How is there something rather than nothing?

[Anonymous No.14783245]

Like how the actual fuck does the universe even exist?
>well it was once this extremely dense and hot singularity...
Yeah but where the fuck did that come from?
What happened before that?
Honestly the more I think about the universe existing the more I go fucking bananas trying to figure this shit out.

[Anonymous No.14783248]

Well if it didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to notice.

[Anonymous No.14783250]

>>14783245
Of course you're getting confused. Your question doesn't make sense when you get down to it: to ask "why" is to imply that there's a reason, which is to imply that whatever you're asking about follows from some preceding state of affairs. You're asking about a state of affairs before any state of affairs. The premise of the question contradicts itself.

[Anonymous No.14783260]

>>14783250
Didn't ask why, asked how.
Also nice semantics to cope with the fact your smooth brain can't come up with an answer.

[Anonymous No.14783264]

>>14783260
>Didn't ask why, asked how.
Same thing. You ask nonsense and then you're shocked that there's no way to get a grip on it.

[Anonymous No.14783267]

>>14783264
If you can't comprehend what my question is getting at then why even reply retard?

[Anonymous No.14783268]

>>14783267
Your question isn't getting at anything and I've just explained to you why. lol

[Anonymous No.14783273]

>>14783245
John 1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PffhcV-xBks

[Anonymous No.14783280]

>>14783273
>in the beginning there was [something]

[Anonymous No.14783287]

>>14783245
Quantum fluctuations.

[Anonymous No.14783457]

>>14783245
the Creator has not given you a brain capable of understanding its creation because them you'd become a rival.

you'll never figure it out, no one ever will. this however is all the proof you need the the Creator exists.

[Anonymous No.14783496]

>>14783245
God is the uncaused cause. Read the first few passages of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.14783798]

>>14783245
Take the Zero Ontology pill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

[Anonymous No.14783803]

>>14783245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hGH-roVl3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYCul43JSxo

[Anonymous No.14784050]

>>14783273
>>14783457
>>14783496

[Anonymous No.14784104]

>>14783280
Uncaused Cause, yes. This has been logically solved for nearly 1000 years.

[Anonymous No.14784129]

>>14783245
1 - 1 = 0.
Now move the +1 and the -1 far apart.

[Anonymous No.14784130]

>>14783245
Your question is basically unanswerable and always will be. Lots of retards ITT giving bad answers. About the best I can come up with is its just impossible for nothing to exist.

[Anonymous No.14784136]

>>14784104
That doesn't answer his question. It's just saying "there was le heckin' God b-b-b-because there just was, okay"?

[Anonymous No.14784152]

>>14783245
Easy as fuck. If something is possible at all, no matter how small the chance, if it's possible for eternity, it's inevitable.

[Anonymous No.14784194]

>>14784152
105 IQ take. Why is something possible? You're just begging the question.

[Anonymous No.14784233]

>>14783260
>semantics
Every question you ask using language is going to be related to semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning itself

[Anonymous No.14784266]

>>14784136
Why do you assume God has to have a cause just like everything in the universe that HE created? It literally says in the book he exists outside of the constraints he gave the world so he obviously is not bound by them, this is no argument at all.

And before you jump me with le heckin circular reasoning accusation I'm not saying this just because it's said in the book, but because it makes fucking sense. Intellects far greater than you have considered it to make a lot of sense. But not you not le epic enlightened thinker throwing tired cliches.

[Anonymous No.14784271]

>>14784266
>Why do you assume God has to have a cause just like everything in the universe that HE created?
I don't. I'm just pointing out that your answer to his question is essentially "something exists because it just does, okay???"

[Anonymous No.14784305]

>>14783245
Yeah this shit used to keep my up at night when I was like 5. Ended up with a shitload of depersonalization and derealization, alienated from everyone and everything around me because nobody could understand my questions about the nature of consciousness and reality.

[Anonymous No.14784325]

>>14783245
you are close, but still not at the goal yet. notice there are only two possibilities, either nothing exists or at least something exists. notice that something exists, rather than nothing. the question is not why this something exists, but rather 'why not this other thing'. literally everything could exist if you think about it. literally, just think of something and it exists in your mind. what makes your dreams less real? maybe the world you are in is just some higher beings dream. and it's foolish to deny everything could exist simply on the basis of our weak human cognition.

