Christian 'Mythology'.

[Rosindubh]

Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent; the truths expressed by maths are self-referentially true and dependent on nothing. Does that justify us in calling maths an ultimate reality ? I think that would be to make capricious use of the word 'reality'.  That something exists in reality normally means it has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc. and we cannot say that of abstract concepts.  The truths of maths are inevitably true, and they do not need some prior truth giver to decide that they should be true. In my understanding this is implied by the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic. ..........

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for the above post.    I left out the second half as I hope to answer it separately.

To say something "has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc" is to define it as a physical thing, distinct from an abstract concept.    However, to say "something exists in reality" only if it meets such definition is to use subjective symantics to close ones mind to the 'reality' of objective measurement (independent of the human mind).   

Reality is what is true independent of the human mind (ie Objective).   Some things (chess, Harry Potter) are true (exist) only within the human mind so are subjective (not real).   Other things (eg gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real).  Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.

You refer to "the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic", but why should they, being products of the human mind (a contingent thing), be incontingent or primary by their own reckoning, unless in maths, humans have discovered a reality which exists independently of the human mind.

My previous posts gave facts which show the uniqueness of mathematical concepts compared to other abstract concepts, including a facility to forecast previously unsuspected physical phenomena.    Examples include Einstein's relativity forecasting gravity waves, Heisenberg's matrices explaining the motion of electrons in Helium, Dirac's equation forecasting antimatter particles, the Standard Model of Particle Physics forecsating the Higgs field, and many other examples.

It we accept the Standard Model as correct reality, then we are forced to accept the reality of each of its essential elements, including the mathematical concepts which dominate it as well as its massless gluons.

If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.

So, there is more to reality than just physical things.

I hope you can find this persuasive.
God bless

[SusanDoris]

However, to say "something exists in reality" only if it meets such definition is to use subjective symantics to close ones mind to the 'reality' of objective measurement (independent of the human mind).   

You keep on asserting that objective measurement exists independent of the human mind.   As far as I know, there is no objective evidence for this, so I would say you are quite wrong.
By the way, why do you spell semantics with a y? Synthetic Dave pronounces it slightly differently.

…gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real). Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.
 .

Another assertion. If there were zero humans, there would not be such a concept floating around waiting to be discovered. A concept is a human idea.

So, there is more to reality than just physical things.

I do not agree. I have no reason to, since in a long life I have never seen or heard of anything that is not because of physical things.

[Gordon]

If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.

You wouldn't say then that logic, abstract ideas and axioms (such as mathematics) haven't been developed by humans as tools to describe the physical Universe?

[torridon]

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for the above post.    I left out the second half as I hope to answer it separately.

To say something "has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc" is to define it as a physical thing, distinct from an abstract concept.    However, to say "something exists in reality" only if it meets such definition is to use subjective symantics to close ones mind to the 'reality' of objective measurement (independent of the human mind).   

Reality is what is true independent of the human mind (ie Objective).   Some things (chess, Harry Potter) are true (exist) only within the human mind so are subjective (not real).   Other things (eg gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real).  Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.

You refer to "the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic", but why should they, being products of the human mind (a contingent thing), be incontingent or primary by their own reckoning, unless in maths, humans have discovered a reality which exists independently of the human mind.

My previous posts gave facts which show the uniqueness of mathematical concepts compared to other abstract concepts, including a facility to forecast previously unsuspected physical phenomena.    Examples include Einstein's relativity forecasting gravity waves, Heisenberg's matrices explaining the motion of electrons in Helium, Dirac's equation forecasting antimatter particles, the Standard Model of Particle Physics forecsating the Higgs field, and many other examples.

It we accept the Standard Model as correct reality, then we are forced to accept the reality of each of its essential elements, including the mathematical concepts which dominate it as well as its massless gluons.

If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.

So, there is more to reality than just physical things.

