why not
>>520568
i liked that game.
how would the universe not exist?
I'm not even really sure that question makes sense.
If you found the most fundamental component of all existence how could you possibly ask "why does this exist"?
In order for something to have a reason for existing there needs to be some structure it derives from that gives it a reason to be. So if there is a most fundamental aspect of everything, then it probably has no reason to exist or not, it just does.
>>520584
*hops*
>>520597
That makes no sense. "it just does." So you never think about why any of this exists? What caused it to exist? How is it able to exist?
>>520568
By chance
By creation
By selfjustification
Pick one or add others. Do you believe a part of the system can ever comprehend the full system?
>>520568
God
Im not shitposting, this question can only end there once you aptly redfine your idea of God
God can't be a being. Beings are things of the universe, god is outside the universe.
God can't be a thing either. Things are made of matter and matter is part of the universe, god is outside the universe.
God is then some kind of reason, equation, mechanism, or force. Existence is its reverberation.
>>520719
But there cannot not be a why for this one, there needs to be sth trascendental, i don't think you understand the implications of things being here instead of not being here
If that why can be understood is debatable, but there is one and has to be pretty heavy
it's just a prank bro
>>520728
Did you make a lot of typos in this post or something? It's difficult to make sense of
>there cannot not be a why
>If that why can be understood is debatable, but there is one
Which is it?
>there needs to be sth trascendental
What is "sth"?
