Why does reality exist?

delusional atheist here

why does demiurge exist
you are on tutorial mode

>you are on tutorial mode
tipping at u

the joke is i didn't intend for you to have a 'hard mode', meaning you can answer anything you like - tutorial mode

Not him, but strong here.

>can discuss concenpts without issue
>very little difference comparing one idea to another within theology or philosophy or across them
>atheists turn up
>RRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE fuck your imaginary friend
>retards rise to the occasion to defend said friend
I fucking hate ""atheists"". For 'rational' people a lot of them tend to be complete retards.

Even better. I prefer strong Tipler myself. I really enjoy how the concept works within so many frames of reference.

>im neither x nor y guys, why is everybody with an opinion so annoying

Nature is total chaos basically. Its fucking brutal and unfare and the only "fairness" we get is artificial societal norms we create ourselves, and even then it sucks. So based on this, its pretty safe to guess there is no sort of cosmic justice or "karma" or whatever you want to call it, and that the natural existence beyond earth is just as violent and unforgiving as it is here. So when you die, thats it.

The only way this isnt true is if there is some sort of cosmic judge (god) who determines how we are to be treated after death, if our consciousness continues to exist beyond death, and since even we cant decide on what that criteria would be, its hard to image anyone would match up with this divines judges criteria.

And we are only conscious based on our brains activity. Its a purely organic thing and if your brain is damaged in any significant way, it can hinder how you view reality.

also, we are all going to die and we dont know when it will be and it will most likely be very painful and horrible and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

So what if existence is hell?

I don't think shitting over autistic atheists makes me a fence sitting centerist or a horseshoe weenie, actually. Ever considered that looking at things as a dichotomy ever single time you're provided to points of reference is retarded?
>If he's not one or zero he must be half
Spectrums where a mistake. Relativism is a joke.

I honestly don't know a whole lot about it, and suggestions on how I can learn more about it?

>So when you die, thats it.
You can never destroy energy and as far as we know that's what is keeping our body together.

If we didn't exist before this point and won't exist after then we never could have existed in the first place.

This is the stupidest answer you could give. Because you see something doesn't mean it exists. That's the same as saying that since you've seen the face of God in a dream, it exists.

Reality is a made up construct by sentient animals to verify their otherwise meaningless existence.

Reality is just a word that we made up, reality is only an idea. Everything we see and feel does not really exist. It's just events happening around us and we are giving them meaning by calling it "reality"

Also, you're on a rock flying through space at thousands of miles per hour. All energy in the universe will deplete and everything that you say or read is meaningless.

ENJOY THE EXISTENTIAL CRISIS!

>doesn't know what the Anthropic Principle entails

What are you even talking about, mate?

It really depends on how you want to approach it. There are three ways I can think of. First is the religious version which has it that all matter attempting to reflect divinity (christian) not unlike the budhist view of all matter needing to find nirvana, really. It suggests that reality is inherently returning to Godhood from which it came.

The other approach is speculative using quantum mechanics and so on. The suggestion is, that if wave functions require an observer for properties to be derived, then for a universe to exist the universe must produce a method from which it can be observed. Hence humans. Tipler then expands this train of though and suggests that the universe is advancing towards the level sentience required to observe, just as we have. In his model, by the time the universe is dying all matter will be one large information network capable of near infinite processing and able to simulate the universe perfectly.

consciousness isnt energy. Youre brain works so you are conscious. When you die, your brain stops working so you stop being conscious and thus, stop existing. Existing is a freak occurrence, by all odds you shouldnt.

>le ebin dark internet post

this shit got old in 2006. God you niggers are boring

Of course there are variations upon it depending on who's talking about it but the crux is that observation is required for properties to define themselves and as such sapience is an essential component of a universe as those possible ones without will not exist (due to lack of observation).
From there if sapience is essential then it is likely a natural progression or phenomena and things like humans and AI will become more and more common to facilitate that.

"Energy"
Your decomposing body turning into heat and fodder for the worms is not really a continuation of existance of conscience.

>also, we are all going to die and we dont know when it will be and it will most likely be very painful and horrible and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

hardest black pill to swallow btw.

t. edgelord

No really. I used to like the "energy is eternal" argument but its pretty childish in the end because the way our energy goes off after death can be observed as nothing more then heat and nutrition and maybe some other stuff that doesnt think.
If you believw heat can think you are some weird kind of pantheist.

its not edgy, its just what happens. your emotions and your sight and your memories and your love for whoever and your sense of humor and your taste and sight ect are all functions of your brain. Once you die, your brain shuts off and all that stuff goes away.

Even best case scenario sci-fi mode. We just make a copy of our consciousness that lives on in a computer, but we still die. You can be a king or a street sweeper, but we all dance with the grim reaper.

youtube.com/watch?v=6Q-QH1XiCQw

Ship of Theseus.

It is just a simulation, statistically this is the most likely situation. I wonder what philosophical discourse will look like in a few decades from now once this idea has proliferated more. I am particularly interested to see what religious scholars might say.

