.
>>19152093

The universe began to exist.

When it began, it had structure, and it did not emerge from any previously existing structure, because it's the first structure, that came into existence, as a complete structure, when it began, perfectly designed.

God did it.

Because there is no other possible explanation for this.

We had to invent an infinite number of multiverses just to get away from the God option.

But even that fails logically.

Consciousness is a weakness, only one who don't know anything can create everything. With knowledge there are to many borders and limits.
Chaos know no order.

>>19152180
The universe is, because it is. A tautology is about as far as you can go in explaining reality without referring to some determinate principle which itself must be grounded in another determinate principle higher up on the chain, etc.

This tautology is only possible because the final ground must be GROUNDLESSNESS ITSELF, ie nothing, negation, an impenetrable unknown. The universe is a self-grounding groundlessness.

>>19152220
My mother thinks more logic than you, and she's been living a life believing in MSM and idiocracy.

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (88KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x720px

>>19152204
>It quantified itself in the sense that it's a form that was stable from less table forms

But there is no less stable form. That's the point.

End of the road, and there is design.

Dead end, and there is structure.

Where we should find chaos, we find order.

File: Alignment-of-Axis-of-Evil.png (553KB, 705x752px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 705x752px

>>19152233
If there can be no natural explanation for why the universe begins in an ordered state, then supernatural cause.

Flaw?

>Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:[4]

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

All aboard the crazy train. Centre of the universe and only half a brain.

>>19152248
>There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun

The structure he is talking about is the left over radiation from the first event in spacetime, it's own coming into existence, in an orderly state, with us at the centre.

There is no previous order from which this configuration could have emerged from. It is the first cosmic order.

>>19152235
Yes there is.... that's the very thing that may be outside our verse. Is a less stable form, and not nothing. we simply cannot observe it as our higgs field is inclusive to the verse we're in.

>>19152248
First, either chaos needs no natural explanation, or it needs infinite of them.
Yes, a flaw, in your thinking.
I have read a lot of Krauss, but neither do he nor me know the 'correct' answer. Chaos knows, but the answer is random, and you wouldn't understand.

>>19152235
you 're spouting absolutes like you know this to be fact. First of all for a more complex form to exist, less complex for must predate it. that is just simple logic.

>>19149717
>why do we exist?
We don't, this world is an illusion, your 'self' is an illusion. Don't read into this too complexly

>>19152235
complexity arises only due a lesser complexity interacting with itself until it has attained more complexity. e.i a whirlpool is made up of water.

sorry..
Secondly, there is no right answer, but still too many too list. The easy answer is; it kinda works.(Chaos works because of its state as always broken and therefor always works)
>Flaw?

>>19152292
you do realize you can have chaotic systems that have ordered underlying mechanisms.

Broken as seen from human eyes.

File: time0.jpg (95KB, 632x516px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 632x516px

>>19152269
>Yes there is.... that's the very thing that may be outside our verse

Of which we have no evidence of, and which needs to be fine-tuned itself.

Because if it is not fine-tuned multi-verse, but simply chaos, then nothing happens, just absolute formlessness and inactivity.

>I.E. If EVERYTHING happens, then the inverse too, NOTHING happens!

And if it is fine tuned,

All structure is either the result of natural processes or design, and since nothing precedes the universe, or the fine tuned, orderly, only some things can happen, multiverse, then the universe/ine tuned, orderly, only some things can happen, multiverse must be by design.

>First of all for a more complex form to exist, less complex for must predate it. that is just simple logic.

God doesn't need a form. God may will that he have a form, but he doesn't need it. God doesn't need anything.

God can be without a form.

God can be in a simple form.

Or an insanely complex form.

God is God, bound by nothing but his own ethic, his own willing intent.

And the only explanation for why any order exists at all, and since we have demonstrated that some order is necessary to avoid a chaotic self-annihilation

>I.E. If EVERYTHING happens, then the inverse too, NOTHING happens!

then the only explanation for why anything exists at all, since all things have at least some structure,

is God.

The Creator of things, but not necessarily a thing, even though he can be a thing if he wills it.

>>19152308
rhetoric, circular logic. stupidity. goodbye.

>>19152301
Yes, but it does still need initial conditions which are in order, kinda "produced chaos" or "chaos with limits". Chaos as we know it don't have limits, otherwise this conversation wouldn't be.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Need to sleep, so going low-life now..
One won't find signs in space saying "all black holes welcome" or all planets are the same.
Therefor, NO GOD!
Flaws?

