Is everything meant to be?

Answer 1

The answer to this question ultimately depends on the nature of what it means "to be". For something "to be" is another way of saying that something exists, whether it be a human action, an object, a pattern or law of physics, etc.

So the question becomes really becomes one of where does the existence of things, the to be-ingness of things, reside.

There are, to my mind, two possible answers. Either existence comes from Reality or Existence itself, such that if Existence didn't exist, nothing else would exist; or existence comes from within things that exist.

With regard to the former, if we accept the simple assertion that if reality (or existence) did not exist, nothing would exist, then we must necessarily accept that everything is reality (i.e., existence). Why? Because if everything depends for their existence upon reality itself, such that if reality disappeared everything would disappear, then by definition we cannot find anything anywhere that exists independently from reality (such that if reality disappeared, it would still exist). Since nothing anywhere, no action, no will (e.g., free will), no thought, no thing, (and none of the parts of any of those), etc, would exist if reality did not exist, then nothing has even the slightest trace of independent existence from reality itself. Which is just another way of saying that everything is reality.

If everything is reality, then everything is necessarily meant to be, because no action, no motive, no consequence, no choice, no object, no physical law, nothing that accounts for why things are would be anything other than reality. If reality is the sole doer, so to speak, of all things that are, then an alternative choice, again so to speak, from reality would also exist within reality, and therefore would be reality. So absolutely everything would be as it was "meant to be", again, so to speak.

On the otherhand, if we hold the view that some things exist by virtue of themselves (i.e., separate from reality) or if we hold the view that there is no such thing as reality, and that reality is something inherent in things (phenomena, existents), then there would be cause for saying that at least some things were not meant to be. Because if "things" existed by virtue of themselves, there would be the possibility of these things "battling it out" so to speak, as independent agents. If everything is Reality, then everything is meant to be because everything is One, and from where would contradiction derive? But if things possess inherent independence from one another, then many possible results from their interaction would be, theoretically, possible with no guarantees concerning the outcomes.

This is not to say that holding an atomist view of the universe (i.e., that there is no such thing as reality, that reality exists inherently in the "things" of the universe) will lead to a view that not everything is meant to be. There are some atomist worldviews that commit to the idea that there is a complete causal chain which determines everything. Such a view is a kind of acceptance of the idea that everything is meant to be. It shares with the previous view (i.e., that everything depends on reality for their existence) the idea that everything that happens ultimately has a cause, in the former view the cause is Reality itself (but only so to speak, which I don't have time to go into), in this view the cause is other events which are themselves caused, etc.

My point, however, is that only with a view of the universe in which at least some things exist by virtue of themselves, independently from reality, CAN one accept the idea that not everything is meant to be. A common way of doing this is using the idea of free will, or free choice. Free will is the idea of an uncaused will, and because it has no cause, it breaks the causal chain that would otherwise lead to determinism. But for something to be uncaused, means that it must necessarily exist by virtue of itself, for if it existed by virtue of anything other than itself, it would be caused.

So for a view in which not everything is meant to be, there must be an acceptance of at least some things which have no cause, and yet operative within the causal chain. But how can such a thing exist?

Let's take the example of free will. The idea is that there is at least some aspect of the will that is uncaused, and thus free absolutely. If it were caused, it would not be free, but rather would be dependent upon its cause. It would, therefore by definition, need to exist at each moment of its existence by virtue of itself, for if it did not whatever it existed by virtue of would be its cause.

The will is that which chooses. The free will exist by virtue of itself and has no cause. But if it has no cause, how can it make a choice? To say the free will has no cause is just to say that it has no reason to make the decisions it makes. Because, if it did have a reason, that reason would be its cause, and thus all choices would be made by virtue of that reason (thus returning us to the view that everything in the universe is caused). Regardless of whether the reason is itself, or if the reason is something other than itself, a reason means a cause, the will is either determined by its own nature, or by something else, in either case it is determined, not free. But if it has no reason, then either that lack of a reason is the cause, or it makes no choices. For how can something, in this case the choice, come from nothing (in this case, a choice coming from no reason for that choice)? And even if something did come from nothing, that nothing could not be the cause for that something because nothing in this case means no existing cause with respect to the choice, so the free will would have nothing whatsoever to do with the choices made. If the lack of a reason is the cause, then free will does have a cause, in which case it is not uncaused, in which case it is not free.

A similar argument would apply to any assertion of some self-existing existent breaking the causal chain through an uncaused cause.

The idea of free will is a fiction, and so is any other similar idea.

I'm going to end there. Much can be said and argued about he views that everything really is Existence, or that there is no such thing as Existence and that everything is merely existents in an strict causal chain, but either way, with either view, everything is meant to be.

Answer 2

Yes everything is meant to be. God knows every move even before you make them. But that doesnt mean He controls you. You still make your own choices in life. But you can pray for guidance so that everything will work out well for you =)

Answer 3

I believe everything is part of a master plan. I don't believe in coincidence. Everything happens for a reason, even if we don't know why. We are not always meant to know.

Answer 4

Yes and No. From a religious standpoint, we were never ment to have pain or sickness or hunger. But with free will came bad choices on our end. We make them everyday and they affect the world around us. I once heard it compared to birthing paines. In order to get the good, to have salvation from these things, we have to go through the pain.

Answer 5

I sure hope not, otherwise, the world would be meanless,pointless and no fun at all. However, one thing is surely meant to be: "A NEW WORLD ORDER" of the highest density.

Answer 6

I don't think so...
Well, perhaps indirectly. See, God intended the world. He intended life. He even intended death and suffering, because he let the devil be.
And because he let the devil be, that would mean that he meant for crud to happen, and so yes.

Answer 7

I think everyone was meant to be what their passionate about

Answer 8

I think that there are many paths that we can take in the journey of our lives, but we make decisions that determine which path we find ourselves on. So yes and no...nothing is set in stone thanks to our free will.

Answer 9

God knows every step and event of every moment, so, yes...

Answer 10

I dont think so thats why no bodys perfect...