Reason For Existence

[mrgreenbreeze04]

Please answer this question, "WHY ARE WE HERE?".

[Karkat]

I don't think anyone can know for sure.

[Bleid]

I believe that existence is absolutely necessary. I'm going to sleep soon though, so I won't explain my reasoning unless requested.

[Typhlosion]

I honestly don't know why people are sometimes obsessed on searching a meaning of life. Would it make a difference?

The only objective reason I see is procreation and survival of the human gene.

I'm also very curious to what Bleid has to say on this.

[James Dean]

To be a certain character of society. The whole consists of many characters. Just like a story, different people put the whole picture together so the plot isn't lost. :)

[CharlieHorse]

to question the meaning of existence

[Seafood]

TBH I don't think about it much because I get all depressed. Like there is no reason for me being here.

Try not to think about it.

[Miserabilia]

Simple answer:

We don't know.

We can go back and back in time but not further than the start of all things. This counts for the two main questions; our consciousness and the universe.
We can go back to our birth and on to our death, but we won't ever actualy know what happens to our consciousness before/after life, just like we don't know what happens before the big bang, so everything we know.

[Lovelife090994]

Some say we have no purpose. But you give life purpose which keeps you alive and is your drive. Some seek religion for this, but we are put on this Earth to fulfill a purpose. Usually that purpose involves helping others.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

To enjoy ourselves and have a good fucking time. What other reason is there to exist? And also, why sit around and question your existence when you could be doing something fun and meaningful?

[Kahn]

"Look at your body-
A painted puppet, a poor toy
Of jointed parts ready to collapse
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings."

[Lost in the Echo]

In my opinion, it's happiness and success; to leave some sort of legacy behind, and be remembered by others in a good manor.
In the end, though, life's meaning is really whatever you make it. If someone believes their meaning in life is just to be lazy and not do anything productive, then so be it. But as I said, I believe the meaning of life is to have aspirations, and to do some type of good while you're on this Earth.

[phuckphace]

life is meaningless and pointless so we give it our own meaning and a purpose. without that we have nothing.

[CosmicNoodle]

Life is meaningless, we simply happened to be, the right conditions and the right amount of time, life is bound to spring up eventually, we are that life, we have no big meaning, no reason to live, there is no all seeing god that created us, we are not some important phenomenon, we are basic cqrbon based lifeforms that live on a spec of dust floating through the infinite space of the universe, we sent even rare, if you follow the same scientific principals as me you will believe the universe is infinite, meaning life, is extremely common, just with large distances in between.

I could go in all day about this but CBA

[Gamma Male]

We are here because a long time ago a bunch of chemicals oozed around in a puddle and ended up forming RNA, resulting in the birth of the human species a few billion years later.

There is no inherent meaning to life, but I believe the one goal almost everyone strives for is to feel as many positive emotions as possible and as few negative emotions as possible. That's basically what all dreams boil down to.

[Miserabilia]

life is meaningless and pointless so we give it our own meaning and a purpose. without that we have nothing.

Life is meaningless, we simply happened to be, the right conditions and the right amount of time, life is bound to spring up eventually, we are that life, we have no big meaning, no reason to live, there is no all seeing god that created us, we are not some important phenomenon, we are basic cqrbon based lifeforms that live on a spec of dust floating through the infinite space of the universe, we sent even rare, if you follow the same scientific principals as me you will believe the universe is infinite, meaning life, is extremely common, just with large distances in between.

I could go in all day about this but CBA

nihilism kicks butt

[Bleid]

I honestly don't know why people are sometimes obsessed on searching a meaning of life. Would it make a difference?

The only objective reason I see is procreation and survival of the human gene.

I'm also very curious to what Bleid has to say on this.

After having read through all the other posts, I can see where they're all coming from, but I believe that they stop abruptly before we ought to if we're trying to find a genuine answer to this question.

I see a bit of this, "It's all meaningless" or "we're here because certain conditions are met", and then of course there's the more, as we would say, "yolo" answers. There's also some fairly poetic ones and I always appreciate poetry. There's also those like Ren whom admit that there's a lot of ignorance surrounding such difficult questions, and I can understand and respect that response. There's also your answer which I like, too.

My answer isn't poetic, but I believe it also doesn't demonstrate a meaninglessness to existence or anything of that sort.

Whenever I've tried to consider this topic in any sort of objective sense I've tried to take a look at the edges of our current scientific knowledge, just as many others have done. However, I find that there are a lot of assumptions there that we would need to do away with for any actual answer.

First, science is not enough. Science on its absolute best day, as everyone here would agree if they have even superficial knowledge of science, can only ever explain the observable world.

