Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? (And What Does Space Have to Do With It?)

Imagine you’re sitting in your room, and you ask yourself: why is there anything at all? Not just your furniture, or your house, or the Earth, or the stars—but everything taken together. Why isn’t there just… nothing? No universe, no space, no time, no rules, no possibilities. Just blank.

Most people don’t spend much time on this question. But Samuel Clarke did. He was an English philosopher who lived around 300 years ago, and he thought this question was the most important one you could ask. He also thought that to answer it, you had to figure out something weird about space.

The Argument That Starts With Something Simple

Clarke starts with a fact so obvious you might miss it: something exists right now. You do. The room you’re in does. That’s not controversial.

But here’s where it gets strange. If something exists now, Clarke says, then something must have always existed. Why? Because nothing can come from nothing. Think about it: if there was once absolutely nothing—no matter, no energy, no minds, no possibilities—then it’s impossible for anything to start existing. There’s no way for nothing to do anything, because nothing isn’t a thing that can act. So if we’re here now, there must always have been something.

But what kind of something? Clarke says it can’t just be an endless chain of things that depend on other things for their existence. Imagine a line of dominoes stretching backward forever. Each domino was knocked over by the one before it. But if the chain goes on forever, you still haven’t explained why any dominoes exist at all. You’ve only explained why each one falls. The existence of the whole chain is still a mystery.

So Clarke argues that there must be something that doesn’t depend on anything else—something that just is, by its very nature. He calls this a “self-existent” being. And that self-existent being, he says, is what we call God.

This is called a cosmological argument—an argument that starts from the existence of the universe and tries to show that God must exist. Clarke’s version was famous in his day, and philosophers still argue about whether it works.

The Problem With Two Self-Existent Beings

Now here’s a problem Clarke noticed. If you accept that there’s a self-existent being, could there be two of them? Or more?

At first, that might seem possible. But Clarke argues no. If there were two self-existent beings, they’d have to be different from each other in some way. But if they’re both self-existent—both existing by their own nature—then whatever makes them different would have to be something outside their self-existent nature. And that would mean they aren’t truly self-existent after all. They’d be partly dependent on something else.

Other philosophers pointed out a hole in this reasoning. Clarke’s critic Anthony Atkey said: maybe Clarke only showed that we can’t imagine two self-existent beings, not that they can’t exist. Our imaginations aren’t always reliable guides to what’s possible. Clarke’s response was that in this case, our ideas are clear enough to trust—but many philosophers think he didn’t really solve the problem.

Space Is Stranger Than You Think

Clarke also had a different route to God: through space. He thought that when you really think about space, it’s incredibly strange.

Try to imagine that space doesn’t exist. Go ahead—try to picture no space at all. Clarke says you can’t. To suppose that any part of space is removed is to suppose it removed from… itself. It’s a contradiction. Space, he thinks, is something that couldn’t possibly not exist.

But space isn’t a self-existent being, Clarke says. It has properties—it has dimensions, it can be measured, it can contain things. But it doesn’t cause anything. It doesn’t think. It’s more like a property of something else. So what is it a property of? Clarke’s answer: God. Space is the way God’s presence fills everything. It’s “an immediate and necessary consequence of the existence of God.”

This was controversial then and now. If space is a property of God, and space has parts (even if they can’t be separated), then does God have parts? That would be a problem for the traditional idea that God is simple, not made of parts. Clarke tried to answer this, but his answer was complicated.

Is the World a Machine or a Puppet?

The most famous exchange Clarke ever had was with the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. They wrote letters back and forth (through a princess named Caroline of Ansbach), arguing about space, time, God, and whether the universe is a perfect machine.

Leibniz thought God created the best possible world—a world so perfectly designed that it runs on its own, like a wound-up clock. God doesn’t need to reach in and fix things. That would make God look like a clumsy watchmaker.

Clarke disagreed. He thought matter is completely dead and passive. It can’t move itself, it can’t attract other matter, it can’t do anything at all. Gravity, for example, isn’t a power of matter itself. It’s God acting directly on matter, every moment. The “laws of nature” aren’t descriptions of what matter does—they’re descriptions of how God chooses to move matter, consistently.

So for Clarke, the world is less like a machine and more like a puppet. Every motion is God’s action. Miracles aren’t God breaking the rules; they’re just God acting in an unusual way. From God’s perspective, everything is equally God’s doing.

Leibniz thought this made God part of nature, which was an insult. Clarke thought Leibniz’s view made God irrelevant, which was worse.

What Makes an Action Free?

This gets to another big debate Clarke was in: free will.

Clarke thought that for you to be truly free, you need to be able to choose even when all the reasons are perfectly balanced. Suppose you’re offered two identical candy bars. There’s no reason to pick one over the other. Can you still choose? Clarke said yes—and that ability is what freedom is. If you could only choose when you had a better reason, then your choices would be determined by reasons, not by you.

