Why, indeed. Just because we can formulate a question it doesn't mean we are entitled to an answer. In any case, it seems to exist for OldHippie.
“There once was a man who said, ‘Though, It seems that I know that I know, What I’d most like to see, Is the I that knows me, When I know that I know that I know.’”
To answer this question, it would make sense to know how the world first came into existence. What events transpired for the world to enter into existence in the first place? If you believe in a theory such as Intelligent Design, you have to ask why the Designer decided to create the world. What goal was the world meant to fulfill? Why are we a part of it, and how are we relevant to the Designer achieving his/her/its goal? If your preferred theory is one such as the Big Bang, it would be helpful to know what caused the Bang. If there is no supernatural entity, such as a Designer, what is the point of us being here? My personal theory is that God created the world, and we are here to serve and glorify Him. I'm sure there are numerous other reasons why God wants us here, but I couldn't tell you what they are. My ability to think, to learn, and to know is microscopic in comparison to His. I just live my life as a feels He wants me to.
none of us can know, though we often know based on some set of assumptions that are set up in order to satisfy oiur desire to know. There are a lot of guesses based on best available evidence but the best available evidence is insufficient a this point in time Someday maybe we know. Maybe not. Some years ago I attended a symposium at UT with my son, who was studying astronomy.,, The subject was how we know what we know about the big bang. Highly sophisticated extrapolations mostly but I was struck with one gem passed on by a McD Observcatory fellow: Most of what we niow know we have learned in the last twenty years, That was fifteen years ago and every year the Sloan Digital Sky Survey or some other tool comes up with info doubling what "we" know. Someday maybe, but not right now. Most if not all of us will die not knowingthe answer to the question but that will not keep any of us from trying to answer it and thinking we know. Whoop!!!! as our Aggie friends like to say.
Or, let me simplify it like this: there is such a thing as "good" art, and "bad" art, or at least "better" art and "worse" art. Such judgments do not have to be subjective or arbitrary. And that judgment has to come from the direction of a pre-expressive Big Bang.
Good to or for whom? And bad in whose eyes? Who is standing on the terra firma from which such decisions are made? And the question was why the earth exists, not what in or on earth makes it seem more intelligible to some people or seems to or does give it purpose. I'll stick with we don't enough to know.
I agree with the notion that what we call The World encompasses the entirety of our experiential environment in this life, or something like that. I read somewhere recently, I think it was by a physicist, who said that we have no way of knowing if we actually encounter the physical world — the only thing we truly experience is our own nervous system. Just speaking of the physical world/environment, I have a suspicion that it is much weirder and unpredictable than we know, but our brains have evolved to somehow patch it together into a sensible form that we can perceive and work with.
Apologies for the world/earth screwup but I thought the question was why this blob exists and why, as pointed out by others, is a different question from how. Why presumes there is a mind at work somewhere and I don't see a lot of evidence for that. But then, as pointed out by others, my opinion on that matter is subjectively based and as I pointed out, that base is very limited in scope and the scope is expanding with each flip of the Hubble. Most if not all of our explanations for things are based on limited amounts of reliable knowledge and the explanations change somewhat over time as that knowledge evolves. AS for Shakespeare, I think he is better than Louis Lamour or the folks who wrote Les Mis but Louis sells better and Les Mis draws better crowds. Lots of people, if given a poll, would say they are both better than the guy from Stratford. On what ground do I stand to tell them they are wrong? Better informed opinions? Who says? Shakespeare wrote plays to pack the theater and make money. There are people around now who can do it better. I find him far superior but prefer just reading him to watching performances. Over time he has lost a lot of his magic for the general public. That says more about the general public than him but again, who decides what is good and what is not worth paying attention to. Is Quentin Tarantino a better playwright than Shakespeare? When was the last time a Shakespearean play or even one about him outgrossed his latest epic, Mandingo Goes Genocidal? Anyway, I'm going back to reading the Richard Burton Diaries, which is not as good as Pepys (in my opinion), but very entertaining. Sorry for the world/earth screwup
And I wish you good luck. And to someone whose washing machine is broke, a manual on how it operates may be better than Hamlet, whatever better means