Now, if we're to take an objective stance, we should do away with this, because we would end up engaging in the logical fallacy of begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). What I mean by this is, we would have this state of affairs:

1. Why do we exist?
2. Physical phenomena X.
3. Well why is physical phenomena X the case?
4. Physical phenomena Y.

And so on and so forth. We would never get an answer that explains why the physical phenomena are the case without invoking other physical phenomena, which is circular reasoning in the end. We never actually get a real answer to the question, "Why do we exist?"

So, shortly after investigation, we come to the realization that science is worthless in this endeavor. It will only lead us to specious reasoning.
Then we have to go back to the drawing board, because science is merely one form of reasoning that we can use to evaluate the world.

So then, let's just look at reasoning on its own, and see if we can determine a justification for existence by using just logic.

Now, if we just try to use logic in its current form, we're going to be left with a similar issue we had with science. I'll explain what I mean:

In logic, we have the law of noncontradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction), the law of identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity) and the law of excluded middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). These are the three fundamental axioms of all logic and reasoning and they are known as the three traditional laws of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#Three_traditional_laws:_identity.2C_non-contradiction.2C_excluded_middle).

In summary, these are the properties of reality that are assumed can never be wrong. They are the fundamentals. They are the very reason that allows everything to make sense. So, let's go ahead and throw all of those away. Who needs them?

Why do we throw them away? Because they are also assumptions.

Now, we're left with this state of affairs:

1. It is possible for X to be true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
2. It is possible for X = X to be true AND X ≠ X to be true at the same time and in the same respect.
3. It is possible for both X to be false, and the negation of X to be false.
4. It is possible for both X to be true, and the negation of X to be true.

Now, given this state of affairs we can use metalogic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic) to evaluate what would be the result of doing away with every last one of our assumptions about what makes sense.

Specifically, the Principle of Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion).

In short, what we're left with is that all possibilities, both conceivable to us and inconceivable to us are simultaneously the case and not the case at once. This differs significantly from Multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) theory, in that it goes beyond it.

Hence, existence is necessary, because from contradictory states of affairs, anything follows necessarily. Existence is also unnecessary by the same reasoning, but as a sort of natural selection principle, we are not able to physically experience a reality that does not make sense to us, and are left with the one we inhabit (even though all must be the case, simultaneously).

TL;DR

1. Abandon science. (Reason why is provided)
2. Abandon logic. (Reason why is provided)
3. Principle of Explosion.
4. There's no reason that we are not here, as well as no reason that we are here (at once, and in the same respect). Then, as a consequence of a sort of natural selection, we experience the part of reality that we exist within, with these particular physical properties and logical rules.

I'll go back through now that I've written it all and I'll take some time to go Google search and find some simple readings that explain some of the more esoteric things I've brought up so that anyone can easily follow along if they so desire. Not because anything I've said is particularly intelligent or over anyone's head, but it's just that not everyone has the time or interest to read the same things that I do, so these concepts/ideas might not be known to all readers that come to this thread. I'll provide the actual academic sources regarding the topics above to anyone whom requests them.

[Gamma Male]

nihilism kicks butt

Existential nihilism kicks but. Epistemological and moral nihilism are complete nonsense.

[Miserabilia]

..

Aren't you using logic to conclude that something is in some manner because we can't use logic on it?

Sorry for the poor choice of words.

[Bleid]

Aren't you using logic to conclude that something is in some manner because we can't use logic on it?

Sorry for the poor choice of words.

That's where what's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic

comes into play.

Essentially, it's the manner logicians use to reason about (our system of reasoning). So we can justifiably posit what would occur if a given axiom or rule were omitted, without begging the question.

Now you might say, "Then isn't that simply an assumption?"

Not necessarily, because we're not making any assumptions when we employ meta theory to logic. We're simply following what's (not) present to its necessary conclusions (if there are any). There's also a fairly technical understanding to an assumption in logic.

It's very subtle. I can try to provide as many examples as you'd like if it's still unclear as to what's going on.

Pretty much, what was going on above was:

If we eliminate all possible constraints on existence, then what do we get?
Well, we get that there's no constraint, and consequently, there's nothing we can say outside of the fact that there's no longer a constraint. Then, considering we're in existence at least in some respect, it's necessity.

It also happens to be a necessity that we are not existing at the same time and in the same respect. However, that part of what I said is beyond my understanding, and I'd wager beyond anyone's understanding, because it makes no logical sense. But it's also a necessary consequence of having no constraints, so it shouldn't be omitted.

If it doesn't make sense, then that's good, because it shouldn't. That's what happens when we try to go to the end of human understanding.

