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.

I may have erred.

A thesis cannot be true and false simultaneously was my response when I was reminded that the antinomies were a logical response to metaphysical errors.

True. At the moment, the metaphysical process is beyond my understanding.

you're right. I was regarding the antinomy from a different point of view, not a logical one. I suppose I didn't like Kant's reform and correction of metaphysics. I am a metaphysician, but a more cautious one thanks to the ereudite and wise philosopher.

Of course, the antinomies are faulty. Proof of a contention and then proof of the opposite should alert one of a faulty thesis. Truth is not true and false simultaneously. The Critique is all about the transcendental which is entirely un-empirical. I thought a Kant follower would be interested in why there is a universe at all.

Let's examine a metaphysical and, therefore, a transcendental question for which I have the answer and hope it interests you G. The question is: why there is something rather than nothing? The question should be restated as follows: either something exists or nothing exists. But nothing does not exist and, therefore, something must exist. That leads to the conclusion that, at least, there is an eternal existent which initiated the universe.

The way I see it: Does the universe have a beginning? The universe either has a beginning or it does not have a beginning if there is a universe. Astro physics says it began about 14 billion years ago and Aristotle said it always existed. I just disregard the antinomies as does astronomy. Aristotle was not aware of the antinomies,

The critique oft the antinomies leads the mind to higher levels

Kant has already explained why the antinomies are faulty

One cannot make it (time and space) right without destroying the Critique. Let me reiterate: Kant is my favorite philosopher, so erudite and moral and one not easy to dismiss. I think he was trying to save Lutheranism from materialism and the Critique was his best shot.

Phenomena, I think, should be limited to the emperical. Since space is never perceived and time does not exist, phenomena should not be applied to them.

Since there is no time, an important element of the proof does not exist.

The Antinomies seem faulty because time is a part of them. Kant showed, as I recall, when that law is valid. No time--a statement is true or not true. I am typing or not typing. If time exist, it is a real immaterial, but I say it is a convenience necessary for us.

The trouble with the Critique is that it got time and space wrong. Man created time and space is a real immaterial existence. If the Aesthetic is an error in the beginning, it should throw doubt on what follows. In my view Idealism is dead, but not everything transcendental. Fundamental concepts are still valid and useful such as the law of non-contradiction, from nothing comes nothing, no entinty can create itself, etc. We cannot dispense with transcendental reason and human imagination and replace them entirely with mathematics and physics. In my view the search for refinement of the Standard Model is a "negative transcendental" not yet completed.

No, not from the tidbit. I have read Kant and he is my favorite philosopher. Not being a naive realist, I think that science is indirectly working on totally uncovering the thing-in-itself with the Standard Model as a good beginning. Formerly, I liked ontological materialism until I believed that an immaterial first existent initiated the universe. Except for his idealism to protect religion, I was aware of no philosopher that I liked more.

An appearance is not what appears; a representation is a word for appearance. What appears is the thing-in-self, but our sensibility detects macro reality.

Yes if he is referring to the standard model of quantum mechanics.

Change is a genus; what changes is the species. Time is the measurements of motion. Anything that changes moves. Time exists in the mind of man who created it, like the divine. Now space is a real immaterial existence. If time does not exist, how is there space-time and special relativity?

The French scientist Lavoisier said before he lost his head that nothing is ever lost, but form does change. So our ideas, memories, etc. may still exist. As a consolation, Plato has Socrates say that if death is annihilation, all of eternity is a one night's dreamless sleep. Who knows, but I say the outlook is bleak.

Wayfarer, your professor did not consider why there is something rather than nothing. If he had reformulated it as follows: either nothing existed or something existed. Since nothing does not exist, something must have existed which created the universe. Therefore, something always existed. Actually, it was a no-thing---immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual.

One reliable principle is from nothing comes nothing. Why something was necessary can be viewed as follows: in the beginning either there was nothing or something. Since nothing does not exist, there was something and that is why the universe exists.

And this mental nothing is made of mass; therefore, nothing is something

Nothing exists in one's mind.

For the answer, the question should be reformulated as follows: either nothing or something exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist.

Nothing refers to lack of mass and its derivates; there are other existents which invalidates "nothing is impossible" arguments, etc.

The first existent, immaterial and eternal space, created the first thing (matter) after being a potential that became actual liberating the energy of the big bang. There was a first existent since the material universe exists. This immaterial space became the actual space of the universe.

Jgill, I just use my imagination. As for a waste of time, for some it is, but not for all philosophers.

Roger, you have it right: the "1" always existed. Since the universe is not an illusion and from nothing comes nothing in the pre-universe what remains is an immaterial existence that initiated the material universe.

Roger, there is nothing and no-thing. In the pre-universe either something comes from nothing or there was an eternal and immaterial (no-thing) first existant. It is so simple. In the pre-universe only the immaterial existed. Of course, there is no time and there never was anytime anywhere.

For an additional clarification, there is no time in the pre-universe. Time is a function of motion in the material universe. And, too, since there is a material universe, there must be a cause.

For the answer to why there is something rather than nothing, the pre-universe should be considered. In the pre-universe, there are two possibilities. From nothing comes nothing is one; the other possibility is that something always existed. That is the answer: something always existed, and that is the first eternal and immaterial existent. An eternal and immaterial first existent created the material universe.