​

​

Is the question, 'Why is there anything rather than nothing?' a good question? 

'Why?' could be said to imply purpose: 'What is the purpose of there being anything rather than nothing?' Are we in a position to determine the answer, or answers?

​

Is the question, 'How is there anything rather than nothing?' a good question?

This question avoids the implications of the 'why?' question. 

How is it that there is anything rather than nothing? Of course, if there was nothing, there would be nobody to ask the question. So if we wish to ask this question, we first must recognise that we are in the privileged position to do so. 

​

But what does this 'how?' question mean? Does it mean, 'What caused there to by anything?' What is the 'anything?' If it is all time and space, or space-time, then does it make sense to ask what the cause of it was? Does cause not imply a before and an after, in which case it is a term meant for events within space-time? Perhaps 'how?' means 'what is the reason or explanation for there being anything rather than nothing?' But what is meant by 'reason' or 'explanation'? Do these terms mean 'purpose'? If so, we seem to be stuck with the 'why?' problem again.

​

Hume pointed out that cosmological arguments typically commit the fallacy of composition:

'every thing has a cause' is not equal to 'everything has a cause'

'every thing has a reason' is not equal to 'everything has a reason'

​

e. g. 'every brick is small' is not equal to 'everybrick (i.e. a wall) is small'

​

The wall may well be small, the universe may well have a cause or a purpose, but we are not in a position to judge. Kant argued that these questions are beyond our human experience so we cannot answer them, at least not in our current position.   

​

But are these questions reliant upon experience for an answer? Leibniz argued that the principle that a reason must be given for every thing, including the totality (i.e. everything), is a sound principle of logic. To end our questioning with 'it just is' seems unsatisfactory:

'How is it that the planet is here?'

'Because matter gathered billions of years ago due to gravity'

'How is it that there is gravity?'

'It just is'

 

Given that there is no obvious answer to the question in our experience, it seems reasonable, Leibniz maintained, to imagine a transcendent answer. The transcendent answer must have or be a consciousness so as to understand what its own purpose is. 

​

A couple of questions to end:

Does ending our questioning with 'it just is' undermine our questioning? Is it an unsatisfactory end to our questioning?