My attempt is to categorize entities.
You think analysing dark matter and physical laws individually would produce different result? — SpaceDweller

Sorry for intruding between you and 180Proof, but why you mention dark matter? It's just matter. Same as what the Sun is made of.

reason is subjective in this context.

And for resolution of existence or non-existence welcome but not necessary. — SpaceDweller

What kind of resolution you look for? You look for the nature of existence?

Why does there have to be a reason? — Jackson

Without reason life is meaningless. It has to have evolved for some intelligible reason. Only if eternal heavenly intelligences have created the universe's basics, life has a reason why it evolved. The eternal heavenly intelligences don't need no reason.

But there is no reason as to why people exist?
And similarly, there is no reason as to why dark mater exists?

There is no reason for many things, but this does not imply nonexistence, people do exist, and dark mater does exist. — SpaceDweller

What then is the reason people exist? Or any other creatures? To spread genes or memes? What's the reason for that? If the reason fir life is to procreate life we're back to square one. Is evolution the reason? Then what's the reason for evolution? Are we a collection of particles with their origin at time zero? Then whatever the reason for those particles and time zero? Is the reason just to love, live, and do nice things? Sing, dance, paint, work maybe?

Are you saying if there is no reason for existence of an entity then such entity could not exist? — SpaceDweller

Yes. How can non-intelligent things, like elementary particles, and life evolving from them, exist without a reason for their existence, without intelligences that have created them?

I like your answers. I just want to understand how the reason of existence can be found without gods.

Again, I don’t need to hide from anything. God is not my concern neither my answers to my problems. — javi2541997

I'm not addressing your problems, how could I? I address the general problem of meaning and reason of existence.

Okay, I'll give it a try. A constructive critique, I hope.

"1) Dark matter has an effect on the universe
- This statement implies that both dark matter and universe exists"

Yes. But both dark matter and dark energy are ohysical features. Dark matter is probably black holes and dark energy a geometric feature.

"2) Physical laws govern how universe behaves
- This statement implies that both physical laws and universe exist."

I think the laws don't govern but describe some idealized abstract features.

You mean the previous comment?

I don’t need any subterfuge because I don’t fear neither concern anything. — javi2541997

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them?

Man requiring meaning in a meaningless world is a man to pity. The hopeless search to fill the meaningless void with self-invented meaning broadens the void even more and he probably gets swallowed by the ever growing void, eventually engulfing him completely. Man, I pity you! Gods to the rescue!

Fooling because he doesn't need an infantile subterfuge to hideaway on? — javi2541997

Who's showing disrespect now?

Subterfuge from what? You are the one taking subterfuge.

He is free to fool himself! I respect his not being religious! If he ir you don't wanna believe in gods it's up to you!

know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist — SpaceDweller

Why he is an atheist? He likes fooling himself?

btw. here is one quote I like from wikipedia:
Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality. — SpaceDweller

Nice quote! A single electron would get hopelessly lost in space. It's existence gets more and more confused and foggy.

I know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist but I'm trying hard not to turn this conversation into a God debate or to limit conclusions to ontology — SpaceDweller

Still, you ask for the meaning if existence. How else can existence have a meaning apart from existence being being there for a reason, i.e., created with intention. If existence popped up out of nothing, what's the reason? It would be meaningless. We could fool ourselves with self-made meaning, of course. But we fool ourselves only then.

Mass psychosis. Your brain is washed clean to the bone marrow. :lol:

You are making no sense. X did come into existence. Perhaps you are conceptually confused (or worse), but if something does not exist at one time and does at a later time, then it came into existence. — Bartricks

The verb "to come" implies an extension in time, however small (infinitesimal dt). So coming into existence is meaningless if the event X at time t2 is considered. Unless X has an Y preceding it it can't come into existence because you can imagine it. I can imagine you disappearing from the stage. Going out of existence instantaneously. WTF doesn't that happen?

Is it correct to say virtual particles exist since we know they both exist and do not exist (they pop into and out of existence) — SpaceDweller

That's the wrong, popular view. Virtual particles are single particles, rotating, oscillating, or fluctuating in spacetime. So not a pair of them (particle-antiparticle). They are just as real as "real" particles and are the medium by which real particles interact with each other. Moreover, real particles owe their existence to virtual particles and can be seen as time extended virtual particles.