File: mqdefault.jpg (9KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 320x180px

>>19152338
Yeah.

The conclusion doesn't follow from either of the the premises.

But this conlusion does;

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist, and we have evidence for this premise.

Therefore the universe has a cause, which is not natural, because the universe is nature.

File: et4.jpg (49KB, 550x399px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 550x399px

>>19152005
Take the Craig pill to get up to speed.

3-4 debates you'll get the download,

then,

The Living Word, memetics and all the crazy therein.

Because that's where THE God interacts with human cognition.

And, why haven't I seen any passing it on?

>>19151673
Sound pretentious now because it's all but gone, but when I was in that state it really did fuse into a tragedy that you could understand from both angles rather than a war you could only understand from one.

I listened to a bunch of spooky music that only now makes me afraid and a bunch of stereotypically religious music that only now makes me feel unworthy/guilty. They fit together, then, rather than seeming opposed.

It was an interesting perspective but I'm not sure whether it was trustworthy because I was arriving at it from the darker (light in the darkness, not darkness in the light) angle. Even that sounds like asshat bullshit lol but at the time it was visceral and tangible.

>>19151741
What does not change is not perfect.

I've always assumed that we are in some giant being that is very young or very old. Maybe the being is dead or maybe what most lie withing the being is helping it but there may be others (maybe us) killing it.

>>19151958
funny you mention that idea...I also thought we might just be like some bacteria or cell in a bigger (size-wise and spirituality-wise maybe too) which itself is a cell in a bigger....you know the deal.

Everytime I talked with someone about that they said "mhm, well interesting, possible, but I don't think so"

I think the idea is difficult to accept, if it was actually real, we'd just be a nothing - and who wanna be a nothing in a world of Popstars, Actors or Models.
dunno...

>>19149717
Nothing doesn't exist, that's why It took us so long to invent zero. Everything is something and time is a lie, so nothing appears or disappears, at least not for the universe as a whole

>>19155255
"took us so long to invent zero" recorded history suggests you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, the Egyptians had heiroglyphs for zero as early as 1740BC and as the development of mathematics in human history goes that's PRETTY FUCKING EARLY.

Seeing as you didn't bother to ensure your idiom wasn't fucking garbage the rest of your pseudo-intellectual suggestion can be disregarded.

The op has asked people to explain theories, not present self validating or cyclical garbage, you can get that from any book store by asking for a copy of the King James Bible.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (32KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1280x720px

To make dreams in to memes.
Pic related.

it's a test that 98% of the world failed

>>19151023
Blackpill actually.

>>19151023
>chooses an uncomfortable truth with evidence to support it
>bluepill
Are you sure you're not the one in denial?

>>19149717
There is no greater purpose to life other than living your life.

That's pretty much it, life it, enjoy the things we have here and appreciate all you can have, do, hold, and be.

People spend way too damn much time trying to invent new and greater purposes than that and they overcomplicate things to the point of driving themselves insane. And when doing that they are missing out on living.

We are not learning anything, not on any special mission, or evolving towards some super sacred goal at the end of time. We are here because we wan to be here and live here. The most mundane little shit in the world is still pretty fucking great. The problem is that we are so used to it that we often forget or ignore what we have here right now.

>>19149717

>Explain your theory/theories about why we/anything exist

Why stuff exists? It just does, if you try to look deeper then that your asking to small of a question.

>our purpose in life/universe in 1-2 sentences.

42

*

Wild card

The purpose of our life is nothing more then to gain experience and knowledge in an ever lasting fight against boredom.

>>19149717
No reason in particular. We got lucky.

weird shit this board has is not even that important.

>>19149717
>Explain your theory/theories about why we/anything exist and our purpose in life/universe in 1-2 sentences.

All the anti-matter and matter didn't destroy itself in the prelude. And, after enough time all non 0% events happen.

>>19149870
Don't forget the chicken tendies

>>19149717
The thought that right now, billions of light-years away, there are almost certainly advanced alien civilizations performing unimaginable feats of technology and medicine while we sit here on a Tibetan fingerpainting forum talking about ghosts fills me with such indescribable joy.

>>19149717
God made us.

OP said 1-2 sentences. Most of you failed.

To feel and experience.

It's what we're equipped to do, and it's the only thing any of us really do day in and day out.

>>19149717
existence is not binary.

>>19150937
sorry, we can't even really do that. we can barely model it.

>>19151302
balanced somethingness is nothingness

-4 + 4 = 0

>>19151994
we definitely do not understand our own being. the only way we know how to make "being" is by procreation.