[Anonymous No.14784349]

>>14784266
>Why do you assume God has to have a cause just like everything in the universe that HE created?
This. Glory to Allah.

[Anonymous No.14784630]

Just is
Simple as

[Anonymous No.14784634]

>>14783245

Nobody knows
You have to choose between 2 unanswerable questions
-Why is there something instead of nothing?
-Who created God/Where did God come from/What made him appear

Everybody has to choose a question with no answer

[Anonymous No.14784662]

>>14783245
>How is there something rather than nothing?
If both possibilities happen then you'd get both nothing and something which is another way of saying something.
In the nothing worlds no one exists to say anything about them and in the something worlds people like you exist and are surprised.
Also if you start with genuinely nothing then that might also imply the nothing state has no rule against something subsequently appearing (since the existence of a rule would itself make it not a true state of nothing).
Nothing might therefore be a very volatile state that immediately yields something.
Would be like the expression 'nature abhors a vacuum' I guess.

[Anonymous No.14784690]

>>14784662
>Also if you start with genuinely nothing then that might also imply the nothing state has no rule against something subsequently appearing (since the existence of a rule would itself make it not a true state of nothing).
clever chap

[Anonymous No.14784714]

>>14783245
Existence neccesitates something, therefore nothing can’t exist.

[Anonymous No.14784724]

>>14784662
>muh anthropic principle
That's just a thought-terminating reddit cliche and not a real answer.

>the nothing state has no rule against something subsequently appearing
But it has no rule for something to appear, either. You could argue that some sort of stuff could appear spontaneously and for no particular reason, but that implies some kind of potentiality that's not strictly a nothing; or even if you want to insist that it is a nothing, one could then ask why there was a pregnant nothing instead of a total and sterile nothing, which brings you more or less to square 1. The truth of the matter is that the question is predicated on a self-contradicting premise as pointed out here >>14783250.

[Anonymous No.14784726]

>>14784271
Because we can empirically see that the universe began from nothing, so obviously it was created. And we know that God exists through rational deduction, while further having evidence that He is uncaused. It's really not hard to look into.

[Anonymous No.14784732]

>>14784726
>Because we can empirically see that the universe began from nothing
No, we can't.

> we know that God exists through rational deduction
No, we don't. Either way, your objections don't change anything. Your answer is in any case "there was something b-b-because there just WAS, okay?!"

[Anonymous No.14785176]

>>14783245
>What happened before that?
Nothing, it was the beginning.

[Anonymous No.14785178]

>>14783260
The question "how" doesn't imply state before singularity. A time 0 singularity banged and everything followed after that.

[Anonymous No.14785189]

>>14783245
>rather than
Nothing is something.

What you actually want to ask is "how does nothing become something else?"

>>14783496
>>14784104
What is the difference between God, the uncaused cause, and Nothing? Why can't Nothing be the uncaused cause?

[Anonymous No.14785192]

>>14784194
There must be something, even nothing is something, they even formalized it and quantified it in math as the empty set or 0.

[Anonymous No.14785199]

>>14784266
>Why do you assume God has to have a cause just like everything in the universe
Its not an assumption, its logic, If a hypothetical god doesn't need a cause then the universe itself doesn't need a cause either and if god shares all the properties with nothing, you might as well say that nothing created the universe.

[Anonymous No.14785202]

>>14784325
>notice that something exists, rather than nothing
>rather than
No not rather than, nothing is the smallest possible amount of something.

[Anonymous No.14785207]

>>14784724
>but that implies some kind of potentiality that's not strictly a nothing
Potentiality isn't existence, so it's nothing. You could have a golden lamboghini, but you don't, it's a potentiality, but you still have nothing.

[Anonymous No.14785209]

>>14784662
>If both possibilities happen then you'd get both nothing and something
Yes that is what you have something+nothing, think about what you have in your hand right now, maybe a mouse, a keyboard, your dick, some candy, everything else you are holding, and nothing else.

