Why does the Universe exist?

According to the most acceptable theory that physicists have of the fundamental nature of things called the standard model, equal parts of matter and antimatter should have been produced in the big bang. Although, the two completely demolish on contact, and would have resulted in a universe filled with light and nothing else. So scientists have therefore been looking for differences between matter and anti-matter to explain why people, galaxies or anything exists at all. Now, before we can begin to ponder the absolute unknown, we must first approach the question; does the universe NEED to exist? If something is necessary, it must happen whereas if something is unnecessary it may or may not happen depending on external factors, and if left to itself it will not happen. Therefore, if something unnecessary happens, its occurrence is completely contingent upon something else (the unmoved mover). Most people (including participants of this discussion) simply answer with no the universe doesn’t have to exist “it just does”. However, upon examination I personally think this is the death of philosophical curiosity. It displays an unwillingness to pursue the matter any further. Can you imagine if scientists use the same “dead-end” logic in science as people do in philosophy? Conclusively, there seems to be a consensus that the universe does not need to exist, but then that would mean its existence is CONTIGENT. It doesn’t “just” exist. Taking in to account that “the universe” is everything that physically exists, there must be something beyond physical existence that it is contingent upon. St Thomas Aquinas said “Therefore, we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.” This is why we exist and where our meaning and value comes from. Many can argue why does this “necessary being” exist? Well, because it must! When something is necessary it must happen, if all existence was unnecessary then nothing would exist. There cannot be infinite contingency.

The admittedly rare apodictical existential pantheist however might maintain that it does. Recent discoveries showing certain physical constants to be interdependent strongly suggests that She, It, the Whole Shebang exists because She has to; while She is the way She is simply because She can't be any other way

She's the Universe while all the activity therein is Her thinking

Yea, exactly, and I am one of such. Eventually it might be speculated that the idea of "nothingness" entails paradox or contradiction while that entailed by the idea of "Creation" can be dispatched by assuming She's always existed in one form or another and will continue so forever

It's pretty obvious that there's something we don't yet understand, partly because our language is too dualistic to permit its definition. It will be shown not as an independent entity such as supernatural creator but only a largely abstract process, part of The Whole, It, Her; a perfectly natural and necessary phenom

Tina you think deep and write well. Without revealing anything critical to your ID I wonder if you'd tell us something about yourself

The foundation of the universe is defined within various perspectives, primarily in two specific standpoints: science and religion. Their conclusions examine the development of the universe, and cogitate the enigma and contentions that surround the development of the universe. The debate on the emergence of the universe pertains to one critical metaphysical query: Why is there something rather than nothing? This question functions as a basis for the concept of being and nothingness, and focus on one particular philosophical argument known as argument from design. The concept of argument from design suggest that a supreme being is responsible for designing the universe. Furthermore, it conveys the impossibility of the universe emerging from nothing. It delineates that there is in fact a beginning known as the 'uncaused caused' which takes the form of a supreme being: God. With regards to the existence to this particular universe, it is not known whether this is the only universe that exists. There is a possibility of alternate universes, or alternate dimensions unknown to standard human knowledge, which may never be attainable.

Who created the creator?

The OP question "WHY does the Universe exist" is meaningless.

JLN, I'd agree with you on the basis that the obvious conclusion is that it does exist. However, in philosophical terms, any assertion that an individual wishes to believe it's true - whether based on religion or science - is proof of its existence. The proof is in the sheer numbers of those who believe a creator created this universe. We may argue all day long about gods and proof, but that's an endless argument. People "believe;" that's the proof.
That is their "reality."

I'm a 17 yr. old high school student who's just living his life. Its always nice to have someone appreciate your opinion though, so thanks!

Not at all Hk. When I was a kid 17-year-olds didn't think so deeply

Can't quite agree JL. At risk of repetition, some of us speculate an expanded view someday might show the alternate, nothingness, to be impossible. While this stipulation so far lacks much support, recent discoveries showing an interdependence of the constants strongly suggest She, It, is the way She is because that's the way She has to be

Thus future revelations of a similar sort might be supposed to form patterns, however largely abstract, leading to consistent answers

Internal speculation devoid of contradiction or paradox should be pursued. The troubling idea of Creation for instance is dispatched by the simple assertion that She didn't need to be created, She was always there in one form or another; but why

Because She has to be

The point being that if we reject offhand all philo speculation in this regard then we're depriving ourselves of potential development

Good summary! Based on human history, gods have been part and parcel of our past. All cultures created their own gods; they're all man-made/created.

Beyond all that, we must rely on what science has thus far revealed to us about our universe. Humans are descended from the great apes. Just because we can produce things and have created language, we're still babe in the woods. High tech development is very young based on homo sapien history vs the age of this planet. What the future holds is anyone's guess.

Thank you Cis for your support, heartwarming

C.I., I agree that Dale's perspective is generally enlightened, but I must confess to a degree of nihilism: as far as I'm concerned human conceptual cosmic-metaphysics has as much chance of being absolutely correct (whatever that may mean in the end) as does the perspective of worms. Ultimately, astrophysics and metaphysics are strickly for fun.
By the way, C.I. it is my understanding that we humans are not descended from "the great apes"; we and the apes share common ancestors. We might check with Farmerman on that.

Well, we are all descended from the same primate family.

I agree that ultimately it is meaningless but conventionally it is useful to just accept at that level that it has a conventional meaning.

I can explain my reasons for saying that it ultimately is meaningless... but only if someone is actually interested. It is obvious that to say it exists... conventionally... is okay as long as one does not believe that, that is an absolutely true statement.

To clarify:

The question as to' why' it exists depends on it existing... absolutely... and that cannot be known to be true, therefore the question of 'why' is meaningless as JLN says... since we cannot know that it exists... we cannot move on to the next question... which is the OP.

Well, I have to draw on Descartes for this one.

First, saying something is ‘absolutely true’ is a bit redundant. Can existence be only partially true? Not that I can see. It may be different then we perceive it, but still, it does exist.
If it is not partially true, it is false, or true.
Is it possible the universe is false, nonexistent, not factual?

The simple fact that I have a thought, means something exists, and that is, or can be considered, by definition, the universe.
Not substance, but thoughts of an alien life form, fine, the universe is not material, simply the thoughts of an alien life form. Still a universe.
Or is it your point that the universe may not be as we perceive it – seven dimensional, instead of 3 or 4, for example?

Before I move on to the rest of your post... who said that,"something is ‘absolutely true’"?

Let me put it this way... for everyday conversation one can assume that the Universe exists but if you examine what appears and what the appearance represents then it cannot be found to exist... absolutely.. it is only ever conventionally true... it can be assumed to exist for the purposes of everyday conversation.... but not ultimately... whether it exists remains unknown.

Added to my previous post.

What I read is you saying that something (the existence of the universe) is not absolutely true.

I take it from your objection that you refer to the statement as not being absolutely true, not the existence, although I will need your help to see the difference.
Hope this helps.

My observation remains the same.
The exact nature and details, in question, the existence, not in question.