However, this is a particular kind of nonsense. It's not merely arbitrary, it's grounded in our highest knowledge of reason and science. It's just that, we can't avoid getting to incomprehensible things when talking about things that are, well, incomprehensible. Just like the Principle of Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). Its conclusion is nonsense, but that principle is also well-grounded in our understanding of logic.

Hopefully, even though it's all admittedly nonsense (but the good kind), it'll give us something to think about and keep this interesting topic going.

[Miserabilia]

That's where what's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic

comes into play.

Essentially, it's the manner logicians use to reason about (our system of reasoning). So we can justifiably posit what would occur if a given axiom or rule were omitted, without begging the question.

Now you might say, "Then isn't that simply an assumption?"

Not necessarily, because we're not making any assumptions when we employ meta theory to logic. We're simply following what's (not) present to its necessary conclusions (if there are any). There's also a fairly technical understanding to an assumption in logic.

It's very subtle. I can try to provide as many examples as you'd like if it's still unclear as to what's going on.

Pretty much, what was going on above was:

If we eliminate all possible constraints on existence, then what do we get?
Well, we get that there's no constraint, and consequently, there's nothing we can say outside of the fact that there's no longer a constraint. Then, considering we're in existence at least in some respect, it's necessity.

It also happens to be a necessity that we are not existing at the same time and in the same respect. However, that part of what I said is beyond my understanding, and I'd wager beyond anyone's understanding, because it makes no logical sense. But it's also a necessary consequence of having no constraints, so it shouldn't be omitted.

If it doesn't make sense, then that's good, because it shouldn't. That's what happens when we try to go to the end of human understanding.

However, this is a particular kind of nonsense. It's not merely arbitrary, it's grounded in our highest knowledge of reason and science. It's just that, we can't avoid getting to incomprehensible things when talking about things that are, well, incomprehensible. Just like the Principle of Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). Its conclusion is nonsense, but that principle is also well-grounded in our understanding of logic.

Hopefully, even though it's all admittedly nonsense (but the good kind), it'll give us something to think about and keep this interesting topic going.

That's pretty interesting. Though I've never studies the principle of explosion as to a reson for existence of our universe, I've always more intuitively felt it would be more logical for our universe to exist because it exists (or because it didn't exist if it didn't exist... even though that doesn't make any sense...).

[Bleid]

That's pretty interesting. Though I've never studies the principle of explosion as to a reson for existence of our universe, I've always more intuitively felt it would be more logical for our universe to exist because it exists (or because it didn't exist if it didn't exist... even though that doesn't make any sense...).

I agree with your intuition. Its existence is necessary (exists because it exists). And above, all I really provided was a fair justification as to why that is. :)

[CosmicNoodle]

Nihilism kicks butt

(Yes, I put a capital into your quote, your lack of it annoyed me)

Nihilism is the only real thing that fit's into my world view, and me being an athiest. It just makes sense to me, plus it makes the universe more magical to me, being here for a reason is to specific, too resrtictive, having no reason for existance gives me infinite options that I get to chose myself. Isnm't that better? Not having a reason to exist? But making it up yourself as you go along, bumbling through the infinite wasteland that we call the percieved universe, npot knowing what we're meant to do. Just doing as we see fit?

Thats so much more apealing to me, than having a pre defined reason for existance.

[Miserabilia]

(Yes, I put a capital into your quote, your lack of it annoyed me)

Nihilism is the only real thing that fit's into my world view, and me being an athiest. It just makes sense to me, plus it makes the universe more magical to me, being here for a reason is to specific, too resrtictive, having no reason for existance gives me infinite options that I get to chose myself. Isnm't that better? Not having a reason to exist? But making it up yourself as you go along, bumbling through the infinite wasteland that we call the percieved universe, npot knowing what we're meant to do. Just doing as we see fit?

Thats so much more apealing to me, than having a pre defined reason for existance.

Me too. I also think it feels freeer. Free-er? Freeër? I don't know how to spell that. More free.

[Vlerchan]

... Principle of Explosion ...
You're going to have to explain this one to me. I've read the Wiki page twice now and I'm still unsure how it makes sense (or "good" nonsense).

---

edit: I'd also appreciate if you could expand upon why we need to take note of the non-observable world (i.e., presume its existence).

[Bleid]

You're going to have to explain this one to me. I've read the Wiki page twice now and I'm still unsure how it makes sense (or "good" nonsense).

Of course. I'd be happy to.

First, I'll briefly go over a contradiction:

A contradiction is a statement that describes a state of affairs that is logically impossible to be true.

Here's a contradiction:I am happy & I am not happy.

Now, hopefully we agree that it is an impossibility that I am both happy & not happy at the same time and in the same respect.