>discussion shifts from athiesm to anthropic principle into whether concious thought can be considered energy unique unto itself
Wew Veeky Forums you always keep me guessing

>religious scholars
Something like god is simulating it and heaven is the real deal we earn through the simulation.
The simulation thing seems like decarte gone wrong tho.

One would hope they would be a bit more imaginative than that.

The simulation argument just leads to infinite regress, so we have to assume that there is a 'final layer' that is the fundamental reality. Then we're back to square one and Munchhausen's trilemma. Simulation is a red herring.

A bit off-topic here, but do any of you faggots know if there is some general consensus among researchers as to how cell-based lifeforms came to fruition from a bunch of inorganic space debris?

We dont know if reality exists, it could all be an illusion, ita unlikely but not impossible.

are we in the matrix?

Yes.

A good video on this is a documentary called The Secret Life of Chaos. Should be the first result in Google, on Dailymotion.

Search for abiogenesis maybe?

Consensus... not really. But there are highly convincing theories. Peep this (seriously worth the full watch): youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Literally every argument for reality has this issue.

There are hypothesis, but no concrete results. The way science works, there will be no 'concrete results' until scientists create a closed system that creates a lifeform.

Maybe, unlikely, but maybe.

>until scientists create a closed system that creates a lifeform.
Why do you need a lifeform in a closed system? That wouldnt prove anything, earth isnt a closed system.

>The simulation argument just leads to infinite regress
Not if you hold a Pythagorean/Platonist view on numbers and mathematics.

>Even best case scenario sci-fi mode. We just make a copy of our consciousness that lives on in a computer, but we still die.
Not if the computer takes up the function of the brain piecemeal.

>Literally every argument has this issues
FTFY

It doesn't have to have a meaning.

>tfw eternal recurrence is our inevitable fate
>tfw you realize you've lived and will live the same exact life God knows how many times

>Hard mode: no god
Kek is an observably real entity. Your premise is invalid.

Because it could not not exist.

so I can be here

>>tfw eternal recurrence is our inevitable fate
What makes you think eternal recurrence is even posible?

Its not a premise, its an hypothetical scenario.

>That's the same as saying that since you've seen the face of God in a dream, it exists.
>Someone seeing a dream with God in it didn't have a dream where he saw God in it
hurp durp

> *What* is reality?

The eternal, unintelligent, pitiless imbalance of unsatisfiable urge that manifests as a universal subjectivity knowing the archetypes of all natural beings, which is kaleidoscopically refracted as individually conscious animals and unconscious objects distributed across boundless space and throughout beginningless, endless time.

> Why does reality exist?

dunno

>Why does reality exist?

Because it wants to.

I forget where I heard it but someone said "It takes effort to exist, it takes energy. Wouldn't have been so much easier for there to have been nothing at all?"

Well, sometimes i think we(as humans) overthink it. There has been many ideas to why we exist. just food for thought, but what if space is time, and light is the rest? Kinda like father conciousness and mother form? in order to form something it has to come from somewhere. masculine/feminine ? projective/receptive? meditate/celebrate ? yin/yang? Maybe for example, when native americans dance ceremonially with the musicand cheer , etc, it is still meditation? to give not to take? also feelings always matter. if nobody had the ability to feel emotions, wed be bland. what if the rest of why is just in a different book? If i get to the end of a big question, and get so close but the book of my mind has no more info, imma open the next one, my heart. then my gut. you dont see wind, but you feel it is there. thats all you need. just throw some sand.

what the fuck are you talking about

lmao for real this dudes dumb as shit

>Wouldn't have been so much easier for there to have been nothing at all?

As if nothingness is some state that is more restful, more inert, than being; as if non-being could be a thing.

This, I think, is the same mistake that Leibniz makes:

"...why is there something rather than nothing? For nothing is simpler and easier than something."

- Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason (seventh section)

>no god
Then it doesn't matter why :^)

Have you stepped foot off this planet? Ihavent. Have you walked around the N and S poles? Ihavent. If a tree falls down in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it really fall?
vision is light reflecting back to the eyes. there is still a delay there. i think that is why utilizing only your mind to solve and communicate, isnt enough.

Is this meant to be new information to anyone on this website, let alone this board?

Veeky Forums doesn't exactly appeal to underage. This likely wouldn't trigger an existential crisis in anyone reading your post.

Also "events happening around us" implies that events can happen outside of our own perspectives, laying the groundwork for what we call, yes, reality.

these niggas

but until we can create synthetic neurons we're kinda fucked.

If reality is all an illusion, doesn't there have to be at least some ground level on which something exists, that we could call "reality"?

And then if we go so far as to agree with that, why would the reality we find ourselves in be any less legitimate than some hypothetical "ground level" reality that existence actually takes place in?

It's a question that answers itself.

That's bananas

> would the reality we find ourselves in be any less legitimate than some hypothetical "ground level" reality that existence actually takes place in?

Antinomies. Antinomies everywhere.

- K