Why is there anything at all?

[9] The question is usually taken as concerning practical causality (rather than a moral reason for), and posed totally and comprehensively, rather than concerning the existence of anything specific, such as the universe or multiverse, the Big Bang, God, mathematical and physical laws, time or consciousness.

"[28][29]: 25 Roy Sorensen has discussed that the question may have an impossible explanatory demand, if there are no existential premises.

[31] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.

[34][35][36] Physicists, including popular physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, have offered explanations (of at least the first particle coming into existence aspect of cosmogony) that rely on quantum mechanics, saying that in a quantum vacuum state, virtual particles and spacetime bubbles will spontaneously come into existence.

[38] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz attributed to God as being the necessary sufficient reason for everything that exists (see: Cosmological argument).

"[39]The pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides was one of the first Western thinkers to question the possibility of nothing, and commentary on this has continued.

Some mathematical models support this idea, and it is growing to become a more prevalent explanation among the scientific community for why the Big Bang occurred.

Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Universal Designer as a starting point.

They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely, 'Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises'.

This question has been written about by philosophers since at least the ancient Parmenides ( c. 515 BC ). [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being and the metaphysical life, the Monad or the Absolute .