>if you start with genuinely nothing then that might also imply the nothing state has no rule against something subsequently appearing
Nothing bound by Nothing means there is no boundary, no end, no limit, so when something, such as nothing, is unlimited, it is infinite, and there is no predicting its scale, shape, and reach.

[Anonymous No.14785215]

>>14785207
>Potentiality isn't existence, so it's nothing.
It is imaginary, not nothing, it isn't real or natural existence, but it still exists in it own imaginary mathematical domain, separate from the zero point of totally nothing.

>You could have a golden lamboghini, but you don't, it's a potentiality, but you still have nothing.
No, you don't have nothing, you have an idea and a goal.

[Anonymous No.14785220]

>>14784732
>No, we don't. Either way, your objections don't change anything. Your answer is in any case "there was something b-b-because there just WAS, okay?!"
Because I have observed it, and it is logical, and therefore true.

[Anonymous No.14785225]

>>14785220
How is it possible to observe nothing?
Wouldn't it be called not observing if you were to attempt to observe nothing which is not an act of observation, but the exact opposite?

[Anonymous No.14785231]

>>14785215
Imaginary things don't exist in reality. Physically they are nothing.
>No, you don't have nothing, you have an idea
An idea isn't golden lamborghini. When you have an idea, it means you have no lamborghini, you have nothing.

[Anonymous No.14785241]

>>14785231
Imaginary is a function of real, square an imaginary and you have a real.

>you have nothing
You have a goal, a drive, maybe not driving a lambo, but it is potential you will if you just try once you know it is possible, you still have something more than nothing even if you can not hold it in your hand, you can communicate the and eventually realize it.

[Anonymous No.14785283]

>>14785241
>Imaginary is a function of real, square an imaginary and you have a real.
No, imaginary isn't real.
>You have a goal, a drive, maybe not driving a lambo, but it is potential
Cope, you have no lamborghini.

[Anonymous No.14785302]

>>14785283
>imaginary isn't real.
Read again and try harder to understand, imaginary units are purely composed of real units and a real math function.

> you have no lamborghini.
I don't want one I have other goals that are manifesting at the moment, but a goal is real and every imaginary potential can eventually be realized, plenty of people have lambos, they just aren't all that practical or functional for their cost, so most people don't bother since its not really a goal worth putting in effort to realize.

[Anonymous No.14785305]

>>14785199
>I can't comprehend something, therefore its not logical.
You cannot even comprehend what makes your computer run. God doesn't rely on your logic to exist.

[Anonymous No.14785307]

>>14785305
I didn't say anything about comprehension, I was talking about consistency and logic, if you are saying that the universe isn't consistent and doesn't follow any consistent logic, then all the rules you think you know about gods and all the words from books you associate with them don't even matter because nature is illogical and inconsistent.

Digital logic makes computers run consistency, natures seems to be pretty consistent, so it would imply there is some kind of consistent logic operating in nature and it doesn't seem to consistent with any particular old holy book's definition of nature.

[Anonymous No.14785313]

>>14785305
>I can't comprehend something, therefore god did it.
Or maybe you are just ignorant.

[Anonymous No.14785322]

>>14785307
The existence of God does not rely on whether any human can create a logical or consistent argument. I exist and do not require any logical argument from you to do so.
Things not within the universe are not bound by the same laws as our universe. Even within our own universe, there are probabilities that are not logical. Paradoxes that are only a paradox in the mind while in reality it resolves it self (Zenos paradox). If there is another universe, it could have totally different logic.

>>14785313
>I can't read
>saying God can exist regardless of human comprehension means that if you can't comprehend something God exists
Failing literally the most basic of logic tests.
Thanks for your pointless contribution.

[Anonymous No.14785333]

It's actually not that big of a mindfuck. For whatever reason, space exists. Just empty space. For whatever reason, at some moment it was packed with an inconceivable amount of matter. Most of this matter barely qualifies as things we understand, and was mostly uncontrolled 1-dimensional strings that, in the process of existing, had to rapidly expand and travel from it's initial high-pressure state to a low-pressure state. As the pressure reduced, things like quarks could form. As pressure reduced further the quarks turned into protons and neutrons, then electronics, photons, nuceli and molecules that all created discrete forces like electricity, magnetism and gravity that allowed for creation of more complex structures such as nebulae, stars and planets.

