Why is there Something and not nothing?

This is the conundrum issue.

If God is perfect, why would it create. To create means you are lacking and thus are no longer perfect.

This is the ultimate circular problem.

A lot of physicists are quite fond of saying that the operative laws are responsible for the big bang, and the origin of matter. If this is so, then the question to "why this universe" maybe be responsed by " because there is some principle, or law that made it happen".

A principle or law that accounts for the existence of something is itself something and needs accounting for. Therefore it would have to account for itself which isn't logically possible.

A principle or law that accounts for the existence of something is itself something and needs accounting for. Therefore it would have to account for itself which isn't logically possible.

How is a law, or a principle some "thing"? A principle in not a thing.

Even if a law is a "thing", a law can explain itself in the following way:

Principle P: All laws with property I is true.
By quantification theory, P has property I, thus, by P, P is true.

P is true according to P, thus P is an example of a "thing" that do not need to be explained.

Infinite regress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:nonooo:

The question doesn't make sense. When you ask "why x", you're asking for a reason. However, a reason is something. Therefore a reason can't explain why there is something instead of nothing. If there were nothing there wouldn't even be reasons, so there could never be a reason why there is something.

It does not follow from the premise that if there were nothing there would be no reason for that, that if there is something, that there could be no reason for that. (Bad argument!).

That is a bad argument but that's not what I wrote.

Anything that isn't nothing is something.
A principle isn't nothing.
Therefore a principle is something.

That looks like circular reasoning.

Obvious not, because laws are not concrete things.

Concrete objects (whether mental or physical) have causal powers; numbers and functions and the rest make nothing happen.

You were talking about the existence of "some principle, or law that made it happen". You're ascribing causal powers. That sounds concrete to me.



Abstract Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A challenge for you maybe is to construct a story that explains the realist` s view of laws (Armstrong` s view) that supporting counterfactuals in a world made up of only concrete objects. Are you game enough?

I don't know about that but this is the view I hold:Laws of Nature [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]