Why is there something rather than nothing?

This meta-philosophical question has been pondered by many since apparently Leibniz asked the question. Tomes have been written about it without, of course, arriving at any satisfactory answer. I suggest you use your favorite search engine to get an idea.

In my opinion most thinkers do not understand the concept of nothing, which I will hereinafter designate as Nothing. In all modesty, I believe my short essay about it is one of the clearest treatment of this topic.
It can be found at : http://www.paulhoffman.com/Philosophy/Nothing.htm

The essay concludes that we can not say anything positive about Nothing. We can only talk about what it is not. I suggest that if (please note the "if") Nothing existed, which of course is already a gigantic contradiction, nothing (lower case "n") could be said about it. No adjective, no adverb, nothing. Nothing admits no description. I want to make sure that you do not mistake this Nothing for Void, Emptiness, Space, Vacuum, null-set;
this Nothing admits no God outside--that is cheating. I mean truly Nothing, the only Nothing that makes sense to ask about.

I think Saussure would have to admit that Nothing has no referent. Perform an experiment. Try to imagine this Nothing. Take your time. I suggest you cannot. The best you can do is to fall back on thinking what it is not.

So: WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT NOTHING, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE (REALLY) TALKING ABOUT.

When they ask the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing", nothing in it is meaningless. They may as well ask:

Why is there something rather than blabalabalala? Of course, everyone would realize that "blabalabalala" is meaningless, or nonsense. Well, so is Nothing.
The only legitimate question to ask is:

"Why is there something ?"

The answer is obvious.

The Universe has no other choice.