There are two common misconceptions or misframings of this issue, and I think the OP basically stumbles into both of them (not to sound too critical; most discussions do IMO)

1. "Explaining existence itself is just a matter of explaining how there can be a start point. So, if there's no start point, there's no problem".
2. "If we hypothesize that there is no reason / explanation for existence, that's conclusive of something".

However, explaining existence itself is not merely talking about a start point in time.
It is more like an explanatory gap. We have no model that accounts for how stuff can exist, and from which we can make useful predictions and inferences from. Maybe such a model is fundamentally impossible -- after all, a "model" implies some prior actors and actions.

However "no explanation is possible" of course implicitly admits we have no explanation.

And more specifically on time; time is also a "thing". As counter-intuitive as it is for us, we've known for over a century that time (as part of space time) has a geometry, and is even malleable. So, throwing away a start point in time, and supposing that time is eternal, actually adds to the "things" we need to explain, at least from a physics point of view. It certainly doesn't solve anything.

HOW SOMETHING COMES FROM NOTHING
An unscientific creation myth of a scientific concept. Guaranteed to contain as little science as possible and be a more philosophical view of existence. A metaphoric for an unscientific understanding of a scientific concept, for those of us who learn science from watching the SYFY channel.

How can something come from nothing? Everyone has heard this question.
To understand how something comes from nothing you must first understand what
you mean by 'nothing'.

If you ask most people, "What is nothing?", you basically get a reply that nothing is nothing, just nothing at all.

They cannot describe any qualities of Nothing because what they are trying to describe is an abstract philosophical concept. Abstract philosophical concepts exist only as imaginary qualities and you cannot imagine the quality of no-qualities.

To understand Nothing you have to reject the abstract philosophical concept and look at Nothing 'in the wild' where it has actually existence. Those who do this have found some interesting things.

Nothing, 'in the wild', is a state existing without energy or mass.

This state has the quality of being unstable. In fact all states have the quality of being unstable.

This quality of being unstable has the effect of collapsing into different unstable states some of these states achieve temporary qualities of equilibrium.

An effect of some of these collapses is zero-point-energy and virtual-particles. When enough of this occurs in proximity it generates, an effect of mass, causing a force of mutual attraction a kind of pseudo-gravity. This mutual attraction holds and attracts more to it. A new state of equilibrium grows, causing heat and a new unstable state that grows until there is a sudden violent, hot collapse causing another new equilibrium.

Nothing hasn't disappeared in this new state it has merely separated into localized points of positive and negative. Points of localized mass, matter and anti-matter and positive and negative energy. If you subtract the - from the + the result is 0; everything is made of Nothing.

Any question of some existing dichotomy between Something and Nothing falls with the concept that something is nothing, nothing separated into positive and negative parts. No creation of energy or mass has occurred there is just a state of separated nothing. There is no 'Why' here only the effects of unstable states.

Objects are effects of this new state. Objects have mass and mass causes gravity. Three dimensions exist, dimensions being directions of movement for objects. Objects moving in 3-D is what time is.

We are lucky in that this particular state has the qualities that support the existence of organic life forms and the kind of unstable environment that allows evolution. We can only imagine the billions or trillions collapses that may have come and gone before us.

What is time? It is a construct in the mind describing the conscious phenomena of awareness of moments. Physically, time describes the movement of matter through space. If there ever was a nothing, then time would not exist. However, I am having a hard time imagining a time when there was no time. Perhaps time always exists. Was there any purpose or reason for time before matter existed? What caused time to exist? If there was 1 year of time before anything else emerged in the universe, would one day of time matter during the pre-universe time?

Look at it this way: Right now, I can imagine a time without consciousness or matter, a time when only time existed. The time before the existence of other things, I call negative integer time. The time after creation, is called positive time. However, before a consciousness existed that imagined negative time, said negative time did not actually exist. For non material things, consciousness is required for their existence.

Whether time not existing makes intuitive sense to you is neither here nor there.
The fact is, physicists understand a lot about time. GPS systems have to correct for the effect of earth's gravity on time. It's fundamentally linked to the geometry of our universe. So, yes, from a scientific point of view, time being finite and having a discrete start is easier to explain than eternal time.
That's not to say there is not still an explanatory gap; my last post was at pains to emphasize this.

On your point about time being a phenomenon of consciousness, I think you may be getting confused with the arrow of time. Time itself can be defined in a number of objective ways. However, a progression of events, forwards, could be an illusion of consciousness. e.g. The universe could be a bunch of static snapshots, but at each snapshot the conscious agents there feel as though time flowed up to that moment. Could be.

Sartre claimed that human experiences of Nothing (everyday examples of experienced negations) happen just as frequently as human experiences of Something. He claimed that this is so because the Pre-Reflective Consciousness (or Being-for-Itself) is the source of Nothingness. In other words, the more accurate question is: Why is there both Something (Being-in-Itself) and Nothing (Being-for-Itself)? So the Sartrean answer to this question is: Being-for-Itself is the source of Nothing and Being-in-Itself is the source of Being-for-Itself. However, Being-in-Itself is de trop, gratuitous, it just is.

