Jonathan Reeves wrote,
>This is a sophist argument. If nothing existed we wouldnt be here to
>argue about it.
>That kind of question can only be answered in a religious or
>philosophical way.
I tried to point this out earlier on this list, writing: "Because if nothing existed, no one could ask the question." But the list called that a "circular argument" and apparently deems the question as worthy of ongoing consideration. Technically, I think this fits in the category of teleology, a branch of philosophy (so perhaps philosophers on the list can help out?). Personally, I don't think the universe (or existence) has a purpose, and consequently, asking "why" the universe (or existence) exists doesn't compute. I mean, for the question to have rational validity, one has to presume that reason precedes existence, so that existence can have a "why" -- does that make sense? But didn't the Existentialists put things in order by declaring that "existence precedes essence" so now we have to decide what it all means, since meaning did not exist before intention?
If we ask "HOW does anything exist at all?" we might get a better handle on it. The way I see it, human (transhuman, posthuman, suprahuman, metahuman, whatever) consciousness has only just begun. --J. R.