Unanswerable Questions

In addition, I feel there are "unaskable questions", ineffable wonders.

Also, how can we ask the question regarding the existence of anything at all, when our very existence is a prerequiste for the very asking/wondering? I suspect there would have to be a privileged position for the interrogator that is neither one of existence nor of non-existence. Don't ask me why.

In addition, I feel there are "unaskable questions", ineffable wonders.

Also, how can we ask the question regarding the existence of anything at all, when our very existence is a prerequiste for the very asking/wondering? I suspect there would have to be a privileged position for the interrogator that is neither one of existence nor of non-existence. Don't ask me why.

because there isn't nothing at all


really pretty obvious

Because we have too little information from which to derive either possibility or probability.

A lot of questions that don't have answers at least lend themselves to a high degree of probability (or some degree of probability) within certain philosophical boundaries and a consensus results. But the type of questions you are proposing don't fall into that category.

I agree, which makes me wonder if there are unfathomable answers?

I'm tentatively skeptical that there is a "one size fits all" for those. The un-submitted questions potentially become dysfunctional due to varying circumstances, so that analyzing "Why is there anything at all?" below does not necessary yield factors universal or common to the others' supposed collapse.

"Why" or for what reason is assuming a cause or instigator or necessity for being that itself already or always "is", regardless. Even if such a "reason" exists via only having this effectiveness or importance (intelligible), and not existing as a concrete entity "located somewhere" (spatiotemporal). For example, a rule like "everything requires a reason or cause", would itself be the bottom "reason" if it is so primal and eternally significant. But accordingly, it would already be an instance of being ("to exist is to be potent").

So under inspection the question falls apart as a dog chasing its tail: "What being is responsible for beings being?". Re-phrasing it as "What non-being is responsible for beings being?" introduces the puzzle of how something that doesn't exist can be potent, so as to engender or be responsible for what does/will exist.