I actually formulated this idea on my own, and found this video from searching Youtube on solipsism. I thought it was interesting but I'm not sure if it is flawed. Discuss.
Link to video.
Transcript: "I contemplate the situation where nothing exists and then, there is us and the universe we perceive and I ask; How is it that something exists? Can it be that something can spring from nothing?
The glib answer from those of little imagination is to assert that there cannot be nothing, that where nothing exists there is still a god. I assert that that is a good answer for monkeys, not philosophers. It simply avoids the conundrum by refusing to ask how that god exists. Note that I do not refuse the notion that that which most would define as god might exist, I simply assert that one cannot avoid the question of how existence might exist by invoking the notion that god exists as such a god existing is contingent upon the existence of existence.
Obviously something exists. The assertion (I have heard often) that all is illusion misses the point that for such illusion itself to exist, there must be existence. Refusal to entertain the question as a valid question is simply either failure of imagination or fear of the question.
My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.
It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."
Link to video.
Transcript: "I contemplate the situation where nothing exists and then, there is us and the universe we perceive and I ask; How is it that something exists? Can it be that something can spring from nothing?
The glib answer from those of little imagination is to assert that there cannot be nothing, that where nothing exists there is still a god. I assert that that is a good answer for monkeys, not philosophers. It simply avoids the conundrum by refusing to ask how that god exists. Note that I do not refuse the notion that that which most would define as god might exist, I simply assert that one cannot avoid the question of how existence might exist by invoking the notion that god exists as such a god existing is contingent upon the existence of existence.
Obviously something exists. The assertion (I have heard often) that all is illusion misses the point that for such illusion itself to exist, there must be existence. Refusal to entertain the question as a valid question is simply either failure of imagination or fear of the question.
My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.
It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."
