The Riddle of Existence, Essay Example

Human beings are often trying to figure out answers to the questions that affect the nature of our existence. Paradoxically, it is often the broadest questions with the most universal relevance that are the most difficult to answer. One such topic is on existence itself. How did existence come to be, why is it that anything exists at all, and why does existence exist in the way it does? These questions are difficult to answer because it is impossible to observe an alternate version of existence. However, there have been many attempts to analyze these types of questions through a priori examination.

Nicholas Rescher was one such thinker who has put his ideas on existence into writing in the article “On Explaining Existence”. The primary question being asked in this paper is on the most general question of existence, the riddle of existence, in which the question posed, is why there is any existence. Often it is taking for granted that there is a universe in which we live our lives, yet depending on one’s perspective about this question, it can be possible that it is more likely that nothing exists. Either an ex nihilo or an eternal view of the universe states that something needed to happen for nothingness to turn into existence, but would not it have been more likely for nothing to ever enter into existence?

Rescher begins with discussion of one of the earliest thinkers on this topic, Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, who sought to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothingness. Liebniz concluded that there were two kinds of worlds, an empty one without existence and the type of world we live in. To him, this meant that it was a necessity that some world would exist, although not necessarily one that we would recognize as featuring existence. He also concluded that despite one’s view over the beginning of the world, creation or eternal, this same question would pose itself. In other words, there is no worldview that allows one to sidestep this riddle.

Rescher ends up proposing six different possible responses to the riddle at the heart of his paper. The first, rejectionism, does not attempt to answer the question at all, declaring it not worth asking. Next is mystificationism, where there is no issue with the question, but that there is no way to properly answer it. The next four each feature an acceptance of the legitimacy of the question and an answer to it in some form. The arational approach is one in which existence just is, without a rational explanation. Then the theological approach, where a being, usually God, exists outside of our realm and is responsible for the existence we find in ours. Next the nomological approach, where one being that has always existed managed to create everything else. Finally, the necessity approach which claims that there is no way existence could not be.

Several answers are rejected because they are unsatisfying and should not be accepted without rejection of all others, chief amongst them are the rejectionist approach. However, the same applies to the mystificationism answer, which puts this question at beyond the capacity of human reason, is kept as a possibility, but one that should not be acknowledged until exhausting answers to the question. The arational account is treated in a similar fashion, as an admission of defeat that should only be accepted if all other answers have been properly rejected. The theological approach has the same problem, this riddle is about nature and relying on a deity to answer it is turning towards the supernatural. Only if there is reason to believe that no natural explanation exists should one turn to this supernatural approach.

That leaves two answers that one can accept or reject without examining the other possibilities. Necessity falls apart quickly because the ability to conceive of nothingness means there is a possible alternative to existence, this approach is undone by the very question it attempts to answer. This leaves the nomological approach, which Rescher will ultimately come to as the best response to this question. It both proposes an efficient cause, seemingly necessary for the question of why something is, and does not rely on a supernatural explanation as does the theological account.

The nomological approach relies on something preexisting in the universe that made the rest of existence. For Rescher this thing was the laws of nature, which govern how all things act and make our existence not just possible, but necessary. By accepting these physical laws as necessary, one can come to accept a modified version of the necessity argument. Since all known worlds have these laws governing their nature, he supposes that they must be present. He is not referring to physical laws as we may understand them, but proto laws, which govern the way things must be to exist. If these laws necessitate what actually is, that means they are both an explanation of why there is existence and what that existence is.

Another writer who touched on this topic was Derek Parfit in his essay “Why Reality is as It Is?” He too sets out to answer the two questions that Rescher was working on. Those being, why does anything exist and why does this specific existence exist. He, like Rescher, states that this is a problem that exists with an eternal universe or a created one. What created the universe if it was created and if it was no, how can an eternal universe be explained? Parfit sees all explanations as featuring an infinite regression problem, even if you come to an omnipotent creator, there is still the need to explain where that came from. Yet, he still insists that there are answers and the question is worth asking, rejecting the mystificationism and rejectionism approaches from Rescher.

One reason Parfit sees this question as worth asking is because of the sheer improbability of a universe containing life. The exactness of the environment needed to precede the Big Bang in a way that would eventually support life is extraordinary and it is not acceptable to state that each environment was equally likely. There were countless possible environments for this time before the beginning of the universe, but only one that could have produced a universe with life and existence. The odds of this occurring were so low that Parfit sees the need to search for an overlying reason for it.

Some could point to God, in a revival of the teleological argument, because with the universe so finely tuned to the needs of the life in our realm. However, it could also be the work of underlying laws, which Parfit points out is consistent with the theist viewpoint of God. Another potential argument for why the universe is so finely tuned is the multiple words hypothesis. This states that our universe is one of many, potentially infinite universes. If each of them have a slim chance of arranging themselves in a way that can support life, then it is extremely likely that at least one of them will produce life. Therefore it is not significant that there is a universe that supports life, but significant that it is ours.

Parfit then discusses the possible problems in each of those accounts for the beginning of the universe. If the cause of existence is God, then the cause of all things in existence must be God and therefore must be in the world because of a conscious decision of God. This brings up the usual problem of evil, whereas a God who allows evil to exist cannot be benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. The existence of evil does not fit in with the standard account of God who can completely control the universe.

The multi worlds hypothesis still has the issue of where all the worlds themselves came from or at least where the environment that produced them came from. Parfit states that this hypothesis does not multiply the issue, that answering why this situation came about once can answer why it came about many times. He ends up explaining it with a modified version of Rescher’s arational view that the universe just happens to be via fact. However, he says that there are Selectors for why existence is, one such example being that existence is somehow virtuous and that causes it all to be. The arational part is that there is no reason for any Selector to be.

Ultimately, the two end up proposing solutions that all feature their own problems. Rescher ultimately proposes that all things were necessarily meant to be because of the existence of underlying laws for how the world works. However, this does not make it clear where these laws came from. They may have always existed, but if the question is why things exist, it must be examined why these laws themselves exist. Ultimately, this is an infinite regression problem, any solution to the origin of these laws will produce another thing whose origins must be questioned. This lends credence to the mystificationism problem, that this question is unknowable. However, Rescher is certainly correct that there is no good reason to stop there without examining farther. Surely even if the nomological explanation is not completely satisfactory understanding that the world comes from these laws adds an understanding worth having.

Parfit introduces many theories as to why there may be anything at all, but is very thorough at giving the reasons for why each of them does not work. Each proposal comes with its own problems that undermine it. His best proposal in his eyes is that there are Selectors which make the universe act as it is by somehow selecting that kind of existence. However, Parfit acknowledges there is no rationale for why these Selectors exist or why they act in such a way. In either of these accounts for existence there comes an infinite regression issue as explanations beget the further need for explanations.

References

Parfit, Derek. “Why Reality is As It Is?” Metaphysics, Contemporary Readings. Ed. Steven D. Hales. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 1999. Print

Rescher, Nicholas. “On Explaining Existence.” Metaphysics, Contemporary Readings. Ed. Steven D. Hales. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 1999. Print