The only explanation is, where did all these strings come from? Were they all originally one big string? Did they interact with higher dimensions? If so, why only three dimensions? And what happens in those other dimensions we cannot perceive at a macro level?

[Anonymous No.14785335]

>>14785302
>imaginary units are purely composed of real units and a real math function.
That's a sophism, not an argument.
>every imaginary potential can eventually
Cope, you have no lamborghini.

[Anonymous No.14785337]

>>14785322
The existence of apparent consistency and logic in nature is the only thing that implies any need for some kind of natural creator, if a creator were omnipotent as implied by many religious, there would be no need for consistency over time, you would completely change from from moment to moment, everything would constantly change to meet the illogical whims of the omnipotent force.

> I exist and do not require any logical argument
You required a lot of logical steps to come into existence, some programmer had to spend a lot of time developing your algorithm or less like, two ugly retards had to fuck and then teach you a bunch of retarded nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14785342]

>>14785322
>if you can't comprehend something God exists
God of the Gaps fallacy.

[Anonymous No.14785344]

>>14785307
Universe is consistent, god isn't.

[Anonymous No.14785348]

>>14783245
How do you know that the universe really exists? You're inside it, so of course it exists from your perspective.

[Anonymous No.14785354]

>>14785335
>not an argument.
Its not an argument, its the literal mathematical definition of imaginary units, its not false or misleading, imaginary units are completely a function of real units.

>, you have no lamborghini.
If you want so bad you just have to work for it and stop seething about what you don't have, again they aren't very practical, so you probably won't be too satisfied with the end result if it takes a lot of work to realize, so there is no need to be so jealous anyway, but if it affects you that bad, just put in the time and make a plan to realize your goal instead of seething and whining about thing you haven't yet accomplished to anonymous strangers.

[Anonymous No.14785357]

>>14785322
>The existence of God does not rely on whether any human can create a logical or consistent argument.
God doesn't exist though.

[Anonymous No.14785363]

>>14785344
Then it isn't necessary for it to consistently exist, nonexistence is just as likely as existence for something whose existence is inconsistent, so you might as well call god Nothing.

[Anonymous No.14785368]

>>14785354
>its not false or misleading
Sophistry is literally misleading.
>If you want so bad you just have to work for it and stop seething about what you don't have
Yes, you have to work to make something happen because potentiality isn't existence.

[Anonymous No.14785374]

>>14785342
>If B requires A
>Does A require B?
Answer this now.

[Anonymous No.14785375]

>>14785333

To speculate, the absence of things within a given 3D space might cause problems in higher or lower dimensions. Suppose a higher dimensions where everything has a 4D shape and is able to fuck itself and preform chemical reactions with itself. For example, a 4-D hyper-hydrogen molecule bonding with itself to form H2 or H+ simultaneously. Thus, this single H atom would be able to have all the properties of H2 and H+. Now suppose in one slice of it, there's just nothing. The 4-D nature of the molecule then moves to occupy that space, to equalize it's pressure amongst all surfaces. Then for some reason this specific slice can't leave. Now suppose this happens to an almost unimaginable amount of stuff in a very short period. From our perspective, it'd look like things would magically appear and then explode in a big bang.

And again, recall that these are all particles that are also fields/waves. While something like a proton exists at a specific point, it has a larger emission to upper and lower dimensions that attracts other like emissions. This is known as gravity, and as the universe expanded energy levels reduced to a point where gravity could define the universe's shape and size. Or rather, that the universe would expand at a certain constant rate that would not cause everything to fly apart randomly or crash back into each other randomly (re-creating the original high-pressure situation). This constant rate is whatever frequency gravity's string is. It's likely it exists in another dimension, and therefore has a multi-dimensional pulse that humans can't easily think about. I liken it to an ejaculating penis.

[Anonymous No.14785381]

>>14785368
>Sophistry is literally misleading.
Which is why saying that imaginary units are entirely made of real units is not an example of sophistry, it is an example of applying semantics to basic mathematical definitions.

> potentiality isn't existence
It is imaginary existence rather than real existence, it can be realized with work, so it is more than just nothing, it is a projection, you are basically trying to argue that a shadow is nothing.