What the Principle of Explosion states is that, IF a contradiction IS the case, this implies that any given state of affairs is able to be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.

In simpler terms, this means that the following statements:

I exist.
I am happy.
I have a pet dog.
I am alive.

Can be both true and false at the same time. (The same for anything)

So essentially, we get that from a contradiction anything follows, because there is no longer a constraint that:

if the statement:
"I exist." is true, then "I do not exist." must be false.

I can provide you with an actual example within a logical proof of how Principle of Explosion would be used in a formal setting if you'd like. I would explain any and all of the symbols and notations used in the case that they aren't all known. (I would also re-write it in an English format alongside it)

The example proof would only be at most 3 lines long. Nothing too complicated would be going on.

edit: I'd also appreciate if you could expand upon why we need to take note of the non-observable world (i.e., presume its existence).

It's perfect that you brought this up immediately after, because our reasoning behind the Principle of Explosion above is the same reason why we need to take note of the non-observable world.

We're making an assumption otherwise that the observable world is all there is to reality. Our goal is to do away with any biases and assumptions in order to take an honest, objective look at why there is existence.

If we presume there is only the physical world, then we're engaging in multiple assumptions and biases in our explanation. The purpose is to do away with those biases and assumptions. We're not really presuming that there's anything beyond the observable, we're just getting rid of the assumption that all there is is observable.

[Vlerchan]

Our goal is to do away with any biases and assumptions in order to take an honest, objective look at why there is existence.
I get this. We're trying to reason inside the most neutral state of affairs possible.

Being someone who's very drawn to empiricism you can imagine how I have a hard time accepting this. But I'll play along because I understand why you're doing it.

edit: So essentially, we get that from a contradiction anything follows, because there is no longer a constraint that:
It's this bit I was unsure about.

In a situation where two statements contradict (i.e., X = X and X =/= X) why does that lead to there having to be a reason for existence. I'm presuming by lacking constraints you mean that the law of non-contradiction (and other traditional axioms) no longer applying means that anything could possibly be true - but what I don't understand is why anything stated preceding has to be true, i.e., "are the case".

I can provide you with an actual example within a logical proof of how Principle of Explosion would be used in a formal setting if you'd like, as well. I would explain any and all of the symbols and notations used in the case that they aren't all known. (I would also re-write it in an English format)
If you have the time that might be a good idea. And I'd appreciate if the symbols where explained too.

[Malibu_Barbie]

I think scientifically, our main purpose is to contribute to the process of natural (and nowadays you could argue that it's also artificial) selection. People are born with slightly different alterations than their parents that defines life or death for them. This happens globally and the 'stronger' babies survive to adulthood. Each generation is different to it's previous ones and is adapted better or wore than them. These generations evolve and will ideally get better and better. Our job is to procreate and to raise the next generation which will raise the next. Through evolution, we will try to ensure that we thrive and grow as a species to avoid extinction.

[Bleid]

Being someone who's very drawn to empiricism you can imagine how I have a hard time accepting this.

Oh, yes. I completely understand where you're coming from.

It's this bit I was unsure about.

It leads to that conclusion for the reason that there are absolutely no constraints.

Given a situation where we have no constraints on what occurs, it essentially means that everything will occur by necessity (because there is no reason whatsoever for it not to occur, and there are no constraints that indicate that it should not occur.

A constraint is specifically: A reason why a particular situation has to be the case over any other situation.

When we remove all constraints, then we effectively removed all reasons why some things happen at some times and other things do not happen at those same times.

When we remove the constraint of the law of noncontradiction, we essentially removed the constraint that says that reality is binary by nature (either something is true, or it isn't true), and so things are consequently both true & false at once.

There's also a proof I can provide for this idea that would likely help, too. I'll gladly provide that. The only reason I don't just do it immediately is because I'd prefer not to have an even more massive wall of a post, since what comes next will take up a large space. I'd gladly do it in a separate post once you respond and we go over what I just wrote, though.

If you have the time that might be a good idea. And I'd appreciate if the symbols where explained too.Of course.

While writing out all of the explanations for the symbols, I realized it might be a lot to take in all at once, so I edited my post and instead, I'll write out the short proof in two different formats. One symbolic, then one English. It should make it clear in context.


Symbolic:
Let A = "It is raining."
Let B = "Bleid does not exist."

1. Assume (A ∧ ¬A)
_______________
2. A
3. ¬A
4. A ∨ B
5. B

English:
1. Assume (It is raining and it is not raining)
_______________
2. It is raining.
3. It is not raining.
4. It is raining or Bleid does not exist.
5. Bleid does not exist.

