Is god the only answer for why we exist?

I don't know where to post this, so I'll just post this in here >.>
Is god the only answer for why we exist?
I heard that one thing, "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you have to create the universe first" and it got me thinking of different ways that the universe came about...
Are there any other explanations for why we're here besides a god?

 

Creating the universe allows the "how" for the pie to exist, but not the "why" or purpose or meaning. The why of the pie would be to feed something (at least in our eyes). I have heard it been taught that we exist to make each other happy. If everyone did that, everyone would be happy. Seems like a pretty good answer for why we exist. Or at least a mutually beneficial answer.

 

We're a science experiment or castaways from another world.

 

Even if god were real it wouldn't be an answer for why we exist unless the absent-minded bastard finally told us.

 

son, when a mummy and daddy love each other very much...

 

^^^ or two strangers get very drunk...

 

There are two relevant meanings of 'why' - mechanistic (how did it happen) and teleological (what did it happen for).

I'm not really sure which one is what this thread is about.

 

both how and why are different, like Leviathan said.
the how debate is way in hypothesis at this point in time, theres the string/membrane theory, big bang theory exclusively with the string theory, creationistic theory, etc.
but the why question will also be up in the air and for you to hypothesize about until theres some kind of conclusion on the how.

personally i think i believe in something like the string theory, and that our universe is kind like an atom or something smaller, in which the why is that civilization, whether it be us or another species is to reach the boundaries and control of our universe as if we were a protein or cancer cell on another huge organ-like thing.

'god' is such a simple, and moronic thing to reside on, imo. everything is a system, and when it comes to god, there isnt one.

 

God is not an intelligent answer for why anything exists because if God existed... WHY WOULD GOD EXIST?? It's circular reasoning that really answers nothing but somehow soothes simple egos and that's good enough for 95% of the population.

 

As Relaxxx has pointed out, there's the old problem of the infinite regress: if God created the universe then who created him? However, let's consider a somewhat similar speculation that answers both the "how" and "why" aspects of the question.

It's conceivable that the universe was created by a race of super-intelligent aliens from another dimension as a science experiment. In a manner of speaking, we might be an exhibit at a 19th-dimensional Science Fair. Wouldn't it be embarassing for us if we didn't even win first prize?

"Your technique of imploding intersecting probability membranes was clever," the judges might remark to the young entrant, "but the end result was not very exciting. Those 'humans', as you call them, are barely more intelligent than our house pets. Why, they don't even have an intuitive grasp of why prime numbers exist!"

 

Why is "why? needed?

Is "why" not a human conceit?

"Because"

 

Perhaps the "why" is a human conceit, if the questioner demands a human-centered reason, but very similar questions can be asked without referring back to humanity:

"For what reason does the universe exist?" or
"What caused the universe to exist?" or
"What or whose purpose does the universe serve?"

It's more concise to ask why it exists, though.

 

When someone asks this they usually assume the universe has a purpose. Unless of course, you simply say "none", but I've never encountered any religious person that would.

 

I look at universe and I see it on the time idea with a beggining and a end, without mind and without the time idea I see that the reality is eternity, nothing is created nothing is destroyed/ends. With mind we can't really understand it. (The idea of creation is and illusion of mind, a question of perception and consciousness).

There's no time to understand life, many people tried, many are trying, but life is a mystery. When you reach a point that you understand that every answer gives you another one hundred questions you simply stop asking and start enjoying.

 

Hmm. It's interesting that people ask for the "purpose" of the universe but aren't clear about what they mean by "purpose".

What is the purpose of an automobile? Why, isn't it obvious? Its purpose is to earn money for the manufacturer. Oh, and it also serves to give ecologists something to fret about. As a side-effect, it serves as transportation for people.

I think that when people ask about the "purpose" of the universe, they are asking, "What is the ultimate purpose that trumps all?" Yet does it follow that we must subscribe to this purpose, or even care about it? The average person — the average animal, in fact — wants to be reasonably secure and content. They care little about the Ultimate Reason For Everything. And why should they?

