Dominic wrote:

> that that question itself is absurd, if there was 'nothing' and there
> was a 'why' to that 'nothing'; if it had a cause, then there wouldn't
> be nothing, there would be the cause: something.

The question is "why is there something", not "why is there nothing". The
question does not presuppose a "why" for nothing. 

"Nothing" does not require an explanation, whereas "something" would seem

Jonathan Colvin

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to