Now, I've laid out the actual proof, but unless you have a formal understanding, you might not understand why any line makes any sense.

The reason for line #1:This line is an assumption. We're assuming a contradiction is true to prove that we can demonstrate anything (even false things) from that state of affairs.
The reason for line #2:This line is derived from line #1 using this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplification) logical inference rule.
The reason for line #3:This line is derived from line #1 the exact same way that line #2 was derived from line #1. We used the simplification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplification) logical inference rule.
The reason for line #4:This is one that may be difficult to grasp. This line is derived from line #2 using this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction) logical inference rule.
The reason for line #5:This is the conclusion of our proof. This might also take some further explaining in English. It is derived using this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_syllogism) logical inference rule on line #3 and line #4.

If it's unclear so far, when I write:

1. (some stuff)

That's a particular line, and that's what I'm referring to in my explanations above.

Both proofs follow a linear line of thinking. That is, line #1 comes logically before lines #2, #3, #4, and #5. Any given line is a necessary consequence of some line(s) above it.

As I said above, the last two inferences (and maybe even every line) may need more explaining in English, which I would be happy to provide.

Hopefully my reasoning about why existence is necessary will make sense after we explain all of this with clarity and detail. Let me know if you'd like me to explain any given line of the proofs. It can get a little tricky.


"=" is pretty much the same as it is in mathematics.
Capital letters represent statements.
"¬" represents negation.
"∧" represents "and"
"∨" represents "or"

I also checked Google to see if I could find a concise explanation in the case you need more. Here's a link, if they're still a bit confusing.
List of Logic Symbols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols)

[Vlerchan]

Right. I think I've wrapped my head around it now. Thanks for your patience.

[Miserabilia]

Oh, yes. I completely understand where you're coming from.



It leads to that conclusion for the reason that there are absolutely no constraints.

Given a situation where we have no constraints on what occurs, it essentially means that everything will occur by necessity (because there is no reason whatsoever for it not to occur, and there are no constraints that indicate that it should not occur.

A constraint is specifically: A reason why a particular situation has to be the case over any other situation.

When we remove all constraints, then we effectively removed all reasons why some things happen at some times and other things do not happen at those same times.

When we remove the constraint of the law of noncontradiction, we essentially removed the constraint that says that reality is binary by nature (either something is true, or it isn't true), and so things are consequently both true & false at once.



That.. makes a lot of sense actualy. Saying something can happen actualy means there's a constraint.
So we are actualy quite sure that the universe has to exist :lol:

[Bleid]

Right. I think I've wrapped my head around it now. Thanks for your patience.

Any time.

That.. makes a lot of sense actualy. Saying something can happen actualy means there's a constraint.
So we are actualy quite sure that the universe has to exist :lol:

Of course! :)

[Dying Ember]

Maybe there is no meaning to life.

[Aajj333]

Skeleton War

[DeadEyes]

Basically, it's just the human obsession to give a reason to everything (hence why religion was created).
Not everything has a reason, it just is.

[Bleid]

Basically, it's just the human obsession to give a reason to everything (hence why religion was created).
Not everything has a reason, it just is.

We would still need a reason as to why it, as you say, "just is."

Why couldn't it be that it "just isn't"? There needs to be some reason for the "just is."

[DeadEyes]

We would still need a reason as to why it, as you say, "just is."


I don't.

[Babs]

When I was a child, my parents told me that we exist because God created us and we were created to worship God. I didn't necessarily think so, despite being a Christian at the time. I'm an atheist now, so now I don't believe it at all.
I don't really know for sure. I believe in the big bang and all that, I believe our existence is a coincidence. I believe our lives have no set meaning, but the meaning to our lives is what the individual makes of theirs. Your life, your meaning, is what you make it to be.

[Paladino]

I think how are we here, like how did humans get here, is a bigger question. Maybe that would give us the answer to the reason for existance.

[Bleid]

I don't.

Ah, so you're going based off of personal opinion. Fair enough, then. I won't hold you to any other standard of adequate reasoning.

[DeadEyes]

Ah, so you're going based off of personal opinion. Fair enough, then. I won't hold you to any other standard of adequate reasoning.

Don't even try to insult my intelligence, it's not going to work.
Your so called reasoning is also based on your personal opinion, which may or may not change based on what you read and hear.
Yet, your own personal views are not necessarily better than mine. You assume the fact everybody has to seek for a reason while I simply prove you it's not the case since I (who is probably not the only one) need not to find a reason to everything.

[Miserabilia]

Don't even try to insult my intelligence, it's not going to work.
Your so called reasoning is also based on your personal opinion, which may or may not change based on what you read and hear.
Yet, your own personal views are not necessarily better than mine. You assume the fact everybody has to seek for a reason while I simply prove you it's not the case since I (who is probably not the only one) need not to find a reason to everything.

