I want someone to debunk this logic: Life (conscious life, actually) exists because it has to, for the simple reason that if there was no conscious being, there would be no one to say that life does not exist.

The same can be applied to the Universe. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because it is obligatory for something to exist, because if nothing existed, there would be no one aware that could say that the universe did not exist. (I just want to make clear that it is possible for the universe to exist without life. The thing is that if there is life, you first need an universe).

I personally think this is irrefutable.

(oh, last note: I am NOT trying to explain what makes consciousness possible. I could tell you it is because of chemical reactions in the brain etc. The point of this topic is to say that, one way or the other, consciousness has to exist. Debunk me)

The answer to why is because. Irrefutable.

Steve wrote:The answer to why is because. Irrefutable.

You're being ironic, so ok. refute me.

Cows exist for the sole reason that people eat steak.

Cosmobrain wrote:I want someone to debunk this logic: Life (conscious life, actually) exists because it has to, for the simple reason that if there was no conscious being, there would be no one to say that life does not exist.

The same can be applied to the Universe. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because it is obligatory for something to exist, because if nothing existed, there would be no one aware that could say that the universe did not exist. (I just want to make clear that it is possible for the universe to exist without life. The thing is that if there is life, you first need an universe).

I personally think this is irrefutable.

(oh, last note: I am NOT trying to explain what makes consciousness possible. I could tell you it is because of chemical reactions in the brain etc. The point of this topic is to say that, one way or the other, consciousness has to exist. Debunk me)

Basically the answer given misses the point of the question asked. Certainly if consciousness did not exist no one would be asking the question - but that does not mean that questions such as how and why consciousness arose is answered by simply observing that its existence is a brute fact.
Your approach is bit like observing that things always fall downward and concluding that things fall down because we can see that they fall down rather than investigating gravity and the nature of gravity.

Cosmobrain wrote:

Steve wrote:The answer to why is because. Irrefutable.

You're being ironic, so ok. refute me.

Why is an endless question. I just thought I would cut to the chase.

Cosmobrain wrote:I want someone to debunk this logic: Life (conscious life, actually) exists because it has to, for the simple reason that if there was no conscious being, there would be no one to say that life does not exist.

That's not logic.

"It's all about me!!"

Why not?

Why why why...

RS

wait wait wait everything went wrong. someone lock this pls. my bad.

Doesn't work like that.

The_Metatron wrote:Cows exist for the sole reason that people eat steak.

don't you mean the 'soul' reason?

Fenrir wrote:"It's all about me!!"

No, no, it's about ME!

Fallible wrote::lol: Doesn't work like that.

The internet has a damn long memory too.....

Wait, let's start over....

Welcome to Ratskep cosmobrain. Is cosmo short for cosmopolitian as in the magazine, or for cosmos as in everything that exists like stars planets, life on other planets, ice, popcorn and bagels? Also amoeba and blue-green algae?

Cosmobrain wrote:I want someone to debunk this logic: Life (conscious life, actually) exists because it has to, for the simple reason that if there was no conscious being, there would be no one to say that life does not exist.
.....

You've set up a circular reasoning that really doesn't follow one from the other without other assumptions. What would be wrong with a lifeless cosmos? Now there's a question....

Could it be that life is a natural result of the elements and processes of the cosmos? Hmmmm....

Life is just an aspect of existence. It is the universe's way of experiencing itself.

The_Metatron wrote:Cows exist for the sole reason that people eat steak.

[/thread]

Seems to be a sort of inverted anthropic principle, but I'm not sure it's meant to be inverted.

Of course, the OP admits that universes without life are possible, so he knowlingly "debunks" his own logic. The thrust of the OP can only be directed elsewhere, thusly...

Cosmobrain is simply enforcing the point--well worth enforcing--that any hypothetical universe that is without consciousness will go unnoticed, while any hypothetical universe in which consciousness arose would find that same consciousness "amazed" to live in a universe where "life is even possible".

So...if we take a poll of all universes by sending out a signal asking, "Does your universe permit life?" we will only get YES answers. It begins to look, therefore, as though all universes permit life.

Which of course they probably don't. It is simply an interesting response to fine-tuning arguments that Cosmobrain is advancing.

I know why potatoes exist - because without them, there would be no potatoes.

See, I can do it too.