I hope you can find this persuasive.
God bless

Hi Rosindubh, thanks for the above.  For the sake of succinctness, I'll just talk to the below extract which I think is at the nub of where we differ :

You refer to "the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic", but why should they, being products of the human mind (a contingent thing), be incontingent or primary by their own reckoning, unless in maths, humans have discovered a reality which exists independently of the human mind.

To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context.  To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.

[SusanDoris]

Hi Rosindubh, thanks for the above.  For the sake of succinctness, I'll just talk to the below extract which I think is at the nub of where we differ :

To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context.  To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.

That was a very interesting and clear post - which I could understand!!

[Jack Knave]

Reality is what is true independent of the human mind (ie Objective).   Some things (chess, Harry Potter) are true (exist) only within the human mind so are subjective (not real).   Other things (eg gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real).  Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.

But they, the maths, are not literally out there though are they, as objective concepts. Only the forces, and the like, and the way they interact, and so on, are. We impose these concepts on to them with our minds but those concepts are only in our minds as ways to relate to what we 'see' for our own understanding. Therefore, maths is contingent on the behaviour and patterns of the universe and how we 'see' things.

My previous posts gave facts which show the uniqueness of mathematical concepts compared to other abstract concepts, including a facility to forecast previously unsuspected physical phenomena.    Examples include Einstein's relativity forecasting gravity waves, Heisenberg's matrices explaining the motion of electrons in Helium, Dirac's equation forecasting antimatter particles, the Standard Model of Particle Physics forecsating the Higgs field, and many other examples.

Are you saying that every prediction that maths has ever come up with has always come true? That all we need to do is plug in the numbers, and what not, and hey presto result of the next reality?

If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.

A rather misuse or over emphasis in a malapropism of the word 'control'. I don't think math does anything of the sort.

[Jack Knave]

To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context. To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.

I don't follow that bit. Can you explain it, especially as you don't know what all possible universes would be like? You seem to be saying that maths is so plastic it could mould itself into any situation....?

[Rosindubh]

..........    I think your position is self-contradictory because you recognise the incontingency of maths (say) on one hand, but then go on to imply a law giver who decides such things - this is flatly denying the incontingency of maths.  Why should the fact that two plus two equals four need someone to decide that it should be so ? You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.

Hi again torrido,
Thank you for the above post.   This is the second half I promised to comment on separately.

My position is that mathematical concepts are TRUE objectively (ie independent of the human mind), from or before the beginning of time, and are as REAL as any of the other elements in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

I do not remember using the word ,"incontingent", but I am happy with it and see nothing "self-contradictory" about a law giver choosing which of his incontingent numbers or concepts he should use in any particular equation or situation.

In my post #322, I mentioned three alternatives which I set out in more detail below:-
(a)   That mathematical concepts are themselves the mindless Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. Prof Max Tegmark's position; or
(b)   That mathematical concepts are the ideas of an intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. the Logos of Christianity; or
(c)   Any other proposal you might like to suggest.

I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1)   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed.    This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
(2)   The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
(3)   The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.

Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.

I hope you find them convincing
God bless

[Stranger]

In my post #322, I mentioned three alternatives which I set out in more detail below:-
(a)   That mathematical concepts are themselves the mindless Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. Prof Max Tegmark's position; or
(b)   That mathematical concepts are the ideas of an intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. the Logos of Christianity; or
(c)   Any other proposal you might like to suggest.

(c)  Logical self-consistency is actually what is fundamental (at least to any environment that can contain life and intelligence) and mathematics consists of human constructs that explore self-consistency (mathematical results are true by definition).

(d)  Mathematics is an entirely human made modelling tool.

(e)  .... the point being that it's a philosophical question without an accepted answer (and is likely to remain such, IMO).

I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1)   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed.    This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
(2)   The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
(3)   The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.

Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.

(1)  As I pointed out before, if (as you claim) mathematics is being discovered, then the IQ to which you refer is what is needed to make discoveries and understand them. To link that to why mathematics is 'real' just doesn't follow.

(2)  Nobody knows why the universe is the way it is. If we were able to conclude that there actually was an "intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality", then that would be exactly as puzzling as the universe. A reality with a god is every bit as inexplicable as one without. This 'argument' doesn't get off the ground.