He's not insulting your intelligence, he's observing that you're posting based on your opinion and not claiming it as trurth, which is why he doesn't counter or oppose it. He literaly said nothing hostile so I don't see where this is coming from.

[DeadEyes]

He's not insulting your intelligence, he's observing that you're posting based on your opinion and not claiming it as trurth, which is why he doesn't counter or oppose it. He literaly said nothing hostile so I don't see where this is coming from.

Indeed, you fail to see it.

[Miserabilia]

Indeed, you fail to see it.

Fail to see? Elaborate?

[dakeep18]

to reproduce and make the best genetic outcome possible lol no lie

[Bleid]

Don't even try to insult my intelligence, it's not going to work.
Your so called reasoning is also based on your personal opinion, which may or may not change based on what you read and hear.
Yet, your own personal views are not necessarily better than mine. You assume the fact everybody has to seek for a reason while I simply prove you it's not the case since I (who is probably not the only one) need not to find a reason to everything.

It wasn't an insult to your intelligence. When I commented sayingWe would still need a reason as to why it, as you say, "just is."

Why couldn't it be that it "just isn't"? There needs to be some reason for the "just is."You said exactly,I don't.This indicates that you're going based off of your personal opinion.

Fair enough?

[DeadEyes]

This indicates that you're going based off of your personal opinion.

Not personal opinion, but personal experience. Your beliefs are based on your own opinion which you use bits of informations to rely on. The way you interpret those informations is your own, therefore, everything is a question of perception.

[Bleid]

Not personal opinion, but personal experience. Your beliefs are based on your own opinion which you use bits of informations to rely on. The way you interpret those informations is your own, therefore, everything is a question of perception.

I understand. I was not using my personal beliefs when I mentioned that to you, however.

I was using actual facts of logic.
Being that, if something is true, there must be a provided reason for why it is true.

You said it can be that it "just is" - logic requires a reason for why this is true.
That's not my opinion, that's simply a fact of the discipline.

See what I mean?

[DeadEyes]

I understand. I was not using my personal beliefs when I mentioned that to you, however.

I was using actual facts of logic.
Being that, if something is true, there must be a provided reason for why it is true.

You said it can be that it "just is" - logic requires a reason for why this is true.
That's not my opinion, that's simply a fact of the discipline.

See what I mean?

So called facts also can be interpreted in different ways, there's also different kinds of logics. Where you say facts, I say bullshit.

[Bleid]

So called facts also can be interpreted in different ways, there's also different kinds of logics. Where you say facts, I say bullshit.

There's not 'different kinds of logics'. There's different formal systems for the same logic (propositional, modal, predicate, etc). They're all the same logic, just like there's multiple systems of mathematics (algebra, calculus, arithmetic), but they are all encompassed within mathematics.

So what fact can be interpreted in different ways that you're referring to?

[DeadEyes]

There's not 'different kinds of logics'. There's different formal systems for the same logic

Facts can be distorted by perception, ever heard the saying, nothing is for sure? And also, question everything and anything? There is different kinds of logic, not everybody are thinking the same way (obviously). With one fact, many people will come to different conclusions and observations based on their own logic.

[DeadEyes]

I've always more intuitively felt it would be more logical

You felt it would be more logical, is implying that what you consider to be logical is based on your feelings and intuition on the subject matter. This simple sentence proves that logic itself is based on perception.

[Miserabilia]

Facts can be distorted by perception, ever heard the saying, nothing is for sure? And also, question everything and anything? There is different kinds of logic, not everybody are thinking the same way (obviously). With one fact, many people will come to different conclusions and observations based on their own logic.

A fact can be distorted and used wrongly. Information can be given out in a distorted manner.
But a fact is a fact and something that logicaly follows is something that logicaly follows.

With one fact, many people will come to different conclusions and observations based on their own logic.

It seems you're stuck in a loop. Yes, "their own logic" is what people use to distort or perceive information to make it easier to understand for themselves.
But LOGIC and science are not just personal little things that someone can create by just saying it.
I can not take a fundemental law of logic like ockhams razor, completely change it, and still say it is logical.
It may be logical to me, but once you equate it, it simply doesn't fit. It does not work, it doesn't logicaly follow, it just does not work or make sense in any way.
You felt it would be more logical, is implying that what you consider to be logical is based on your feelings and intuition on the subject matter. This simple sentence proves that logic itself is based on perception.

