I think therefore I am, so why should I exist? It seems as long as I exist there is a problem of explanation. It seems the only natural way it could be is for nothing to exist at all, as then no explanation is needed. But none the less this seems to be in direct disagreement with observation.

So self evidently I exist, the universe exists with no conceivable explanation which isn't an arbitrary, choice to exist.

I have considered that maybe nothing naturally needs something to set it apart as to what it is, and perhaps that is where we or I exist. Buy intuitively I can not escape the idea that there should only be empty, nothingness in need of no explanation. The only other idea which seem as natural is that there must be a God, and for what ever reasons, most likely forever inconceivable to us, made the apparent, necessary choice for me and this universe to exist. Thus due to my observations I and anyone capable of basic reasoning must conclude there is a God, or fundamental entity which made the choice for all of this to exist, pre-dating all cause and effect as the initial cause.

Now of course you could say aliens made the choice, or higher dimensions, or this is a simulation or anything but this segregates us and them into two different universe. I can suppose the same questions there as well as here and you get another never ending problem of explanation. So you could argue this problem either never goes away, or if it does its due to God, which for me feels like the explanation.

If anyone can be mature enough and voice their intuition on this matter and not anyone particular beliefs please do so.

  • Do you suppose that trees contemplate their existence? Perhaps it's a human problem? – Richard Mar 11 '19 at 13:00
  • I don't know what argument that makes, on the philosophical significance of trees vs humans? – marshal craft Mar 11 '19 at 13:05
  • it doesn't matter if minds are physical or otherwise.. it seems (we don't know for sure) that only humans ask why we're here. Humans are capable of asking a lot of questions, some of which are nonsensical. Like what would happen if the number 3 didn't exist. – Richard Mar 11 '19 at 13:06
  • The point is that doesn't explain why humans are conscious. So I can ask how moons form, but I can't ask why abstract laws govern the universe, why there is a universe. Seems that is an unatural and arbitrary choice to not have a fundamental cause, which quite frankly while MAYBE not proven, there could be a fundamental cause. Further it seems you should have to leave some amount of uncertainty as I leave. – marshal craft Mar 11 '19 at 13:08
  • "as long as I exist there is a problem of explanation" Why ? What does it mean ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 11 '19 at 13:23

Your problem is that you feel the need to take existence as a given based on your observations and experiences. But what do you mean by 'existence'? Are you sure you're right to do this?

There is a metaphysical theory for which nothing really exists. This states that what appears to exist has no intrinsic existence but exists only in dependence on an Ultimate (non-Kantian) phenomenon, such that by reduction this prior phenomenon is all that is truly real. All the rest would be appearances.

This solves your problem and allows all existing things to be reduced for a fundamental theory, but at the cost of taking mysticism seriously. History shows that you will not find another solution for your problem. The moment we reify existence and assume that what is Ultimate exists in the same way as pianos and galaxies our philosophy becomes paradoxical and incomprehensible.

There would be no need for God but there would be a need for a state, substance or entity that can fulfill the same function and give rise to the 'created' world along with you and me. Contrary to Kant this would be knowable and verifiable but only by way of a study of consciousness. The evidence of our physical senses will always be physical so physics can be of no help in explaining the existence of the physical.

Metaphysics endorses the idea that existence as we normally think of it, being paradoxical and inexplicable as you note, is a mistake, and a different view of it would be required for a plausible explanation. A review of the literature of philosophy and theology will confirm this.

If you choose to ignore this reducible view of existence than you will be stuck with the problems you raise, as are all philosophers who assume existence and reality are the same thing.

  • I have read nothing here capable of correcting the issues I describe. I would further group this into the choice to not explain beyond finite quantities. But yet the consideration of infinite limits, regardless of their physical existence, exist abstractly, and have proven quite useful in the physical world. – marshal craft Mar 11 '19 at 13:45
  • I do thank you however for your thoughts, I will consider them more thoroughly. – marshal craft Mar 11 '19 at 13:45
  • @marshalcraft - I'd be happy to expand the answer if asked, but I don't quite understand your comment so cannot respond. . . – user20253 Mar 11 '19 at 13:52
  • Peter, would you agree that existence is the fallout of perception? (For the sake of clarity for marshal.) – Randy Zeitman Mar 11 '19 at 13:57
  • @RandyZeitman - I'm, not sure quite what you mean. Do you mean existence depends on perception or must be established by perception? This would not be the view I'm describing. – user20253 Mar 11 '19 at 14:00

"Buy intuitively I can not escape the idea that there should only be empty, nothingness in need of no explanation."

Well that's quite a problem since nothing can't be observed. There is no "is" nothing if there's no observer.

Yes, I am saying perception of reality = reality.

The concept of 'things existing that I can't perceive' is a perception ... as is the idea that you wouldn't exist to perceive them.

"Thus due to my observations I and anyone capable of basic reasoning must conclude there is a God, or fundamental entity which made the choice for all of this to exist, pre-dating all cause and effect as the initial cause."

Why can't the universe have always existed? Wouldn't anything before the universe also be 'the universe' since the universe means all? In other words, all can't be created as the creator would also be needed.

So if you believe there must be a god then you must believe there must be infinite, successive gods ... which is why it seems one must conclude the universe always existed.

As for life in the universe please read about Abiogenesis.


"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes."

  • No, I discussed the issue, of expanding the universe to "this god" and chain of segregated universe with their own gods in the next. They wouldn't be the fundamental cause in this case, the point that is truely outside of it would be. Basically, this universe on it's own doesn't have a casual right to exist, however God, being God, and all Cause, does. So then thats all there is, God. It's the only thing which isn't in requirement of explanation, or choice to ignore questions, mark them as non well formed, etc. – marshal craft Mar 11 '19 at 22:21
  • @marshalcraft I agree. There's no causal right for the universe to exist ... therefore it must have always existed. But I don't know why god is all-cause ... if god exists doesn't god exist in the universe? If god is supernatural then god is moot as supernatural isn't real. – Randy Zeitman Mar 13 '19 at 0:46
  • I'm not opposed to a viewpoint or phrasing that the universe is God, except that I would prefer, "a part of God" and not rule out that more exists which is forever beyond our experiences. But oddly enough, in my spare time I like to not use Acham's razor, and frame hypothesis, especially on that which may seem to not matter. Like searching for classical theories which violate belly's inequality, to explain q.m. – marshal craft Mar 14 '19 at 6:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.