Topics Existence

Question I believe that there are only 3 possible options. 1) That God or some all powerful being created the universe. This is a very bizarre state because it means we are all subordinates to an independent being that has always existed. Strange. 2) The universe was created out of nothing. Truly weird. 3) That the universe has always existed. This is simply incomprehensible. Because these are the only 3 options I see and because each is mind-bogglingly discouraging or incomprehensible - or downright goofy - I think this whole existence thing is either some sort of hallucination or a complete joke. (Another possibility is that I am in some sort of hell.) Therefore, I take nothing seriously and treat this whole thing sort of the way you deal with the pain of stubbing your toe. Kind of grit your teeth and wait for the pain to end. Any thoughts?

Accepted:
July 20, 2007

Comments

I know exactly what you mean. The question seems alternatively irresistible, frustrating, intoxicating, and ridiculous. I suspect that the early modern philosopher Immanuel Kant maybe right that the very attempt to reason out an answer draws us into an irresolvable mess, that at the end of the day we can't figure it out. There a couple of bits I'd observe about the way you pose the question, however.

First, there may be more alternatives than you think. You may mean by (2) that the universe sprang out of nothing (as philosophers like to say, ex nihilo) or just appeared, but it needn't therefore have been created. The Big Bang theory runs somewhat along these lines. But the Big Bang theory is also consistent with the idea that the universe sprang forth from something besides God or nothingness, something unknown to us. Would it also make sense to say that there may be other ways that time could be organized to make the sort of linear past-present-future model your question depends upon not really meaningful for the universe as a whole?

Secondly, keep in mind that in an important sense, it's not meaningful to speak of anything "before" the beginnng of the universer because time seems to have begun with the universe, to be an aspect of the universe and the motion/change of its consitutents. Also truly weird, I know. Technically, there was no time before the Big Bang, at least not time as we know it.

Thirdly, is it really incomprehensible that the the universe has always existed? Many have found this idea perfectly comprehensible. I don't really kow myself, but one tantalizing challenge to the idea that the past is infinitely long is this: if the past were infinitely long, then an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed to reach the present moment--and that is impossible, because an infinite amount of time cannot be completed.

Even if you are right that each of the options you describe is difficult to accept, I'm wondering how you can possibly treat "this whole existence thing" as a hallucination or a complete joke? Are you saying that you don't take the question seriously (but do take your and others' existence seriously), or are you saying that you don't take existence seriously?

If your point is that you don't think it is worth continuing to ask the question, I can sympathize; but I would suggest that you may want to think a bit more about (a) whether there are presuppositions that are responsible for the seeming incoherence of each option, and if so what they are, and (b) whether there are questionable presuppositions of the question. I note, in fact, that you don't actually forumate a question, even though you are considering possible answers. What, exactly, is the question you are seeking an answer to? Is it "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Or "What is the cause of everything, i.e., the whole shebang?" Or... Note that there may be very different strategies than the ones you mention for addressing these different framings of the issue.

If your point is that because the question you're asking has no answers, existence is a joke or hallucination, then this is a very bold conclusion, given that the fact that you exist is hard to even question (by you) coherently. And even if we can't be sure how the whole shebang came into existence or why, that uncertainty doesn't call into question that it does exist. Does it?

The three options you offer for the origin of the universeare: 1) That God created the universe. This, you say, is “bizarre”, becausethen in some sense we would be “subordinate” beings. (Why should that be bizarre?) 2) The universe wascreated out of nothing. This, you say, is “truly weird”. And 3) The universehas always existed, which is “incomprehensible”.

I do notsee how you can get to the conclusion that the universe is a joke, orthat you should take nothing seriously.The conclusion I can see coming from your premises is that things are bizarre,or that truly weird things happen, or at least that one of them has, or thatthe universe is incomprehensible; and you might be very serious about playingchess, say, or helping others by nursing, in an otherwise bizarre or weird orincomprehensible universe. Religious people would agree, I think, with thefirst option, that the existence of the universe is bizarre, and want only toadd that our theology and metaphysics should reflect the fact! Nothing in thisarea of metaphysics is mundane for them - “mundane” here meaning something like“having the character of things in the everyday world”. As to the second option, scientificpeople celebrate the truly weird, and it does not seem to them that theweirdness of a conclusion is a good predictor of its truth. It is pretty weird thatthe universe has a beginning in time, after all, but physics says that it is does. It is pretty weird to contemplate thepossibility that space is not Euclidean, but perhaps it is. And biological lifeis pretty weird, often even weird looking.

Itseems tome that perhaps the least attractive of your objections is the third.There are lots of things we don't understand. And incomprehensiblethings have a way of becoming comprehensible, when we manage toconstruct theright concepts.

Part of theinterest of the part of cosmology and metaphysics which deals with the origin of things must be in trying tomultiply the possibilities, and Peter Fosl is right to suggest that you shouldalso consider the possibility that the universe popped up out of nothing byitself, rather than being created outof nothing.

The factthat the universe is bizarre or weird or incomprehensible actually has on me theeffect of wanting to take things more seriously, not less, and with morereverence for the things we don’t yet understand. It makes the universe feelmore like a mysterious drama and less like slapstick.