(3)  These "goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus" are notable only by their complete absence, outside of old inconsistent stories and subjective personal experiences.

[Gordon]

My position is that mathematical concepts are TRUE objectively (ie independent of the human mind), from or before the beginning of time, and are as REAL as any of the other elements in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

I do not remember using the word ,"incontingent", but I am happy with it and see nothing "self-contradictory" about a law giver choosing which of his incontingent numbers or concepts he should use in any particular equation or situation.

In my post #322, I mentioned three alternatives which I set out in more detail below:-
(a)   That mathematical concepts are themselves the mindless Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. Prof Max Tegmark's position; or
(b)   That mathematical concepts are the ideas of an intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. the Logos of Christianity; or
(c)   Any other proposal you might like to suggest.

I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1)   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed.    This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
(2)   The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
(3)   The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.

Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.

I hope you find them convincing
God bless

I find 'them' to be fallacious nonsense.

[SusanDoris]

I find 'them' to be fallacious nonsense.

At least only 276 words this time to say them.

I wonder why people feel that the morewords they use, the more likely they are to communicate their message.

[Bubbles]

At least only 276 words this time to say them.

I wonder why people feel that the morewords they use, the more likely they are to communicate their message.

Because some people don't see the world in terms of black and white, yes and no.

Also some character types like to analyse why they think so, and tell you how they got to their particular shade of grey.

 

[SusanDoris]

Because some people don't see the world in terms of black and white, yes and no.

Also some character types like to analyse why they think so, and tell you how they got to their particular shade of grey.

 

Do you not feel sometimes that too many words actually obscure the intended message rather than reveal it?

[Bubbles]

Do you not feel sometimes that too many words actually obscure the intended message rather than reveal it?

Lol

I used to write such lengthy posts on here, early mods requested I shorten them.

Over the years, I have.

You might have a point, Susan   

I also got criticised for my over use of exclamation marks!!!

Betty, that was 😜🌹

[SusanDoris]

Rose

Thank you for reply!

This is a curiosity killed the cat question: May I ask why you use double spacing? Several others do this too. Synthetic Dave reads them just as easily, but they take up so much more space!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ros,

That’s quite a dog’s breakfast of reasoning you’ve attempted there:

I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-

(1)   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed.    This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.

Yes, the smarter you are the more you’ll be able to do harder maths. Maths itself though is just an abstracted way to describe and predict consistent patterns in the universe. That we can do maths says nothing however to whether a divine something must have made the universe that way.

(2)   The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.

That’s the lottery winner’s fallacy (see also “Douglas Adams’ puddle” and “anthropic principle” for further details). If you just assume that little old you was the end game all along, then yes – it’d be a remarkable co-incidence if the starting conditions of the universe were just right to make that happen. The universe though neither knows nor cares whether you pop out of it, any more than Camelot knows or cares who’ll win the lottery. For all you know there are all sorts of species dotted around the place – maybe even the less thinking of whom are posting on websites right now, “what are chances of the universe being fine tuned to produce me and the other three-headed fraggle monsters of Alpha Centauri, therefore my god”.

To put it another way: imagine that you're a blade of grass, that someone drove a golf ball 300 yards, and that the ball just happened to land on you rather than on the blade of grass next to you. What are the chances eh? Would that make you somehow "special" though?

Your solipsism here is in other words the result of looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

(3)   The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.

Lots of books from the pre-scientific age make lots of claims about lots of supposed miracles. You’d have all your work ahead of you though to demonstrate that any of them were true – however “forensic” you think the 4th gospel to be. 

Imagine for a moment that I offered you a prize of £1m if you could prove a miracle of Jesus. Do you seriously think that – on the evidence of a gospel – a court of law would find for you (which is what “forensic” means by the way)?

Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.

Reason (1) is a non sequitur, reason (2) is the anthropic fallacy, and reason (3) is unsupportable wishful thinking – essentially the fallacy of reification.

