The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?," has a strong claim to be philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question; it has a capacity to set the head spinning which few other philosophical problems can rival. Bede Rundle challenges the stalemate between theistic and naturalistic explanations with a rigorous, properly philosophical approach, and presents some startlingly novel conclusions.
I couldn't finish it. At least 90% of this is just mental gymnastics and linguistic confusion, a sad attempt at making philosophy superior to the actual understanding of physics. If you're a philosopher, please don't discuss physics if you can't go beyond mere words.