I was using logical as a term to describe something that seems more logical to me; in essence the word is used in two ways

-Something is easier to accept or understand to me (It seems logical to me, I feel it would be logical,) (Unofficial)

-Something is logical, follows logicaly, by the rules of logic. These are NOT subject to personal opinion and perception.


-

[DeadEyes]

It seems you're stuck in a loop.

Funny you say that, I was thinking exactly that about you guys.

[Miserabilia]

Funny you say that, I was thinking exactly that about you guys.

I've seen that. Numorous times, which is completely fine, but atleast try to explain what is wrong about the argument, or give an improved version of it. I have yet to learn what was wrong about my argument, or in what fashion it was circular.
So, feel free to. Don't feel obliged, but I'd sure appreciate to atleast know what is wrong.

[Bleid]

Facts can be distorted by perception, ever heard the saying, nothing is for sure? And also, question everything and anything? There is different kinds of logic, not everybody are thinking the same way (obviously). With one fact, many people will come to different conclusions and observations based on their own logic.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. However, I wasn't talking about any individual person's opinion on what constitutes logic. I was particularly talking about what constitutes actual logic, and hence, actual valid reasoning that is demonstrable and provable.

Specifically, I'm referring to logical validity in actual logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity).

Which, as you'll see if you check that, we need our conclusions to be entailed by premises.
In other words, we can't just get that "it just is" without some sort of reason that entails this as true.

And again, it's fine if you'd like to go by your own idea of what logic is and say that you don't need a reason why "it just is". That's none of my concern. I was simply going by what the actual study of logic requires.

[DeadEyes]

Which, as you'll see if you check that, we need our conclusions to be entailed by premises.

The issue with this, is the premise itself may eventually be proven false and your reasoning based on that premise might be flawed, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

[Aajj333]

Skeleton War

[Bleid]

The issue with this, is the premise itself may eventually be proven false

That's concerning soundness - not logical validity. There is a difference.

and your reasoning based on that premise might be flawed, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

This is not a problem, because the reasoning is itself the argument. If the reasoning is flawed, then it is not logically valid. That's what it means to be logically valid.

I can show you some logically valid arguments if you're curious as to how this is determined. It's a very rigorous study and it's the entire foundation of mathematics. There's no biases or opinions involved in determining good reasoning in actual logic. Just like there's no biases or opinions involved when I solve a mathematical equation for the solution.

there is no such thing as absolute truth.
In addition to the above, this quote is a contradictory statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction). It's provably incorrect.

Either that quote is a truth, in which case you've just proven it is false.
Or, that statement is false to begin with.
Either way? That statement is false.

So overall, considering all of your issues that you claimed exist within the description of validity are accounted for and aren't actual issues, it's fair to say that we still need a reason why this existence of ours "just is."

Again, you can feel free to go by your own idea of what constitutes valid reasoning and say we don't need a justification for this to be true - no one is stopping you. However, as long as we're going by what is actually validly reasoned, then it's certainly the case that we still need a reason why it "just is."

[DeadEyes]

If the reasoning is flawed, then it is not logically valid. That's what it means to be logically valid.

There, that's the whole issue, you may believe your reasoning is valid while it's actually flawed. Again, I haven't seen anything proving we need to find a reason to exist, Some induviduals obviously have the need to find a reason and some others don't (like me) which was my point.

[Whiskers]

I believe we don't actually have a reason to exist our creation was an accident but I'm an atheist so I guess my answer may be biased

[Verminicious Knid]

Maybe our reason for existing is to find a reason to keep on existing.

[Bleid]

There, that's the whole issue, you may believe your reasoning is valid while it's actually flawed. Again, I haven't seen anything proving we need to find a reason to exist, Some induviduals obviously have the need to find a reason and some others don't (like me) which was my point.

Of course. However, I can demonstrate with numerous proofs as to precisely why it is anything but flawed. So, I'll go with it until I or someone else can demonstrate any actual flaw.

You have however seen things proving we need to find a reason to exist. It just so happens that you disagree with the study of logic as it currently stands.

Since we do have to grant that the idea behind the word "proving" comes entirely from logic as it currently stands, so it would be silly to say you haven't seen it done (when it's defined to have been done in that system) you know?

But I do understand what you mean. It's just that you're limited by the language we have to speak, and there's no other real way to express it.

So, we can agree to disagree. I'll stick to the traditional system of reasoning and you can by all means keep your own and feel free to believe it can be that it "just is."

[darthearth]

Begin logic

The OP question cannot be definitively answered, only explored. And I did like Bleid's initial exploration. But I think it can't even be explored unless one considers the transcendental existence. If one considers the transcendental (the transcendent cause of the cosmos), then one realizes our existence would be obviously derived from it (it being our cause). So at the very least our reason for existence is that we are derived from what is transcendent. And it also seems to follow that if it were the case the transcendent has some meaning, then we by derivation would have meaning. In fact it is possible that the meaning we assign to ourselves through whatever process may indicate an actual meaning in the transcendent (since we are derived from it).