I hope you find them convincing

I hope you find these rebuttals convincing.

God bless

May Colin, the Grand Chieftain of the Leprechauns shower his tap dancing blessings on your newly grateful feet.

[Bubbles]

Rose

Thank you for reply!

This is a curiosity killed the cat question: May I ask why you use double spacing? Several others do this too. Synthetic Dave reads them just as easily, but they take up so much more space!!

I do it because I think it makes it easier to read, but I hadn't thought about screen readers.
I wonder if Anchorman finds the same issue.
I'll stop.

[torridon]

..
I do not remember using the word ,"incontingent", but I am happy with it and see nothing "self-contradictory" about a law giver choosing which of his incontingent numbers or concepts he should use in any particular equation or situation.
..

It seems self-contradictory to me. We cannot say that maths is incontingent and then immediately go on to say that it is contingent upon a law-giver.  Such a scenario would yield incomprehensible outcomes.  If we imagine a god arbitrarily 'deciding' that 2 + 2 = 4 in our universe, but maybe it totals 27 in another or 458 in another then you are describing an incomprehensible situation.  This is what I mean by the primacy of logic. It is a definitional inevitability that non-contingent truths can have no such prior dependencies; if there were a god then he too would be subject to the dictates of logic. He would not be capable of drawing a square circle, he would not be capable of speaking a truthful lie, he could not imagine a four sided triangle. Even gods, even omnipotent gods should they exist, would be subject to logic; this is the primacy of logic. A god that could transcend logic would be incomprehensible, and no-one I believe is truly capable of comprehending the incomprehensible.

[torridon]

I don't follow that bit. Can you explain it, especially as you don't know what all possible universes would be like? You seem to be saying that maths is so plastic it could mould itself into any situation....?

No, I think you misread; what I am arguing is that maths, like logic, is not malleable, mouldable, contingent or contextual. I am calling this the primacy of logic.  In a sense I am resurrecting the argument of 10th century islamic theologian Avicenna, who observed that everything we can point to in this world is contingent, it derives from something else, so there must be something uncontextual and incontingent as the source of all things.  And this is what we call God, so claimed Avicenna.  I am making a similar case but with logic as the incontingent source of all things.  As I pointed out to Rosindubh earlier, even a god would be subject to logic, even an omnipotent god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift, or draw a five sided triangle with his divine pencil.

[Jack Knave]

At least only 276 words this time to say them.

I wonder why people feel that the morewords they use, the more likely they are to communicate their message.

So you think a 300 page book is a farce and a sign the person is just a narcissistic arse? 

[Jack Knave]

Do you not feel sometimes that too many words actually obscure the intended message rather than reveal it?

I find pointless posts like this annoying and obscure the flow of the thread!!! 

[Jack Knave]

No, I think you misread; what I am arguing is that maths, like logic, is not malleable, mouldable, contingent or contextual. I am calling this the primacy of logic.  In a sense I am resurrecting the argument of 10th century islamic theologian Avicenna, who observed that everything we can point to in this world is contingent, it derives from something else, so there must be something uncontextual and incontingent as the source of all things.  And this is what we call God, so claimed Avicenna.  I am making a similar case but with logic as the incontingent source of all things.  As I pointed out to Rosindubh earlier, even a god would be subject to logic, even an omnipotent god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift, or draw a five sided triangle with his divine pencil.

Ok. So how do emotions emanate come from this primacy of logic? Or is it just half the picture?

[Rosindubh]

To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context.  To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.

Hi again toridon.   Thank you for the above post.

Of course, all languages (as you say) are "a product of human mind and culture", and the description of a concept in any language is a separate matter to the concept itself - (two, deux and zwei all refer to the same entity).   However, the big question is always which concept is 'real' and which is 'not real'.

Surely, all concepts have some kind of existence, even Harry Potter.   The question is whether a particular concept is fiction, existing only in the human mind (subjective like Harry Potter, not real), or whether the concept is true independent of the human mind (objective like gluons and antimatter, real).

