The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?

How can you have purpose unless you first have something capable of intent?

But how can there be purpose unless there is something capable of intent?

So - Again - How can there be purpose without something capable of intent? Erm.. OK.

How can there be an "end, mean, aim, or goal" unless there is something which has aims, means, goals etc...? Which suggests that purpose is itself something.So you have still failed to answer the question posed in this thread.

But it doesn't answer the question posed.If there is a God he is sitting there asking himself why there is something rather than nothing and failing to answer the question in exactly the same way we are.

Why there is something rather than nothing is a question that no something will ever be able to answer. I know what Dr A meant coz I have actually read the OP.And by "something" we are talking about anything at all. Immaterial or otherwise.Why is there something rather than literally nothing at all?

Talking to you is like having a conversation with a random word generator.I give up.(And that is saying something)

This doesn't really do anything to answer the question of why there is something rather than literally nothing.It just says that it always has been the case that there is.Or something like that.(This whole subject is a bit of a mind warp)

If one considers the positive darkness of colour absence it is possible to grasp the transcendent nature of imagined reality. Only then can light be seen in terms of non-conceptual reality. Of course in the absence of imagination there can be no transcendental which leads to the dichotomy of nothing itself being something. At that point the metaphorical apple can be said not to exist metaphorically and the whole of reality will implode in a nothing anti-nothing cancellation effect.Let’s just hope this doesn’t occur.

But Jo (May I call you Jo?) what your position fails to take into account is the anti-nothingness nature of the conceptual light-dark-absence triune. This triune can only be considered in terms of the immateriality of notional colour. Where colour, of course, refers to the conceptual rather than physical manifestation of light as a conglomerate of conceivable somethings. Having defined the terms it should now be obvious that THE BEGINNING you refer to, rather than being something terrifying, is simply a logical function of the nothingness spectrum. Metaphorically speaking it is the antithesis of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The LET in the LET THERE BE LIGHT proclamation. Now having established the nature of the triune and the spectrum of conceivable nothings we can move onto the question of why the spectral landscape may or may not include both pre and post universe aspects of the something-nothing inversable relationship. Essentially we need to consider whether something and nothing are nothing more than opposite sides of the same spectral transcendant. It seems to me that in the absence of pre-conceptual universe perceptual colourisation the landscape can only be considered in it’s monochromatic imagined and thus finite form. But even this limited polarisation of the conceptual reality spectrum allows us to draw reasonably concrete conclusions if appropriately extrapolated to the infinite form on the basis of the something-anti-nothing equivalence principle.Of course such extrapolations may be unwarranted. Until we ascertain the exact ratio of the colourisation co-efficient nothing is truly certain.Interested in your thoughts.

Infinities have blighted our mathematical models of reality previously LinkIt seems to be a feature of applying classical thinking to quantum phenomena. Or something like that. Should we ever understand the nature of time and the importance of infinity I still don't see how this will aid in solving the question of why something rather than nothing at all.Time and infinity would just become our "something" and the question would become one of why time and infinity exist rather than literally nothing at all.

Too true.

Is an inconsistency a "something".....?

Haven't you just contradicted yourself?I don't really see how genuine nothingness (whatever the hell that means) can be inconsistent. What is it inconsistent with? Inconsistent with what?

Is Being something?