Our family dog is perfectly content. She appears quite happy, in fact. Does she serve the Great Goal of All? I've asked her but she simply looks at me funny.

 

If death is not the end (and is it?), why shouldn't they? And that's a question that's been around since the beginning of time. It seems as you get older that question becomes more relevant as you start to realize nothing is what it seems and you don't really know much of anything.

 

Can we — do we — prioritize what we care about? To begin with, nobody knows, incontrovertibly, what happens after we die. Any conclusions based upon wild hypotheses are going to rest on shaky ground.

Personally, my impression is that after this body dies "I" will cease to exist. Or to put it another way, the biochemical engine that continually creates a definition of "me" will cease to function. But hey, what difference does that make? It was always wrong about what "I" am, labouring under countless illusions.

Something will continue, I suspect. The biosphere that sustained my biochemistry will live on. The cultural meme-o-spheres that fed my opinions will continue. The laws of physics will continue. So that which created me will continue. Arguably, then, the majority of what I really am will continue.

On the other hand, if I insist that I am, in some sense, cosmically important, then my death will be a gigantic tragedy to the universe. However, that kind of thinking strikes me as delusional.

Does the contribution of this tiny organism affect the grand Purpose of the Universe? Sure, in a tiny way it does. Can I control what my contribution affects? No, no, I cannot, if only due to the "Butterfly Effect". That is to say, I can do a good turn today and find that it creates an evil result tomorrow.

So why sweat it?

 

That's fine, but you should concede that your opinion is no more rooted in truth than those with conflicting opinions, just because it has a narrow basis in current scientific empiricism.

It is not necessary to proceed from the inference that we are cosmically important to that conclusion. We simply don't know, and there are many paths of reasoning or belief which may lead us to believe in the presence of something after death.

Well, here's a reason - let's say a giant praying mantis was in charge of the underworld and after you die you go there and get tortured for eternity if you don't pray to him every sunday. Wouldn't you sweat it if that was the case just to avoid that fate? There are many other examples I can give you, if you like.

 

If there is any half-reasonable basis upon which we can make decisions, then it must involve consistency. So while an emprically-based opinion may be wrong on some ultimate level, it is still more justifiable than an opinion somebody pulls out of thin air.

For example, I once met a schizophrenic who honestly believed that he was the messiash. I didn't seriously entertain the belief he was correct because his life was a shambles. His belief was not consistent with reality, so it didn't work.

Some opinions are more supportable than others. To give a few more examples, I do not believe in the Easter Bunny, or the Flat Earth, or the Loch Ness Monster. I do not believe that it is possible to survive without eating, even though there's a religion that claims their leader does.

Quite so, yet I note that the beliefs about life-after-death have a certain taint of "knowing". If all theories are equivalent, then how about this theory? When we die, all "good" people will be tortured forever, because the universe is actually run by an evil god. This theory is consistent with all that we observe — more so, in fact, than the "good god" theories. Yet how many people believe it?

At some point we have to form a provisional theory, or no theory at all. In the absence of good evidence, "no theory" is best to the extent that it is practical.

Obviously a farmer cannot entertain the theory that the sun and the seasons are mere illusions. Should he "concede that [his] opinion is no more rooted in truth than those with conflicting opinions, just because it has a narrow basis in current scientific empiricism"? He'd starve.

There are infinite possibilities in the imagination. If you pick the Praying Mantis universe and believe in that, well, good luck with that. I suppose it's better than the universe in which gravity doesn't (in your opinion) affect you.

You might subscribe, intellectually, to the "all models of reality are equal" point of view, but you don't actually live that way, do you?

 

I missed the part when our existence became a question that needs answering.

We are, and that is all. To attempt to come up with some reason we exist only poses the question, "why does that reason to our existence exist?" And then we wonder why that reason exists and that reason and that reason, etc. Ergo, it is impossible for the universe to have an ultimate reason for existence.