Why is there something rather than nothing

Nothingness doesn't exist.

It never existed and never will

The always has been something and there always will be. At least for as long as time exists

*tips fedora*

There is something because G-D put it there. End of story. End of discussion.

Genesis 1:1 -
'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

More proof than you could ever need you fat fucking autist.

Emotionally, this question is as retarded as "Why is there nothing rather than something?"

Literally, something exists because even nothing is something, because you can name it, just like space outside of Earth exists, but we all know it is empty and dark. So something always exists.

Logically, as in "Why isn't there Just nothing?", something exists because like the existence of a book, which is a finite object, anything finite implies the infinite consistent possibilities of everything else it could be. Each possibility exists then. If you are skeptical about the existence of possibilities as possibilities consider the reaction of a woman that sees a man with a gun or the international reaction after the Reich's militarization.

Physically, "why things are actualized rather than nothing?": On the above example, the book is a possibility and it exists, therefore all others can exist. What makes it physically exist is certainly the same thing that makes our Universe exist. Whatever it is, let's call it the Creator. What is the nature of it? Certainly it has access to all possibilities in order to create something, and that amounts to an infinite, perfect, therefore good mind; Certainly it is all-powerful within our physical realm, because it created and sustains our observable Universe. Certainly then it is everywhere, it observes everything and even knows the future.

>Existence is the default state of matter and matter existed since forever
But it's not. As with most things, reality is usually a mixture of the two poles. Those poles being, here, something and nothing. To have only nothing would be just as shocking as having only something. Instead, we have a mixture: some of something and some of nothing. Aka, something, because nothing should be by its very nature undetectable.

>some of nothing
literally no such thing

you are operating under the assumption that only what exists, exists.

nothing does exist, just somewhere else.

something exists here incidentally b/c both something and nothiing exist; but they can't exist in the same place (duh)

They idea of nothing doesn't make sense in the first place. Negation is only the negation of concepts in our mind, not of physical things.

If I see a chair in one moment and then in the next it's gone, when I say "the chair disappeared" I am only referring to the concept of a chair in my mind, obviously not atoms or energy actually disappeared. Indeed, physics show that even perfect vaccums are still something just the same. You literally cannot get "nothing". It is something we made up that stands for "not [concept of our mind]".

So applying the idea of negation to physical things (ie "the universe doesn't exist") doesn't make sense. It is a meaningless sentence.

Thus, there really IS no "non-existence", or "not existing", or "nothing". It's just another case of language being misused and then taken for a genuine problem.

t. W

> Skydaddy did it
not to go all current year up in this bitch but the sad part is people still believe in this shit.

Because there is more entropy in something than in nothing.

Well it doesn't physically exist (by its nature), but it exists infinitely (also by way of its very nature).

The fallacy here is that people approach this problem as if nothing:something is just like red:blue, when it's not that way at all. Perceiving nothing would mean it's no longer nothing. Again, my conclusion is that a world with only nothing would be much more shocking than a world with something and nothing (aka something).

Because something can define itself but nothing cannot.

>but it exists infinitely (also by way of its very nature).
prove it

Because nothing is inherently unstable and will always produce something.

But then, is it truly nothing?

This is equivalent to 1+1+1+1

Is there a logical premise for suggesting that nothing is anything more than a cognitive illusion?

That is to say, is there any reason to believe that 'nothing' exists?

Perhaps because something came from and alternate universe and was leaked into this universe of nothingness through quantum white holes or portals. In the other universe, black holes were sucking everything up. But where did those black holes come from? Let's add another dimension to this equation and say other dimensional aliens who created the black holes which started multiplying. But where did the other dimensional aliens come from? Let's just say other dimensional aliens going up dimensions. But where is the origin in all of this? Let's say the universe holds some sort of DNA or something that codes it and mutations in this universe began this whole cycle. But where did the universe come from? Some sort of plane which we cannot comprehend and the questions open up from there.

That's all i've got.

Not to get too reddit-tier pop-sci here, but couldn't certain states of "existence" qualify as being "nothing"? Like the fact that the photon has no reference frame. You could say that both time and space are infinitely contracted, but it doesn't make sense to even imagine a photon's reference frame in this manner because you can't define the speed of light in a photon's frame of reference in the first place. I suppose this could count as "nothing", and similarly being dead reduces you to a state of non-existence from your point of view. Sure, there might be people living who can see your physical body and prove to themselves that you are still a part of existence, but you would have no way of knowing about this outside universe and your previous life within it because you are completely gone. Basically, I think nothing and something are compatible, equally valid concepts entirely dependent on an observer's or particle's frame of reference. Just as in relativity where radically different frames of reference can come to entirely different bu equally valid conclusions of the universe, the existence of non-existent frames of reference (sorry if that sounds retarded) shows us that nothing and something can co-exist in a logically consistent manner.

More precisely, {{{{{}}}}} or s(s(s(s(0))))

How?
Why?
Where does it come from?

The concept of nothing and something is flawed since humanity invented it to categorize what he could not comprehend without a name.

Humanity is based on comunications and languages, in another planet the word "nothing" could carry the same meaning as the word "something" and vice versa.

TIME IS IMPORTANT AND I AM A CLOCK!

To answer that question, you must first ask:
What is something?

>why
gonna stop you there

>4/0=4

shame on you. shame on all of you.

(1) if nothing exists, then logic doesn't exist
(2) if logic doesn't exist, then there's no reason why something can't just exist out of nowhere
(3) existence happens because there's no reason it shouldn't

QED

Agreed

>call it "skydaddy"
No wonder it is fucking sad, it is blindly retarded, only an atheist can think like this about people with higher intelligence than their flat asses

There's probably a whole lot of nothing, and a bit of something, which is where we are.

The only correct response here.

>> Skydaddy did it

OMG you're so clever for coming up with a funny name to call God. I bet your parents just don't understand how enlightened you are.

> having a problem with Linkin Park or Atheism
How's it feel to belittle people for what people believe or like?

>>>/Live Journal/

shut up mom

I honestly don't get this reference.
Is it from the 90s or something?

Bye.