A common subject of current debates between theists and atheists and scientists is the question; “Why is there Something rather than Nothing’.
The answer suddenly obvious to me is that “Something” is eternal.
Since the choices of the debate topic are limited to something and nothing there cannot be something if there is nothing and conversely there cannot be nothing if there is something.
That there is anything at all disallows the existence of nothing.
For nothingness to exist implies existence, yet nothingness by definition rules out existence. Nothingness can neither exist nor not exist. Chew on that oh learned meta-physicists.
If there was nothing there could be no something, we could not be here, you would not be reading this, ergo, something, not nothing, exists, call this ‘something’, multiverses.
This doesn’t satisfy many philosophers and theologians, they insist that something cannot come from nothing ergo God. That only puts the question back one level, why should a god exist rather than not?
Never minding the childish belief in omnipotent creator deities, the answer to the elemental question “Why is there Something rather than Nothing’ is simply “Because”.
1 Corinthians 13:11
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.”
If you prefer some specific translation, clickety here…
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
William Lane Craig has made a successful and lucrative career out of arguing the Kalam Cosmological Argument wherein he posits and presupposes a prior state of nothingness so that he can then invoke a magical creator to solve the problem.
As there is absolutely no valid reason one needs to accept the presupposition of a prior state of nothingness, his entire argument fails at its first utterance.
Kalam makes no allowance for the possibility that existence is eternal and has no beginning and therefore has no need of an instigator.