By arguing (as you do) that the incontingent truths of logic and maths "would be consistent across all possible universes", while the speed of light might vary in a parallel universe, you imply that mathematical concepts are more certain (more true) than physical things.

If we accept that the Standard Model of Particle Physics is correct and true, then we are forced to accept the reality of the mathematical entities which dominate it.   However, by saying that the truths of maths are 'incontingent' while the physical entities are only 'contingent', you appear to be saying that its mathematical entities are even more true than its physical entities.

Reality is what is true independent of the human mind, and surely this must include all 'incontingent' mathematical entities necessary for the objective measurements which are the foundation of modern science.   So, mathematical entities have an objective existence, or modern physics is circular reasoning.
God bless

[torridon]

what I am arguing is that maths, like logic, is not malleable, mouldable, contingent or contextual. I am calling this the primacy of logic.  In a sense I am resurrecting the argument of 10th century islamic theologian Avicenna, who observed that everything we can point to in this world is contingent, it derives from something else, so there must be something uncontextual and incontingent as the source of all things.  And this is what we call God, so claimed Avicenna.  I am making a similar case but with logic as the incontingent source of all things.  As I pointed out to Rosindubh earlier, even a god would be subject to logic, even an omnipotent god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift, or draw a five sided triangle with his divine pencil.

Ok. So how do emotions emanate come from this primacy of logic? Or is it just half the picture?

It's not that we can immediately cut to simple answers to our hardest questions.  Why does chocolate taste nice, why does stuff exist, what is beauty, how does mind arise from matter, exactly how long is the present moment ? For millennia, most western and eastern thought has been predicated on the assumption of god as the source of all things, but to me that looks like a false friend, a tautology disguised as profundity.  Why does stuff exist ? because god wills it, silly, it's a simple answer that hides that fact that 'will' is in fact a complex derivative psychological state. If we remove god then what do we posit as the source of all things ? I'm suggesting we model logic into the space vacated by god; logic is atemporal, it has no mass, requires no energy, it has no prior dependencies and yet all contingent things are dependent upon it.  Why does stuff exist ? perhaps because it would be illogical for it to not exist might be our answer when we have done the math back through long chains of insight and dependencies.  I'm not saying that is easy, maybe it is a harder road to tread initially, but perhaps things will fall into place over time and we will get to a more authentic understanding, not having all the red herrings thrown up by having the false friend 'god' as our starting point.

[wigginhall]

Ok. So how do emotions emanate come from this primacy of logic? Or is it just half the picture?


It's not that we can immediately cut to simple answers to our hardest questions.  Why does chocolate taste nice, why does stuff exist, what is beauty, how does mind arise from matter, exactly how long is the present moment ? For millennia, most western and eastern thought has been predicated on the assumption of god as the source of all things, but to me that looks like a false friend, a tautology disguised as profundity.  Why does stuff exist ? because god wills it, silly, it's a simple answer that hides that fact that 'will' is in fact a complex derivative psychological state. If we remove god then what do we posit as the source of all things ? I'm suggesting we model logic into the space vacated by god; logic is atemporal, it has no mass, requires no energy, it has no prior dependencies and yet all contingent things are dependent upon it.  Why does stuff exist ? perhaps because it would be illogical for it to not exist might be our answer when we have done the math back through long chains of insight and dependencies.  I'm not saying that is easy, maybe it is a harder road to tread initially, but perhaps things will fall into place over time and we will get to a more authentic understanding, not having all the red herrings thrown up by having the false friend 'god' as our starting point.

I suppose 'God wills it' satisfied people for a period of time, but then people began to realize that it's a non-answer.   We can see this easily in AB's formulations, since after he has said that science cannot explain consciousness, he then suggests a solution which definitely cannot be explained!   And when asked how the soul interacts with the brain, of course, he has no answer, since the soul is not material.    It is a kind of blank really.   It's a celebration of ignorance.

As to why does stuff exist, well, because nothing can't.