Reality and the nature of being I'm kinda a newbie to this forum and philosophy in general, so i'm not well versed in the ''big boy words'' yet haha. The reason I claimed it would have been much easier for there to have been nothing, is because the very thing you need for any existence of any kind is space. And energy has to be the prerequisite to space in order for space-time to have expanded. And while my laptop was dead last night, I was thinking ''the Bootes supervoid in the bootes constellation is a completely empty pocket of space, with very little atoms and maybe a few galaxies if that. This thousands-upon-thousands of light year wide void is generally considered massive.'' How weird right? We just gave the identity ''massive'' to a region of no structure. Whereas if we have Big Ben, you see that it is indeed a massive tower. A tower that occupies space and region. And as for the ''day zero'' of the universe, I thought about how simple occupiable space itself requires three obvious things. Depth, length, and width - aka the three dimensions. And these all require something... depth requires length. Length requires width. Width requires length. And all of these together require energy- perhaps a wicked terrifying amount, in order to somehow ''open'' the nothingness and allow the existence of these things and other things.