Why is there something rather than nothing

Why is there something rather than nothing?
An answer is that we cannot say.
Explorations in physics may explain the beginnings of the universe,
but not its origin, we could say.
The mantra of bombardment and collision
looking for that which is fundamental
and to explore it further
might dwell inside of sceptical regress,
one of the Trilemmas of Agrippa.
Another of which leads back
to where we started.
That is, the question.
And the last, a certainty
To which we may ascribe the trait:
no beginning and no end.
It is what it is.

If the Higgs is the last,
or string theory be right,
what we have is still some thing.
So we trace again to the lemma,
saying that there was a first:
energy or matter,
it doesn’t matter.
For by Einstein,
they are linked by a thing:
we call it light.
A constant effect,
simply present.

Which came first,
somethingness or nothingness?
If it were to be nothingness, then how did anything come to be;
and if it were somethingness, how did it come about.
Which of these two did you choose to be true;
your preferred mystery.
Marvel!

The Strongest Position in Agrippas Trilemma

Or, why are grapes sweetly delicious?

Because they are just so since they’re grapes. (Going round in circles.)
Because something definite makes them taste that way,
which has something else making that thing the way it is,
and so on, ad infinitum. (Never arrives at an answer.)
Because some interaction, or thing, makes them that way. Period. (You just have to stop somewhere.)

Agrippa’a trilemma says that if we ask, “How do we know that this is true?” about a series of inferences, eventually we face three equally weak options:
1. The axiomatic argument, in which we find some unquestionable truth, some solid bedrock, as basis for all knowledge. (Weak because we shouldn’t take anything for granted.)
2. The regressive argument,  in which each proof requires a further proof endlessly.
3. The circular argument, where, somewhere along the way, we explain the premise by the final conclusion.

Comparing the three, we’d never get anywhere definite with points 2 and 3. That leaves us with point 1, that we should take at least one thing as granted; that we might want to assent to the idea of an ultimate cause. Which of the three is easiest to swallow?

The strongest position to take in Agrippas Trilemma is indeed to think that there is a cause that is causeless. That’s the only way it works. Because circular reasoning brings us back to the question, and having an infinite cause-effect continuum never ultimately answers the question.

What are we really saying if we say that there is no beginning, no single point of origin? If there is always a cause, we may get to the paradox of existence: that if we exist, then there must always gave been existence, otherwise, there should be no existence at all.

Therefore if there must be the certainty of an answer, things have to stop somewhere. And the characteristics of where it stops (the answer) explored to affirm or confirm that it can/does answer the question well enough.

We can now ask those hard questions: Is the Big Bang really the start of it all? Is there not the one God? So why are grapes sweet, again? How come he behaves that way? Why do I love you? …