Can’t get something from nothing — Devans99

Are you sure about that? My limited understanding of quantum physics suggest that something is being created out of nothing all the time, but that it rapidly decays back into nothing most of the time that we don’t notice. But just occasionally, you get something that hangs around a little bit longer.

The reason that there is something rather than nothing is as follows: The question should be re-stated.
Either something exists or nothing exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist as reflected by reality. The reason something exists is because nothing does not exist.

4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’ — Devans99

Or "No one knows yet."

1. Can’t get something from nothing — Devans99

Can you get -1 +1 (something) from zero (nothing)?
Does the equation balance ?

Or you can think of it this way: either “nothing cannot exist” (because it is nothing) therefore something must exist - it’s a double negative, or “nothing can exist” therefore again something exists.

So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’ — Devans99

Or the question itself is meaningless (a pseudo-question).

One problem of many philosophical questions is that they are often admited as legitimate questions, when very often they are not.

Just because something has the form of an interrogative sentence, that does not mean it is a question (or at least it doesn't mean that it is a meaningful question). I think Chomsky made that point once.

There is no reason to assume that all “questions” we pose must have an answer.

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’

I agree with your points 1 and 2, but disagree with 3 and 4. I also agree with "S", that based on these 4 points "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is still an open question. My thinking is that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question, we have to face up to the possibility that there once could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". Based on this, the question is similar to saying that you start with 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with 1 (e.g., "something"). Because, as you say, there's no way to turn a 0 into a 1, the only way to start with 0 and end up with 1 is if that 0 was not actually a 0 but a 1 in disguise. To me, I don't think there's a way around that. That is, the situation we usually visualize as "nothing" can also, if thought about differently, be visualized as a "something". So, I agree with your point 2 because either "nothing" or "something" would be here forever.

How can "nothing" be a "something"? First, I define "nothing" as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic/Platonic realms, abstract concepts, possibilities/potentialities, and the lack of all minds to consider the supposed lack of all). Next, I suggest that the reason a thing exists is that it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together to create a new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the "book". Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, overall, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.

Next, apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Now, try to visualize absolute "nothing". It's hard to do because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn't exist. All we can do is to try and visualize it and extrapolate from what we visualize to absolute "nothing". But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute lack-of-all", would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or "the all" is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/"the all" grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, "absolute nothing"/"the all" defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities.

What this means is that we can give a reason for why "something" exists". "Nothing" would be the entirety. So, it'd be a grouping, and would therefore exist, and we usually see it as "something". This reasoning also gives an answer to the question of "what came before something?". That is, if there were "nothing" and then there was "something", how can this be because time wouldn't exist in "nothing", so there could be no "before"? The answer is that "nothing" didn't come before "something". Instead, these are just two different words that describe the same situation (the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract thoughts, minds, etc.). So, the human mind views the switching between these two different words/perspectives as a temporal change even though all it is is the mind switching between two different ways of describing the same situation.

Another objection that often comes up is that by talking about "nothing", I'm reifying, or giving existence, to it, and this is what makes "nothing" seem like "something". But, this is incorrect because it conflates "nothing" itself with the mind's conception of "nothing". These are two different things. In "nothing" itself, our minds and our talking about "nothing" would not be present. This means that the mind's conception of "nothing" and, therefore, our talking about "nothing" have no effect on "nothing" itself. That is, our talking about "nothing" will not reify "nothing" itself. Said another way, whether or not "nothing" itself exists is independent of our talking about it.

Thanks.

'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?’ - ‘No Reason’

The reason something exists is because of the information we have about it.

Nothing, on the other hand, is a hypothetical , that provides no information, can not provide any information, and in this way can not exist..

Things exist as a function of the information we have about them. There may be many "Nothings" that we have no information about, and should they someday reveal some information to us, then they will become somethings. They will become the things that the information conveys.

It seems necessary that there was one first existent since their is existence. And I reiterate: either nothing exists or something exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist and that existence is you--plural. From another view: nothing must exist since there cannot be a first existent. When the beginning is nothing, nothing comes from nothing; therefore, the universe does not exist and it is a halloween trick because you and I do not exist. I think that there was one first eternal existent and that was immaterial space.

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently — Devans99

In my humble opinion, the above two statements can go towards formulating a good argument for why there's something rather than nothing?

1. Nothing comes from nothing
2. There's something
3. Something has to be/is eternal (from 1 and 2)
4. If something is eternal, nothing isn't possible
5. Nothing isn't possible (from 3, 4 MP)
6. If nothing isn't possible, there has to be something rather than nothing
7. There has to be something rather than nothing (5, 6 MP)

QED

To sum up, there's something and since nothing comes from nothing, this something must be eternal. If this something is eternal, nothing is impossible. If nothing is impossible, there has to be something rather than nothing.

There is a reason why there's something rather than nothing.

