It all boils down to simple practicality. If an object cannot be observed, it doesn't exist.
An object can become unobservable in two ways:

1. It has no measurable attributes.
2. There is no one to observe it.

Now, let's imagine a universe filled with things that cannot be observed:

Voila! The only universe you are able to imagine is utterly empty and takes up no space (space can be observed).

Now, let's imagine a universe filled with things that can be observed but never will be.

A place that you will ever never interact with in any way, ever? It's a practical absurdity. Let's be practical.

Conclusion: Awareness is a prerequisite of existence. Awareness came before everything else. That sounds like God.


P.S. I apologize for my erratic tendencies. I seem to be learning as I go.

There is no meaning to existence. We are just here. Our instincts tell us to survive, and that's what we do.

Would it not be stranger for nothing to exist? Or rather, for there to be nothing?
Really, though, you're asking a question that cannot be answered. Nothing would mean a lack of our own consciousness, an eternal unconsciousness. We don't even have the ability to conceive of such a thing, because our very idea of unconsciousness is rooted in the idea that we WILL wake up. To coneive nothing would be to conceive a lack of your own conceiving. Perhaps it's possible, but it would take someone a hell of a lot smarter than I.

It's an interesting exercise, but not one I'd get overly hung up on. "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die." The words are quoted out of context, but I believe they apply here. Live, breathe, drink, eat, sleep, defecate, die. Questioning our own existence is a luxury, and one in which I like to endulge, but it is not necessary for that existence to continue. Spend too much time spinning the question in your mind and you'll miss all the tiny little details that makes up our existence, and that's where you'll find your answer.

"The person lives most beautifully who does not reflect upon existence” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Homo Sapien (humanity) is the only species of life in the world that is intimately aware of it's own, inevitable demise. Thus, it is the only species that feels compelled to examine and/or explain it's existence in relation to that constantly looming death waiting to snuff out that very same existence at any moment. Therefore, you have the uniquely human constructs of religion and philosophy that attempt to explain it when really no explanation is needed.

I prefer to accept my own existence as an indebatable fact, with no real reason other than the proven scientific processes that formed my body from the union of two seperate cells from two other bodies. And when I die, I will cease to exist having left behind another body, a child that was a direct result of my own existence, that which the cells from my body contributed toward.

Until that point, I think everyone who exists now should try to live in the best and happiest way possible, and to justify that existence.

I like what you're saying, but the problem with that is thus:

What makes me (and those for which I love and care) happy will not necessarily make you happy.

As you said, it's not an issue of world peace: my point is that pure hedonism as a social/philosophical standard has flaws.  Namely, human nature.

Say, for instance, that your yard grows plenty of apples --and these are damn good apples-- but just enough to supply you and your friends and loved ones.  Though your yard is perfect for these apples, you tend to the trees every chance you get because it is your hobby and nothing makes you happier than producing the greatest apples these trees can muster and then seeing the looks on the faces of those dearest to you when they finally bite into the literal fruits of your labor.  Let's say that I really want one of these apples, but my yard cannot grow any apple trees.  I also have no money, since work makes me very unhappy. Furthermore, you and I don't really know each other and we've never really had any deep conversations at the neighborhood's summer block parties.  Therefore, in order to appease my happiness, I must steal one of your apples, which will make you unhappy.  Maybe not enough to incite a war, but nobody likes it when they lose something to somebody who did nothing for it.

Keep in mind that we're just talking about your apples.  This isn't even factoring in those new neighbors down the street, the devout Jehovah's Witnesses who molest children.

The idea that there is no purpose to existence and we should be all be happy isn't exactly a strong incentive.  If there is no purpose, then why must we be happy?  Wouldn't it make equal sense to spread misery and chaos, since there is no reason to stay civil? 

The tricky part of saying that there is no purpose to existence is the issue of morality and why we have it in the first place.  Even if you don't subscribe to the theological implications, there are various social explanations for why we have morals, which I won't get into because there is already a thread for it (which I suggest reading, btw).

So my opinion:  there is a purpose for existence, whether we know it or not.  It might be religious and metaphysical, it might be a means to keep the species going.  Beyond that, we are merely speculating the significance of it.

-----------

Please note that I'm not implying that child molestation is an essential part of being a Jehovah's Witness.  We just don't like being awakened at dawn in order to talk about Jesus.

Well, this discussion doesn't seem to have much elsewhere to go and this thread did not really provide too straightforward of an answer for me, besides there being no purpose to existence... Although, I have been given new insights, and I feel I need to stop pondering life.

Great, you all ruined philosophy for me. I hope you're happy. </sarcasm>

The basic idea of my argument there is that since people want to be happy, because the definition of happiness is, well, being happy. It's basically the 'good' feeling, or emotion. Why would anybody want to spread misery and chaos if it made them unhappy? I can see that it might make them happy and others unhappy. But logically then, the best way for the most people to be happy would be for everybody to try to spread happiness rather than chaos. And, by the way, civility is not the same as happiness.

As for the apple thought experiment, it did a good job at showing that not everybody can be happy. But it leaves too many open options to really hold true (ex. you said your character didn't work because work makes him unhappy, which suggests that lethargy is the same as happiness. Unless this character could find work which he liked, which he then would, and would be happy). If your character had asked mine for an apple, he might have obliged, but there are too many other factors. The world is not a closed environment, which is why these arguments are difficult either way.