CB: “The difficulty of the question does not make it senseless though, anymore than the difficulty of getting to a universal field theory or complex dimensions will dissuade the determined physicist…As to the unanswerablity of the question, this too assumes a materialist universe, a faith in nothingness beyond the “natural” (read material) existence.”
It’s not merely difficult, it’s impossible — logically impossible. And the bottom is not “nothing”, but “something”, insurmountably ineffable — a set of principally unstatable questions and answers which we elide by necessity (Wittgenstein says we “climb the ladder and pull it up behind us”).
The Way, if spoken, is not the Way — etc. In other words, the truths metaphysics seeks to explain are inexpressible in a perfectly precise sense. “We” know they are there, of course, because “we” are here. But we’ll never be able to “think” these truths, or say them.
This is not a material necessity, but a logical one. The answer to “Why Existence rather than Non-existence?” cannot be captured in language, and the question is poorly-formed.
Of course, that doesn’t stop you from saying stuff about it. It just means that it is logically impossible to distinguish the truth or falsity of your proposition.
