Why Does Anything Exist? The Question That Humbles Everyone

By Futurist Thomas Frey

“Why does anything exist?”

This is one of life’s greatest unanswerable questions. Not only is it unanswerable—it’s unknowable. If you’re a person of faith, it will likely bolster your faith. If you’re a person of science, it will likely bolster your need for more evidence. No matter your background, sooner or later you are bound to question one “what if…” after another after another.

I’ve spent decades thinking about the future—what’s coming, what’s possible, what technologies will transform society. But occasionally I step back and face this fundamental question that makes all futurism seem trivial:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Not how did things begin—but why does existence itself exist? Why is there a stage for any of this to happen on at all?

The question breaks every framework we have for understanding reality.

Why Science Can’t Answer This

Science is magnificent at explaining how things work. It traces cause and effect, maps relationships, reveals patterns. But eventually, you hit a wall.

Even if we discover the deepest laws governing reality, the question just shifts: Why do those particular laws exist? Why is mathematics structured such that reality follows rules at all?

Some scientists propose the universe had to exist—that physical laws make non-existence impossible. But this just relocates the mystery: Why do those laws exist? Why is there a framework making anything mandatory?

The physicist John Wheeler once asked: “Why the quantum?” Why are there quantum fields, particles, forces? Why does physics exist to study in the first place?

Science can describe patterns. It can’t explain why patterns describe anything at all rather than just being abstract possibilities that never become real.

Others suggest infinite regress—realities creating realities endlessly. But this doesn’t answer why there’s an infinite chain rather than nothing. Infinity doesn’t explain existence; it just makes the mystery infinite.

The deepest scientific answer we have is: “We don’t know, and we may never be able to know, because any answer requires something existing to provide evidence, which assumes existence—the very thing we’re trying to explain.”

Science reveals its own limits here. And those limits are absolute.

Why Faith Can’t Answer This Either

Religious traditions offer answers: God created everything. But this immediately raises the same question: Why does God exist?

“God is eternal” or “God is necessary being” doesn’t solve the problem—it restates it. Why is there a necessary being rather than nothing? Why is eternal existence possible rather than impossible?

Some theologians argue God exists outside logic, beyond questions of why. But if we abandon logic, we abandon the ability to ask or answer any questions meaningfully. We’re left with mystery, not explanation.

Faith provides comfort and meaning. It offers a framework for living purposefully in a universe we don’t understand. But it doesn’t actually answer why existence exists—it points to a being we also can’t explain and says “this is where explanation ends.”

For people of faith, this is often satisfying. The mystery becomes sacred. Not-knowing becomes part of what makes God worthy of worship—the ground of being that doesn’t require ground beneath itself.

But intellectually, it’s the same place science arrives: an ultimate mystery we can name but not explain.

Are We Living in a Simulation?

One contemporary answer gaining traction: Maybe we’re in a simulation created by an advanced civilization.

Philosopher Nick Bostrom argued that at least one of these must be true:

Civilizations never reach the capability to run realistic simulations of conscious beings
Advanced civilizations choose not to run such simulations
We’re almost certainly living in a simulation

His reasoning: If it’s possible to create realistic simulations, and if advanced civilizations run many of them, then simulated realities vastly outnumber base reality. Statistically, you’re more likely to be in a simulation than in the original.

This sounds like it might answer our question. We exist because some programmer created us. Mystery solved!

But it doesn’t actually help. It just relocates the question: Why does the base reality running our simulation exist? Why is there a civilization capable of creating simulations rather than nothing at all?

Even if we’re simulated, somewhere there’s an original reality—the one running all the simulations. That reality still has to exist. And we’re back to the same question: Why?

The simulation hypothesis might explain our particular existence—we’re code running on someone else’s computer. But it can’t explain existence itself. The computer has to exist. The programmers have to exist. Their reality has to exist.

And why does any of that exist rather than nothing?

The simulation answer is intellectually interesting but ultimately unsatisfying. It shifts the mystery one level up but doesn’t resolve it.

The Impossibility of Answering

Here’s why this question is uniquely impossible:

Any answer requires something to be the explainer—laws of physics, God, quantum fields, simulators, mathematical necessity, whatever. But then we ask: Why does that explainer exist?

We’re trapped in infinite regress. Every explanation requires a prior explanation. And the chain never terminates in something self-evidently necessary.

We could say “the chain has no beginning—it’s infinite.” But why is there an infinite chain rather than nothing?

