Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by relinquish

When all is said and done, as complex as this conceptual pointer seems to be, it's really just a complex way of saying that Existence itself is infinitely simpler than it can EVER be imagined to be. There's something very peaceful about that simplicity. That's why I like to point to it, and will continue to do so until I don't anymore. That's all.

:-)

I can't meet your need, best not waste time.

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by Gem

I can't meet your need, best not waste time.

Not sure what 'need' you're refering to. Regardless, I thought there were 'others' (relatively speaking) on this forum aside from you. Either way, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by relinquish

Not sure what 'need' you're refering to. Regardless, I thought there were 'others' (relatively speaking) on this forum aside from you. Either way, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

You'd be better off talking to others who'd appreciate your pointing.

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by Gem

You'd be better off talking to others who'd appreciate your pointing.

Don't forget, my friend, that it was you who engaged me in conversation, and not the other way round. :-)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by relinquish

Don't forget, my friend, that it was you who engaged me in conversation, and not the other way round. :-)

What you say is untrue. Here is the post where you engaged me.

Quote:Originally Posted by Gem
Things exist but they don't have any inherant nature.

True, but it is widely believed that there DOES exist many separate inherent natures, called 'things'. What I'm trying to show is that this isn't actually the case. The only separation is illusory separation.


http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...3&postcount=26

[relinquish]

Originally Posted by Gem

What you say is untrue. Here is the post where you engaged me.

Quote:Originally Posted by Gem
[i]Things exist but they don't have any inherant nature.

True, but it is widely believed that there DOES exist many separate inherent natures, called 'things'. What I'm trying to show is that this isn't actually the case. The only separation is illusory separation.

Forgive me. That post of mine was in responce to what I percieved as your engagement of me in your previous post. My mistake.

:-)

I just read a book called "why does the world exist?" By Jim holt, where he asks several people this question. It was pretty interesting, covering perspectives on god, science, logic, and multiverses. One of the theories is that the world ought to exist out of a need for goodness, and we are one of infinite universes each with an infinite mind. There is a range if goodness from one universe to the next, so even if a universe is not that good it still contributes to the whole by providing contrast. I found this theory interesting but weird because what is goodness anyway? Another theory was not as uplifting - it claimed that the universe was randomly selected so this is a mediocre universe. Anyway, I see the point others are making: perhaps there never was nothing...