[Anonymous No.14785385]

>>14785374
I don't know you didn't provide enough information in your imaginary scenario since in reality B doesn't actually require A, so I have nothing from reality to draw upon only your poorly construction axiom that doesn't provide enough information to answer the question.

[Anonymous No.14785398]

>>14785385
>Refuses to answer a basic IQ question with autistic rhetoric
Yep, you are retarded, sorry kid.

[Anonymous No.14785406]

>>14785398
I clearly answered your poorly constructed question, though, there is not enough information about the relationship between A and B to make a definitive conclusion at this time, sorry if unexpected nuance is too complex for an outdated chatbot to understand.

[Anonymous No.14785410]

>>14785406
>autistic screeching intensifies
God exists.

[Anonymous No.14785418]

>>14785410
I thought you said gods existence is inconsistent, where does god touch you, and are you saying that god is not powerful enough to create the universe without actually existing?

[Anonymous No.14785463]

Nothing is everything and god is you. Your internet connection is lost

[Anonymous No.14785469]

>>14785463
Where can I find a new one? The internet store?

[Anonymous No.14785492]

>>14783245
ah yes that deep sense of dread. it feels just like your pic OP.

[Anonymous No.14785710]

>>14785207
>Potentiality isn't existence, so it's nothing
That's a stupid take but it's not even worth arguing about. Read the rest of the post to see why, imageboard brain.

[Anonymous No.14785748]

its blackholes all the way up

[Anonymous No.14785779]

>>14783248
this
the noooticing causes existence itself

[Anonymous No.14785782]

>>14785779
>the effect causes the cause

[Anonymous No.14785785]

>>14785782
the cause is noticing and the effect is existence

[Anonymous No.14785788]

>the cause is noticing and the effect is existence
I swear this is the dumbest board on the website.

[Anonymous No.14785790]

>>14785788
literally looks like me

[Anonymous No.14785815]

The anthropic principle works for our habitable planet because we know there are shitloads of uninhabitable planets.
The anthropic principle works for our fine-tuned universe only if you assume there are shitloads of untuned universes that nobody is noooticing.
The anthropic principle does not work for our existence over nonexistence, because you can't assume there are shitloads of nonexistences existing. That doesn't make sense anymore.

[Anonymous No.14785832]

>>14785815
The anthropic principle is a thought-terminating cliche for 105 IQ pseudointellectuals. It explains absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.14785882]

>>14783245
Maybe it is the concept of nothing that does not exist outside our minds. If things exist, they always existed and always will exist. There was never truly nothing, because if nothing ever existed then there could not be something coming from it?

We are always in a state of existence, why do we assume there was once a state of nothingness?

[Anonymous No.14787427]

>>14785192
it still doesn't make much sense. this way of describing it assumes that the universe or cosmos is running under even deeper hidden rules to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14787446]

Its a question that's plagued philosophers and scientists for centuries. It underpins all of our stories about God and all of our theology. It might even be the first question man ever asked; Why is there something rather than nothing?

I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn

I came here, to 4channel, to put the question to the world's foremost minds in race science, consent law, and WW2 revisionism, hoping to get... Closer to Truth

*string swell*

[Anonymous No.14787459]

>>14785882
Bingo
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-meaning/
And to drive the point home, realize that this is not even a recent idea
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

[Anonymous No.14787468]

>>14783245
Causality isn’t real so the question doesn’t even make sense

[Anonymous No.14787471]

>>14787427
It probably does. Just accept we will never have access to the true totality of all that exists because it is quite literally Turtles All the Way Down.

[Anonymous No.14787485]

>>14787471
no, if you remove your anthropocentric assumption that causality is a real objective thing, then there is no problem. Causality itself is the problem. Everything we experience can easily exist without causality. You can’t ever prove or observe causality. Occam’s razor says the simplest model is that causality isn’t real and that the universe just exists.

[Anonymous No.14787486]

>>14783264
>
Nah it is a different question bro. Why implies there was a reason behind the origin of the Universe, which perhaps there was not as you are suggesting, but "how" is asking how is it possible that there is existence. They really are two different questions.

[Anonymous No.14787497]

>>14787485
I don’t disagree.

[Anonymous No.14787509]

>>14783245
The universe exists in a loop, duh.

