The Reason of Existence

I hope to recieve a great amount of feedback on this so that I might improve the argument and/or make it easier to understand. This is the first part of a larger work.

To start off on this philosophical writing I think I shall begin with the beginning. The first question is: Does anything exist? One might wonder whether an answer to this question can ever really be obtained. I can’t give a definitive answer other than we must operate on the premise that ourselves and the universe exist. In explanation, existence is a state of being and for something to have value/meaning it must first exist. In order for an action to take place something must commit the action. Nothing refers to that which does not have existence. Something is the opposite of nothing therefore if an action is committed that which commits the action must exist. No actions can be caused by a state of nonbeing or nonexistence if you prefer. If I did not exist then I could not be committing/have committed the action of writing this. Continuing this argument from a different angle: If the universe we perceive does not truly exist then it cannot have value. The same can be said of ourselves if we do not exist. Even if I am incorrect in believing that for actions to be committed something must first exist to commit them I prove my point here that we must operate under the premise that we and the universe exist. This is because if nothing exists then nothing is of value/meaning. I would be curious if anyone could come up with a convincing argument from the premise that nothing exists to explain why anyone should or should not do anything or why things appear to be as they are. I believe from my previous argument I have shown our universe exists or rather that we have no choice but to believe it does but I think I have left out showing how value follows from existence. This brings me to my second question: What is value? Value is made up of properties. As an example of something that exists and has value let us take a piece of printer paper. We can identify an object as printer paper or as not printer paper by perceiving its value in the form of properties. The paper is thin, has four sides, is smooth, and is the color white. All these properties make up the paper’s value. We perceive these things about a piece of printer paper as necessary to it being a piece of printer paper. The properties are intrinsic to its existence. We attach instrumental value to the piece of printer paper because it has the useful purpose of being able to be used as printed media for reports. One might argue that these properties are merely based upon our perception of them and our perception may be false. I contend that one cannot reasonably make this argument since it is essentially the same as believing that nothing is what it seems. If one believes that one’s perception is flawed then that which is perceived could be an infinite number of other things. If one believes a single object to not be as it appears then it is possible that all other things perceived are not what they appear to be either. An infinite number of unknowns issues forth from this argument and just like the argument for the existence of nothing one cannot operate under the acceptance of this argument and find any value/meaning. Thus we are forced to accept our perception of the universe as “real”.