End logic

Begin faith

If one simply chooses to consider the transcendent to be God (and there is no irrationality in this, since the transcendent is formally completely unknown and can be subject to any sort of speculation), our reason and meaning obviously derives from this God, the meaning of life then simply becomes to have life, because God is life (according to the Christian belief system). But this last view results from the chosen identification of the transcendent with the Christian God, which is not formally logical, but taken as part of the overall faith. So I for one, being Christian, have a definite reason and meaning for my existence, this reason and meaning is Christ. An additional benefit to this is that we actually receive eternal life for this faith, because God, our transcendent cause, IS eternal life itself and bestows it to us through our unification with Him in Christ.

End faith

[lukescomputers]

The reasons for life is to survive and reproduce. 9th Grade Biology?

[Bleid]

The reasons for life is to survive and reproduce. 9th Grade Biology?

This is speciously reasoned.

First, "Reason For Existence" does not exactly imply the same thing as "Reason For Life."

Second of all, even if we grant that we're talking about "Reason For Life" - what you provided above is a misunderstanding.

They don't say that the reason for life is to survive and reproduce when they talk about natural selection and so forth.

What they mean is, the life that is capable of surviving and reproducing is precisely what ends up lasting because it is able to survive and reproduce.

This does not mean the reason for life is to survive and reproduce.
This means that if it's going to continue as a life form, it needs to be able to survive and reproduce.

Nowhere in there is any explanation for why there is life to begin with.

A misunderstanding of antecedent (https://www.google.com/search?q=antecedent&oq=antecedent&aqs=chrome..69i57.1504j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) versus consequent (https://www.google.com/search?q=consequent&oq=consequent&aqs=chrome..69i57.1352j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8).

[Kate]

Well we exist because of that one first cell (from the scientific standpoint) but I still don't understand how the first cell came to be. It's one of those questions that will never be solved which we just have to deal with.

[DeadEyes]

The OP question cannot be definitively answered, only explored.

That sums it up right there, this is all only speculation and nothing of this can be proven for a fact, your guess is as good as mine so hence my point: I don't find it worthy to seek for a reason as I believe there is none.

[Miserabilia]

Well we exist because of that one first cell (from the scientific standpoint) but I still don't understand how the first cell came to be. It's one of those questions that will never be solved which we just have to deal with.

I think it's a sadly common idea that all life is is cells.
We have different types of life than cells, all around us daily, but we don't even take it in concideration.
Í'm being completely hypothetical here, don't get me wrong, but it's atleast reasonable to concider that life started in different forms than cells we know today. We already know ancient life was a completely differnt catogory of orgaisms than what we can see today, so I think it's pretty plausible to say life started out as something smaller, only barely complicated enough to be able to copy itself, and "evolved" from there on.
I don't know, to be honest. It's something I really want to study later, it's my favourite subject on pretty much anything ever.

[/long post]

[DeadEyes]

Well we exist because of that one first cell (from the scientific standpoint) but I still don't understand how the first cell came to be. It's one of those questions that will never be solved which we just have to deal with.

so I think it's pretty plausible to say life started out as something smaller, only barely complicated enough to be able to copy itself, and "evolved" from there on.

The theory of evolution would be the natural course of things and not a meaning to existence, which tends to prove the chaos theory, basically everything is randomized (and there is no specific purpose for life).

[Miserabilia]

The theory of evolution would be the natural course of things and not a meaning to existence,

I know, I wasn't refering to the OP, I was getting a little off topic on the evolution of cellular life, which isn't drectly related to existence iteslf.

[DeadEyes]

I was getting a little off topic on the evolution of cellular life, which isn't drectly related to existence iteslf.

I believe the contrary in fact, that was the point of my post, that the whole existence is simply that, evolution. Nothing more and nothing less, all the rest are inventions of the human mind.

I think it's a sadly common idea that all life is is cells.
We have different types of life than cells, all around us daily, but we don't even take it in concideration.

Well we exist because of that one first cell (from the scientific standpoint) but I still don't understand how the first cell came to be.

Everything is chemical, and matter is eternal, the birth of life has to be a chemical reaction between two elements that randomly got in contact, that's at least the explanation they came up with in Star Trek and it's simply the one that makes the most sense.

[normalperson]

there is none we just do. :/

[RRay99]

Stopped trying to figure this one out. World's too messed up to believe in a God. We exist. We have one life to live or more commonly known as YOLO lol