Why does the Universe exist?

It's the diff between expected and actual, merely a language issue I guess

Nah Mark I'm perfectly serious if slightly muddled

Our most sincere condolences

...if that's the right word

You are correct saying that the concept of Mother Earth and Father Sky are metaphors, the metaphors reflecting male and female. I certainly didn't make them up, they've been around long before I was born. However, I don't think you'd recieve any magic powers believing in them, only a sense that we are relevant to our environment. When I said as a Christian I am venturing out into the forbidden zone here, I meant that this concept is not a conventional concept that a Christian usually mentions. There is only God, or Heavenly Father(or Father Sky). No Mother Earth or goddesses in Christian theology. But even though there is only a Heavenly Father in Christian theology, I suspect there is a Mother Earth even though they don't mention it.

Human beings are really really TRIBAL...you call it God, I call it timeless Reality, or BEING, scientists call it the Universe, some the Multiverse, and we all spend years, decades, debating the ins and outs of the most credible story...
...stories are stories, some more well framed then others...but bottom line I look to the end of the road not the twists in the middle. Seen from afar, some alien species looking down at ants debating, this all must be very amusing...we lose to much time with details and tribal wars...

Yes there is a tribal instinct in humans, probably from our ancestors who often made connections with the environment using metaphores and having their own metaphoric versions of the genesis. I know most human cultures in the world have genesis stories of the universe and why it was created, not just the Jews. But they are all mysterious metaphoric interpretations using indirect language, unlike today's scientific language where descriptions must be clear and direct. It does seem quite unusual why our ancestors preferred using metaphores rather than speaking directly. I too get frustrated by mysterious figurative explanations of our universe. I only became a Christian because of the goodwill morality of Christianity towards other people, rather than the far out stories in the bible. But I do believe in the formula that, if we believe in good things(or well things), good things will happen. If we believe in bad things, bad things will happen(or manifest). We must try to keep our minds positive so to speak...

Lets make clear how stupid the question is k ?

1 - Lets define Universe as Reality as Existence first.

2 - Lets define Non Being as a pseudo concept who lacks internal consistency. Its self negating. Nothing IS nothing. Note the presence of the "IS" in the sentence as contradictory already.

3 - It follows that the question is asking why Existing which cannot not exist exists...its like asking why its true I just took a coffee right now...well, because I did !

That is truely false, hang on I'll rephrase that... That is falsely true, dammit! I'm going for a coffee too!

Yeah Godel's incompleteness is something I admit "my side" guys are not willing to talk about cause Metaphysics bites them in the arse and they don't like Philosophy in spite of spending 90% of the time deeply mud fighting within Philosophical waters without noticing it...

...I admit some Theologians of top class may have a good laugh listening to the naive Scientific approach when we reach the frontier of knowledge...

None of that of course invalidates the criticism directed to Theologians that jump from Metaphysical problems to "God dit it" conclusions...they are just as much worth laughing from.

Yes I understand what you're saying, philosophy can sometimes be very unscientific in the context where they try to rationalize phenomenon or things that can't be examined or tested, or in some cases they are trying to reinvent the English language, It's like thinking, what part of the word "nothing" don't you understand? And then yes you get the uneducated religious nuts, yes uneducated, that try to deny any scientific explanation for things to appear as though they have some secret scientific intelligence by using the word God. I don't claim perfection as a Christian, but I don't deny any sound scientific reasoning. I think Science should only be used for physical matters, and religion should only be used for spiritual/moral matters.

Not moral. There is no evidence that the bible is the word of god. There are too many omissions and contradictions. Some of the contradictions have already been discussed.

I agree there are contradications according to so and so, but there is a lot of valuable spiritual and moral content as well according to Lord Jesus that is. I don't really take much notice of all other literature in the bible, only Lord Jesus. You see, I'm a Christian because of the moral and spiritual content. I'm not in it for the metaphoric fairy tales.

Nothing wrong with believing in any religion: The ultimate test is how we treat our fellow man.

Yes, you are correct about how we treat our fellow human being, and as a Christian that can only be achieved if one maintains their sense of family, towards our birth family of course, and other people. My rationale in moral/spiritual matters is, if atheism, theism or whatever works for you or makes you a better human being then that's awesome, afterall that is the objective. If it wasn't for Lord Jesus, I would not have realized the real value in family or human life. I would never have learnt this from Physics science...

If Religion was just an Institution that symbolized the relation between man and metaphysics, that which transcends man's computation power set, then I would have nothing to point against Religion. It would symbolize humbleness and respect towards the ultimate Nature of Reality. The problem is the subversion of Religion as a mechanism of social mind control through fairy tale fantasies. It is bad enough that corporate marketing does it without any ethical control.

Well I guess it depends on your own perception which is usually shaped by your own experiences which can differ to other people. Like I said to cicerone, atheism, theism or whatever, if it works for you or makes you a better person, that's awesome. But I understand what you mean about senseless or dishonest doctrine of some religious groups.

So long any structure of language and communication in an X given cultural background naturally justified is self consistent I am willing to put up with it. Better so long it HONESTLY intends to the best of its ability to be self consistent within its base conceptual assumptions I am willing to put up with it. Of course it is also a requirement that X group is relatively tolerant toward other cultural frames of reference out there. Its no news, its tolerance and civilized behaviour.

I just hope that people are able to realise the value in having a sense of family and the value of human life, but we must be vigilant at the same time, we don't want to be treated like door mats. But we have only two choices anyway, we can either help one another, or self- destruct...

Nothing actually is Everything. (using the word "is" just for simplicity)

It seems completely absurd at first, but that's the key, it solves both questions from OP.

I found it here where it is explained elegantly with logical arguments:
https://astezar.wordpress.com/nothing-is-everything/

They also give an intuitive example:
-Imagine a blank sheet of paper, there is nothing on it.
-Now draw a circle with a black pen, there is something on the sheet.
-Now put everything on the sheet, paint it whole black with the ink, and show it to someone random in the street asking what they see. They will probably answer "Nothing, there is nothing on it" because there is no shape, it is blank black, empty. Everything is Nothing.

And, if I understand correctly, they say that as a result the Universe is Relative: Something only exists relatively to what it is not
https://astezar.wordpress.com/relativity/

I mean I don't know, I was convinced by what they say but I'm happy to be shown otherwise

- The "realm" of all potential objects is not nothing.

- The functional extension of what an object is is relative to other things that also are, and are distinct. That which the object is not, is SOMETHING else not absence.

- Nothingness negates itself from Being, the concept is flawed. Nothingness imediatly evokes the existence of what is absent to be...which in turn refers to partial timely absence, not absolute non existence.
That which never existed and never will exist is not missed nor can it be evoked by absence. In a way when we go to the absolute we are confronted with the absence of absence.

-

I know, I know, Nothingness is not. Let's agree on that, and make the choice to use the word "is" (the verb to be) just for conveniency in English.

Now, what I was saying, is that EVERYTHING isn't neither.
(exactly as Nothing)

Does it make sense now?

Ummm... No.