The Unintelligible Question that Looks Intelligible IE Why is there something rather than nothing?
“Modern logic …prompts suspicion that the question of why there is something and
not nothing is either ill-formed or profitless, since any intelligible answer
will merely invite the same question. A central mistake in the area is to treat
Being as a noun that identifies a particularly deep subject-matter. This is
parallel to treating Nothing as a name of a particular thing, perhaps an object
of dread or fear” (page 40, Being, Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn,
Oxford University Press, 1996).
The question is used by popular religions to get people to think there is
probably a God who is the answer to the question.
Meaningless
The question makes no sense.
The question implies there could have been nothing for it is asking why there
isn’t just nothing? It wants the answer that there could not have been nothing
because there is something. It was logically impossible for there to have been
nothing. So the question says it's logically possible for there to be nothing at
all and it seeks an answer that says it is not logically possible. Therefore the
question is meaningless. It contradicts itself. It is foolish asking the
question for we are not going to understand the answer for logic says there
might have been nothing at all not even God and to accept any answer is to deny
this and therefore to deny logic.
Heidegger
One of the greatest philosophers ever, Martin Heidegger, thought about why there
is something rather than nothing.
Of this question, he said that it showed a misunderstanding of being. The
question is meant to make us think that God could be the only answer but it
fails.
Here is a paraphrase of his teaching from What Do Existentialists Believe?
Heidegger wrote Being and Time to deal with the question, “What is ‘is’?
This is not bad grammar. It is just wondering what being is.
He sees that we have taken “is” for granted and are puzzled by such a question.
We don’t see that being cannot be defined as a thing. Being is not a being. It
is what allows things to be present. It is what allows them to exist. There is
nothing I can describe that is being itself. A tree has being but that doesn’t
tell me what being is. Being is not. It is not a thing or power and yet things
exist and have being through this non-thing. Being is nothing. He used the
question, “Why are there things rather than nothing?” He used it to make us see
the is-ness that appears from non-thing. He denied that God could be an answer.
Heidegger said that being is not God.
Heidegger then answered those who say that God is being itself and the necessary
being. If you cannot define being you cannot get far with ideas about a
necessary being or a God that is being itself which means the same thing.
Another thought
Why are we alive instead of being automatons? If you have to choose either "Why
something rather than nothing?" or "Why are we alive instead of being machines?"
which question will you choose?
Conclusion
The question of why something rather than nothing is taking advantage of people
to make them think the answer is God for the question makes sense. It is a trick
with words.