Thread: Start with Nothing

I was talking with someone today (who shall remain anonymous) when I stumbled upon a realisation. It's really simple, and quite obvious, now that I think about it. So I hope I don't end up looking like an idiot. It's also kind of hard to articulate, and it's easy to lose the thought.

While contemplating the initial reason for things, one must start with nothing. This is because, if you start with something, and that something has no cause for its existence, then that something is completely arbitrary. It could have not existed. The essence of everything is still nothingness, the thing that exists still sprung from nothingness. There are no 'laws of the universe' indicating that something is required to exist, because those laws would be something and so they cannot be the first thing.

One does not need any scientific knowledge to think about this. In fact, if you're using scientific knowledge to think about it, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to figure out why those scientific facts about the universe exist in the first place. You have to start with nothing.

So here's what I've concluded. Since you have to start with nothing, and only nothing comes from nothing, anything that does exist came about arbitrarily. I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary.

EDIT:

1) Something exists.
2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).
3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness.
------
4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead.
------
5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.