[Anonymous No.14787510]

>>14787497
Cool, spread the word. Thousands of years of philosophy over the same question and people still try and try, and fail. Even those who have faith in some sort of explanation aren’t actually convinced, they just have no better alternative. They still lie awake at night hopelessly trying to take away their gnawing sense of ignorance, trying to prove it once and for all. But I stand quiet, and content

[Anonymous No.14787511]

>>14783245
This is a false problem.
"Nothing" is not an option. Just because humans can come up with the concept of "nothing", doesn't mean it ever existed or ever could exist. Show me a 'nothing'. Vacuum is not 'nothing'.
There you go. Problem solved. There has always been something. That "something" just changes shape with time.

[Anonymous No.14787595]

>>14785381
>it is an example of applying semantics to basic mathematical definitions.
And it mislead discussion, because it's sophistry.
>It is imaginary existence rather than real existence
That's why it's not existence.
>you are basically trying to argue that a shadow is nothing.
At least shadow is not imaginary and has objective physical conditions.

[Anonymous No.14787599]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14788489]

existence precedes causality

[Anonymous No.14788755]

>>14783245
I don't know, but if there is anyone you should ask it's probably NDErs who have been to the afterlife.
>b-b-but NDEs are dreams or hallucinations!
No, 100% of people that have deep NDEs conclude otherwise, even scientists and passionate atheists: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o
One NDEr in the video said that our soul and spirit is ancient, so this whole something thing you worry about OP doesn't seem to be a new thing.

[Anonymous No.14788763]

>>14787486
Both imply the same thing: that there's an reason.

[Anonymous No.14788775]

>>14788755
>obsessed

[Anonymous No.14791101]

>>14783245
Yes I too thought of this many times was amazed and perplexed by this idea. Then I realized that if there was really just totally nothing instead of something, that would also be equally as impossible, perplexing, and terrifying.

[Anonymous No.14791338]

>>14783248
/thread

[Anonymous No.14791345]

>>14785322
>I exist and do not require any logical argument from you to do so.
??

[Anonymous No.14791352]

>>14785815
>The anthropic principle works for our fine-tuned universe only if you assume there are shitloads of untuned universes that nobody is noooticing.
It is possible to conceive of universes without life so the principle still works in this instance. The principle does not work for existence in general however because it's impossible to conceive of nothing.

[Anonymous No.14791360]

>>14788755
wrong board

[Anonymous No.14791677]

>>14783245
>How is there something rather than nothing?
Because God made everything? Wow, that was fucking easy. Next stupid question.

[Anonymous No.14791740]

Understand it like this; energy, the ability to do work, is a consequence: energy is the interaction between wave functions in their respective fields. All of reality is manifested, like a hologram, from their interactions. The waves are able to exist alone, however, which is a reality we energy beings will never experience.

Why was there a big bang? It is my belief, that it was because the universe isn't flat, but is curvy and filled with valleys and hills. The universe is expanding itself, so perhaps this place used to be flat and barren, then it became a valley and got very condensed, and then became a hill that exploded all that density away, until expansion leaves it flat again.

Why does anything exist? It is my belief, it is because even in nothingness, one can still define directions and numbers, which automatically creates the spatial dimensions.

Waves are 2D things, that exist in a 4D world. It is my belief, that waves can move through time like we can move through 3D; yet they are incapable of controlling their motion through 3D, like how we are incapable of controlling our movement through time. It sounds weird, but the logic is merely that Time is another spatial dimension that energy cannot move through, but this restriction doesn't necessarily apply to the wave functions themselves. (3D for a wave is the side-to-side; yet, to us, 3D is usually considered the up-down; and, both experience the forward-backward)

There's probably 1d things, and 4d things, that simply don't interact with waves nor with energy. 5d, 6d, whatever, and some with more than one time, some with less times.

Blahblah blah I'm crazy, what's new. Go outside people, and eat well.

[Anonymous No.14791758]

>>14791740
>Blahblah blah I'm crazy, what's new. Go outside people, and eat well.
Wow, so quirky and self aware. Reddit moment + L + ratio

[Anonymous No.14791779]

>>14783245
>Why is?
why isn't?