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).