Why is there something rather than nothing?
Some initial thoughts:
* God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something.
* Indeed, if anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for.
* This last consideration makes the question look unanswerable. To explain my thinking, consider that a question beginning "Why ..." invites an answer describing some thing which is an antecedent cause, or at least something with a sort of family resemblance to an antecedent cause.
* Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't.
My own opinion is that the question is unanswerable, and indeed can only be asked because the English language allows us to talk nonsense. This view does not satisfy me in the slightest, but as I am in the habit of saying, being hungry does not prove that we have bread.
you can only go so far back in time and then you just cant go back any further.
to ask what existed before the beginning is like asking whats north of the north pole.
the question simply doesnt make any sense.
in the beginning even space didnt exist but there had to exist 1 event.
call it event one
an event is an object doing something.
call it object one doing verb one
event one had to cause at least one other event to happen.
causing another event to happen is doing something.
verb one = causing another event to happen
an event is itself an object.
(strictly speaking an event is an instance of a verb)
object one = event one
Edited by granpa, : added quote
™ Version 4.2
