++> Inspired by Joe Martin comments
 ++> on "Existence exists"
 
     I know its an awkward mouthfull; would question your posting.
 
 TH> You didn't fully understand the depth of the question. The
 TH> question addressed a hypothetical situation in which there was
 TH> absolutely *nothing* in existence at all - no matter, energy, God
 TH> or gods, universe, multiverse, forces, properties, universal laws,
 TH> etc. Quantum uncertainty is a property of reality. The question
 TH> assumed the complete absence of any kind of reality and such
 TH> properties.
 
 JM> ....Why even propose such a wild, albeit hypothetical,
 JM> situation?
 
  I, and others through history, have considered to explore the
  "nothing" option. Though much more a challenge to even consider,
  relative to the more popular and easy "something" option of our
  species to experience and comfort in. Concepts, *alien* to logic,
  limit prone imagination, and experience, should not be discounted
  in an open philosophy environment. "Wild" is not a bad thing to
  consider (often the "red nose" of quest); and the "hypothetical'
  CAN be a VERY valuable tool of explorations.
 
  JM> That's like asking the question:
 
  JM> If your parents didn't have any children at all and
  JM> didn't adopt or kidnap any, do you think YOU will have
  JM> kids?
 
  Perhaps a bit slow on MY part, I fail to see the relevance
  of the analogy!
 
  JM> ..... the question _has_ no depth other than immense obsurdity.
 
   "immense obsurdity" ??? I think we may differ some on "depth"!
  The question has enormous meaning as the "something" option is
  tricky once beyond religion........... ...that "something is" is
  the more absurd .
 
                           @@ ... Dave
                           /\
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------