Dear Steve --
[Your note to Matt and DMB]:
I was involved in one of those "bad questions" debates on-line recently with some Catholics about the question "why does anything at all exist?" I was arguing that this is a bad question for various reasons when I recalled your ideas in this thread. It was asserted that the universe needs to have a Supreme Being to have created it, and I tried to argue that such a being would then not answer the original question. It would just complicate matters by adding one more part of "all that exists" that would need to be explained. We would have to then ask, "why does the Supreme Being exist?" The Supreme Being was then asserted to be a necessary and uncaused being that requires no explanation. At that point, I remembered your post about claims that something is a bad question are claims that "you will be very disappointed with the answer." I decided to just give a bad question an unstatisfying answer. I said that if "necessary" is a way to side-step the original question, then the universe too is necessary. It is necessary because we need it to be able to do all the things we want to do.
There is no such thing as a "bad question", especially in metaphysics. But there are bad answers, and I think you gave your friend's question short shrift. Your answer that the universe is necessary "because we need to be able to do what we want" is not only egocentric, it's untrue. It is satisfying but hardly "necessary" to do what we want.
In fact, no less a philosopher than the Father of German Existentialism argued that the question "Why is there anything at all?" is the "fundamental question of metaphysics." I would commend to your friend Heidegger's 'An Introduction to Metaphysics' which is available as a small paperback published by Doubleday Anchor Books. Although I'm not an existentialist, I owe much to Heidegger, Hegel, and Sartre for their conception of "beingness".
Your friend is right that an "uncaused source" is necessary for the universe to be. The problem for Catholics and most religionists, however, is the "God as Being' concept. Existing is Being, but the power to exist is not. What exists must be created (actualized), but the Creator itself is not bound by causality. Hence, there is no ontological principle to justify the notion that God, Value, or Essence is "created".
Likewise, there is no logical reason to suppose that what exists isn't "necessary". I prefer to think that what exists is "essential" in some way to cosmic purpose (teleology). Without cognizant existents, for example, value could not be realized. The realization of Value is important because it links us to the essential Source.
I don't know if your friend would accept my answer, but at least it respects the validity of the question and addresses it in a logical and constructive way.
Excuse me for butting in, gentlemen, but I hate to see fundamental questions dismissed as "bad" or insignificant. I wish Pirsig had shown more willingness to probe the fundamental principles of epistemology and ontology before coming out with his "metaphysical" thesis.
Best to all, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
