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

In message 150 of this thread, Black Cat summarizes what he considers to be his key point. It goes as follows:

W.L.C is summarizing Dawkins' arguments by quoting him directly.

​

Do you see any problem with the above?

I do, that's not an accurate summary of what I wrote.

And what suggested to you that it was intended to be an accurate summary of what you wrote?

Which is pretty much what I was saying in the post further up that you replied to. The absence of everything includes the absence of all possible realities. I was saying to Paul that describing nothing as a state of reality is describing nothing as something.{Sorry, BlackCat, that was meant to be a reply to a Straggler post}Nothing also excludes all possibilities, because they are things. So, if "no reality" is a possibility, it gets excluded.So, nothing is impossible. Edited by bluegenes, : Replied to wrong post

Possibly........

Nothingness also excludes doubt.

And certainty too.....?I guess.......

Sure. And place and time and its own existence/being and all possible realities, and itself as a state, and itself as an alternative to something.No doubt about all that.

So what would we call the absence of even the possibility of any states of reality?

Here's my answer - again: Why should I remember something that is not true?"The ball is red."
Which part of that sentence identifies the ball as red?"The"? No.
"Red"? No.
"The ball"? Nope.
"ball is"? Still nope.
"The ball is red."? Yes! Oh no - I quoted the whole sentence.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

One of the qualifications of nothingness.Mind you, the absence of everything includes the absence of qualifications. The absence of the possibility of being an alternative to something is one that's interesting, because the O.P. question is:"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Let me rephrase my question again. How does the above sentence provide support for your claim that Dr. Craig claimed to be quoting directly? It's quite evident that he's not claiming to quote directly. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.

So when he says crane, he's referring to a probable explanation?I don't see a difference in meaning between the following:We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.We don't yet have an equivalent probable explanation for physics.I don't see how W.L.C damaged the accuracy or intent of his statement. If you could explain this to me I would appreciate it.

So...you couldn't answer the previous ball question, then?
Too difficult?Here's another for you to try:
"The ball is maroon."
How does the above sentence provide support for the claim that the ball is red?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I'm waiting for you to answer my question. Let me know when you're prepared to do so.