I dont think there can't be nothing. There just is something and asking why is putting ourselves outside something, which is impossible. The world isn't eternal, as if it's an infinite movie. It's much easier and more natural I think to see the world as a cause sui, with time flowing in strange ways such that nothingness is in the past but doesn t produce the world.

How I visualize self-creation is like having a hole that has itself as a hole, or rather a hole with holes in it which are itself. It revolves back on itself and if time can do this as well we don't need an eternal linear series leading up to the present.

My view is that time does not exist. Change is the genus and different motions is the species. To offer a definition, time is the measurement of motion. A measurement is done by a measurer. In my view, time was created by man as a convenience, etc. If time exists, it, like space, is a real immaterial.

Time and space are immaterial in us as ideal and outside us as that which is necessary for the world to be

Matter and some of its derivatives require space; motions, which are the fundamental process, have no need of time. When all motions stop, there is no time. Again, I do not think that time exists; if it does, it is a real immaterial existent.

. Nothing ... is the greatest blessing of existence ...

. Everything is born out of nothingness ... and everything ... dies in nothingness ... Life is a cycle.
The beginning is the end ... and ... The end is a beginning of a new Birth ... of a new Being ... of a new Life ...

. Nothingness is where Truth is ...

. Somethingness is where Lie is ... Somethingness is a disease ...

. Life requires no effort ...

. Accomplish do-nothing. Enjoy not doing anything. Simple - but it looks difficult because of you, otherwise it is simple. Your ego is the problem ... your ego is subtlest poison ever existed ... and this poison kills the very source of Love. Find time to do nothing ... Whenever you can find some time just close your eyes and do nothing. Soon you will have the taste of: the flavorless. Soon ... you'll enter a different kind of existence, where Jesus lives, Krishna lives, Lao Tzu lives ...

. Only nothingness can be infinite; somethingness is bound to be finite. Only out of nothingness is an infinite expanse of life, existence, possible - not out of somethingness ...

No Man's Sky, is a great analogy for these kind of questions. Literally an entire universe of 18 quintiliion planets.

If the AI were to ask this question, why is there something rather than nothing, they would come to the same conclusions as previously posted here. They lack the capability to observe outside their universe, where the truth lies. They were created.

We also lack the capability to observe our universe, from the outside. Perhaps we are all just 1s and 0s on an HDD.

If it's true, something can not come from nothing, then the simplest and most logical answer, is that we were created.

I cannot observe outside of the universe; however, the restriction on observation does not apply to mentality. I imagined the pre-universe where the eternal and first existent could have been. I imagined that eternal first existent to be eternal and immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual.

Because it is possible, it is inevitable.

In accordance with Aristotle view of potential and actual, eternal and immaterial space became actual liberating the energy of the big bang. This just a plausible view. I cannot say it is certain. But I can link current reality with imagined reality.

A decade after Galileo came up with his relativity, Descartes said that motion was prior to that which moves. This was the second step towards Einstein's complete formulation of relativity. It was Newton who thought time was immaterial and now such an idea is seen as superfluous. There is no "pure potentiality" or "perfect actuality". The world has both potentials and activities and time is only linear in how we experience it. As Heidegger said, you are over a bridge before you reach it. The meaning in life is to find your soul. Why there is a rock on the ground may or may not be a pureposeless question

I don't think all possibilities will happen. Will you become king of France and go to the gullotine?

In this particular permutation of reality? Not likely. In a multiverse of parallel and not-so-parallel realities, where every conceivable possibility (and perhaps some inconceivable too)is played out across innumerable iterations, it has likely already transpired, and certainly will if it hasn't yet.

If we're dealing only with a single reality, or a cluster of them so alike they can hardly be distinguished from one another, then no. But, in an infinite (or near-infinite) multiverse, if we go far enough out on the right branch of realities, where the requisite differences have already made it conceivably possible, then it is assured.

So I guess the question is really, how many realities are there, and how much could they possibly differ? If, in fact, this is a simulation of some sort, it stands to reason that there are multiple versions being run concurrently, to what end I wouldn't bother to speculate though.

Because it is possible, it is inevitable.

Yes.

I also came to the conclusion that sheer possibility of the existence may be the spawning point of reality that doesn't need further cause. That would mean that everything possible exists. If we interpret possible as non-contradictory, then a library of non-contradictory mathematical structures could populate reality, with our universe embedded in some. Later I found out that my thinking is in line with Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe. Consider checking it out, it's 30 pages.

. Existence ... as such ... is born ... out of nothingness ...

. There is no death in existence ... Death exists not ... Existence does not know death ... Existence knows transformation ... and this transformation ... is too ... out of ... nothingness ...

. Somethingness is a disease created by Man ... so he can ... unnecessarily ... set off limits to his possibility of being ... in the Here-Now ... to his possibility of being aware ... of this cosmic consciousness.

My argument is:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’ — Devans99

You have not considered the traditional view by which is that there is no such thing as 'something'.or 'nothing'. For Middle Way Buddhism, advaita etc.nothing really exists or ever really happens, so the 'something from nothing' problem never arises.

.