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

So where is the inconsistency then?

Who says "nothing" has to be?

Before you can insist that nothingness is a state of being you first need to define both "nothing" and what it means to "exist" (or be).Good frikkin luck with that......

I think the whole thing is pretty meaningless personally.But it is fun to talk bollocks sometimes.

He claims to be summarising correctly. But his summary is a straw man.That is the problem.

So - The question boils down to:Why does any form of reality exist rather than absolutely nothing at all?Is that what you are saying?

Well I am glad we cleared that up Is absolute nothingness an "alternative reality"....? I would have thought absolute nothingness would be no reality at all? Indeed. And now we are possibly disagreeing about nothing too.This topic is a complete headfuck.

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?

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

Possibly........

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

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

Skyhooks and cranes are terms coined by philosopher Dan DennettDennett uses the term "skyhook" to describe a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layersin simple terms, a miracle.Dennett contrasts theories of complexity that require such miracles with those based on "cranes", structures which permit the construction of entities of greater complexity but which are themselves founded solidly "on the ground" of physical science. LinkHe completely misses the central theme of the argument that some explanations are exceptionally well founded where others are not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Summarize - Yes. But he gives the distinct impression that he is repeating Dawkins own summary rather than presenting his own straw man version. But it doesn't go as follows at all.

Well it certainly seems paradoxical in a paradox defying sort of way.This whole thing boils down to defining both "nothing" and the nature of existence.......If there is a more nonsense inspiring branch of philosophy than ontology then I have yet to find it.