His opponent Leibniz said this made no sense. If there’s no reason to choose one way rather than another, then there’s no explanation for why you choose what you do. That violates the “principle of sufficient reason”—the idea that everything has a reason or explanation. Clarke replied: the reason is simply you chose. Your will is the cause. You don’t need anything else.

This is still a live debate in philosophy. Some philosophers think free will requires exactly this kind of “agent causation”—you, as a person, cause your choices. Others think it’s mysterious or impossible.

Morality Without God Telling You What to Do

Clarke also had a theory of ethics. He thought that right and wrong are built into the nature of things, like mathematical truths. The fact that you should help someone in need isn’t true because God says so, or because society says so, or because it helps you. It’s just true, in the same way that 2+2=4 is true.

He called these “eternal and necessary differences of things.” Given that there’s a relationship of “infinite disproportion” between you and God, it’s “fit” that you honor God. Given that you and another person are equals, it’s “fit” that you treat them as you’d want to be treated. These “fits” are real features of reality that you can perceive with your reason.

Critics pointed out problems. First, how do you know what’s “fit”? Clarke never fully explained. Second, even if you know what’s fit, why would that motivate you to do it? Perceiving a truth isn’t the same as wanting to act on it. Clarke’s answer was that the perception doesn’t cause the action—you cause the action, using that perception as a reason. But some philosophers found this unsatisfying.

Why It Still Matters

Clarke’s arguments didn’t settle anything. Philosophers still argue about whether there must be a self-existent being, whether space is a property of God, whether free will requires the ability to choose without reasons, and whether morality is built into reality.

But Clarke’s way of thinking is worth taking seriously. He showed that simple questions—“Why is there anything?” “What is space?” “What makes an action free?”—lead to strange, deep places. He didn’t avoid the weirdness. He followed it where it went, even when it made him unpopular. And he wrote with a confidence that his arguments would convince anyone who thought clearly enough. That confidence might be misplaced. But the questions are still alive.

Key Terms

Term	What it does in this debate
Self-existent being	A being that exists by its own nature and doesn’t depend on anything else
Principle of sufficient reason	The idea that everything that happens must have a reason or explanation
Agent causation	The view that a person (not just events or reasons) can directly cause actions
Cosmological argument	An argument that starts from the existence of the universe and tries to prove God exists
Fitness/unfitness	Clarke’s term for whether an action is morally appropriate given the relationships involved
Moral necessity	A kind of “necessity” where someone always does what’s right, but could choose otherwise—it’s reliable but not forced

Key People

Samuel Clarke (1675–1729): English philosopher and clergyman who defended Newton’s physics and gave famous arguments for God’s existence and free will.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): German philosopher and mathematician who disagreed with Clarke about space, time, and whether everything must have a sufficient reason.
Caroline of Ansbach (1683–1737): Princess of Wales who studied with Leibniz and hosted the debate between Leibniz and Clarke, making her a key participant in the correspondence.
Anthony Collins (1676–1729): English philosopher who debated Clarke about whether the soul could be material and whether free will exists.

Things to Think About

Clarke says you can’t imagine space not existing. But can you imagine nothing at all? Try it. What do you notice about the attempt? Is “imagine nothing” a coherent idea, or do you always end up imagining some kind of empty space?
If there were two candy bars exactly identical, and you had no reason to choose one over the other, could you still choose? Would that choice be random? Would it be free? Does “free” mean the same thing in both cases?
Clarke says that matter can’t move itself—every motion requires God’s direct action. But if that’s true, what happens when you move your arm? Is God moving it, or is your mind moving it, or both? How would you tell the difference?
Clarke says moral truths are like math—they’re just true, independent of what anyone thinks. But if two people disagree about what’s “fit” to do in a situation, how do you decide who’s right? Can you prove that someone is morally wrong the way you can prove they’re bad at arithmetic?
Leibniz thought a perfect world would need no miracles—God would design it so well that everything runs on its own. Clarke thought a perfect world would show God’s constant involvement. Which picture of God seems more impressive to you? Which seems more like a God you’d want to exist?

Where This Shows Up

The question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is still debated by philosophers and physicists. It appears in everything from serious metaphysics to late-night conversations.
Debates about whether the universe needs a cause or can just exist appear in arguments for and against God’s existence today (the cosmological argument in modern philosophy of religion).
The question of whether you can choose without a reason appears in court cases about criminal responsibility—if someone truly couldn’t have done otherwise, can we blame them?
Clarke’s view of space as a property of God influenced later thinkers. Isaac Newton had similar ideas, and the relationship between space and God still comes up in philosophy of physics and theology.