There's a time - t1 - when X does not exist. Right? Got that? Then there's a time - t2 - when X does exist. Understand? X doesn't exist at t1. X does exist at t2. So...X came into existence. Yes? — Bartricks

Dear god! X "came" doesn't apply! Get over it! As wisely suggested by a fellow forum member: "Suck it up and move on!"

Dude, I don’t give a shit about your arguments from authority and your raving about "reason". Suck it up and move on. — neomac

:lol:
:up:

custom is a source of law". In the early days there was little else. — Tobias

Is there in the modern day? Isn't the source of law not still based on custom and habit? Good habits, bad custom? Be it custom of conduct and behavior, or habit of thought?

Kiss the frog princess, he's a prince! — Agent Smith

Are frogs the missing links?

Give me an example link that explains how you can get a 2d circle in a 1d model. — universeness

Like I said, consider the 1d circle. If on a cylinder, how many directions are there for the circle to move in? Only one! Just as on a line. Now do as is done in string theory (which posits even 26 extra dimensions!). For the 1d case (or 3d with one extra which is Kaluza-Klein theory), i.e., a 1d space with one small dimension. A cylinder. Now consider a point particle or small string on it. There is a fundamental difference.

Double damn! It's true! We evolved from marine creatures - amphibians are the missing link. Kiss the frog princess, he's a prince! — Agent Smith

Triple Damned! The Trinity damnation!

In respect of the thread, it is a reasonable thing to consider ‘crying out’ as a babe as having some possible relation to prayer. — I like sushi

Dunno... I think crying out like a babe has little to do with prayer, though who knows what goes on in the baby's mind? No one has memories of that golden age, and maybe we were closer to gods than we will ever be again.

Or learn to write. Although? You wrote, in very good English, that there is the theory that the concept of god grows from a ‘loss of parental guidance". It's a theory, but its applied. Which means, viewing religious folks in a light which is questionable because one knows nothing about them.

You wrote:

"Possibly. The general view as the concept of god growing from a ‘loss of parental guidance’ thingy theory is kind of along those lines too. I don’t buy that completely, but it likely plays a part in human psychology."

Don't ask me. You said the concept of God stems from an urge for parenthood, or having good parents.

And? — I like sushi

Well, it's presented without investigation, as if it's true.

He had a fish idea?
— Hillary

Yep! — Agent Smith

Damned!

There are various other views I was not saying this is the general consensus at all. — I like sushi

Which is a highly questionable conjecture, and on further investigation it turns out to to be a prejudice pure and simple.

So 'static' is not the aspect that makes the difference then! — universeness

Like the 2d cylinder gives a way for particles (circles) to be embedded in, so the 6d space a means for 3d circles to be embedded in. The particles don't have to move trough a 6d space also, like in string theory.

What's this got to do with two circles on top of each other? I would say they merge into a single taller circle, no distance between them until you part them again. — universeness

If two different particles, circles, are on top of each other, the distance ain't zero, because parts don't touch. The distance is in order of Planck. Because the extra dimension is perpendicular to the bulk, it's Lorenz invariant.

No, a line is the distance is just a line in the distance. Lineland is used but it's an idealised picture. — universeness

If you see a cylinder with Planck radius from far away, what does it look like? If the particle is a circle around the cylinder, it can move in one direction only. The circle goes around the cylinder (while being on it.

In wester way of life (that is, not meditation life) there is thing called "contemplation" — SpaceDweller

Contemplation=meditation?

He had a fish idea?

Well, to be honest, I haven't got a clue either. If he says math is racial and enforcing a white ideal of capitalism (numbers, profit, large amounts, interdependencies, etc.), isn't that arguing against yourself (if it's correct that he's a far-right supporter, which I read her but didn't google, not being native American)?

The general view as the concept of god growing from a ‘loss of parental guidance’ — I like sushi

Is that the "general" view? God being a mental replacement of failed parenthood? Weird rationalization...

I've still a pair of gills dangling around in agony...