Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[datc]

Empty universes are unstable (really) and decay into universes that are not empty.

Yes, I am familiar with this barbaric hypothesis by Victor Stenger.

Unfortunately, "instability" is a mere property and as such, must be attached to a real object. An empty universe, by definition, contains nothing, including space, so there is nothing of which "instability" might be predicated.

---

. . . then cogito ergo ! ThereExists[Empty]

The very phrase "there is nothing" is self-contradictory: how come existence ("there is") is postulated of "no thing"?

But we say that and know what we mean.

So, if "there is nothing" is meaningful, then so is "there is a possible world in which nothing exists." This world I call Empty and say "there is" it or ThereExists[Empty].

ThereExists[Empty] is a convenient short-hand for defining nothingness.

Nobody means that when they say "God," except for closet atheists (aka theologists) who want a definition that is so nebulous even a sensible, educated person might be able to accept it.

That God is good and that He created the world through outpouring or self-diffusion of His goodness is hardly a heresy.

My only innovation is to privilege goodness over being.