We could say “something has to exist.” But why? Who says? What makes existence mandatory?

We could say “nothingness is impossible.” But why? We can conceive of nothingness—the absence of anything. Why can’t reality be like that?

Every move we make generates the same question again. We’re like fish trying to understand water—we’re so embedded in existence that we can’t step outside it to see why it’s here instead of not here.

The question appears grammatically answerable—it’s a proper question with subject and verb. But logically, it may be incoherent. Asking “why” assumes causation, and causation assumes existence. You can’t use existence to explain existence without circular reasoning.

The “What Ifs” That Never End

No matter your background, this question spawns endless “what ifs”:

What if existence is an illusion? But even illusions exist—so why does the illusion exist?

What if we’re simulations? But then why does the reality running the simulation exist?

What if existence is necessary—logically impossible to avoid? But why are the rules of logic themselves real rather than arbitrary patterns we impose?

What if consciousness creates reality? But why does consciousness exist?

What if there are infinite realities trying all possibilities, and we’re just in one that happened? But why is there a mechanism generating infinite realities?

What if “existence” and “non-existence” are false categories, and reality is something we can’t conceive? Maybe—but we still exist in whatever-this-is, so why is there whatever-this-is?

What if reality is mathematical—a pure pattern with no physical substance? But why do mathematical patterns exist rather than not exist? And why does this particular pattern feel real to us?

The what-ifs multiply infinitely. Each one feels like it might provide insight, but all of them hit the same wall: they assume existence and try to explain it from within, which can’t work.

What This Does to People

For the faithful, this question often strengthens belief. The absolute mystery at the foundation of everything points toward something transcendent—a God who simply is, without explanation, because ultimate reality can’t be explained in terms of anything else.

It’s humbling. It reminds us that our understanding is limited, that mystery is real, that not everything reduces to human comprehension. This can be spiritually profound—accepting that some questions have answers beyond our grasp.

For the scientifically minded, this question often strengthens the drive for evidence. If we can’t answer ultimate questions, at least we can answer proximate ones. We can understand how stars form, how life evolved, how consciousness emerges—even if we can’t explain why any of it exists at all.

It’s motivating. It reminds us that ignorance is real, that discovery matters, that understanding what we can understand is worthwhile even if ultimate understanding is impossible. This can be intellectually profound—accepting limits while pushing them as far as possible.

For everyone, it should be humbling. The smartest physicists and deepest theologians face the same mystery. Nobody has privileged access to the answer because there may be no answer accessible to minds like ours.

Why I Keep Asking Anyway

I spend my life thinking about the future—robots, AI, space exploration, technological transformation. These are answerable questions, solvable problems, understandable challenges.

But periodically, I face this one: Why is there a future to think about? Why is there anything to transform? Why does existence itself exist?

And I have no answer. None of us do. None of us ever will.

But I keep asking because the question itself is valuable. It reminds me that underneath all our knowledge, all our technology, all our progress, lies a mystery so profound that it makes everything we know seem like surface phenomena on an incomprehensible depth.

It keeps me humble. It prevents me from thinking we’ve figured everything out just because we can build quantum computers and map genomes.

It connects me to every human who’s ever looked at reality and wondered not just what it is, but why there’s reality at all. Why there’s a universe to examine. Why there’s anything rather than the perfect simplicity of nothing.

Even if we’re in a simulation—which we might be—it doesn’t answer the question. It just means somewhere, somehow, there’s a base reality. And that reality has to exist. And we still don’t know why.

The Only Honest Answer

We don’t know. We can’t know. The question may be unanswerable not because we lack intelligence or evidence, but because the question itself reaches beyond what questions can do.

“Why does anything exist?” might be like asking “What does blue taste like?” or “Where is Wednesday located?” It’s grammatically correct but conceptually confused—trying to apply categories that don’t work at this level.

Or maybe there is an answer, but it’s so far beyond our comprehension that we couldn’t recognize it even if we heard it. Like trying to explain calculus to an ant.

Or maybe the question is perfect, and the mystery is real, and we’re supposed to live with not knowing as part of what being finite creatures means.

I don’t know which. But I’m grateful existence exists, whatever the reason or non-reason. And I’ll keep asking why, even knowing I’ll never hear an answer that satisfies.

Because in asking, we touch something essential about being human—the capacity to face the deepest mystery and keep wondering anyway.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/