> Why am I not in intergalactic space right now? That's a different question than you initially posted. The anserr is trivial, so nobody would ask this questio

> Why am I not in intergalactic space right now? That's a different question than you initially posted. The anserr is trivial, so nobody would ask this question, except in the futuristic sense, "what's stopping me", or the naive sense, "why is the sky blue, who am I, and why does it hurt when my teeth grow". The initial question entsils a lot more, depending on how far you want to take it, at least, "why am I", but I would argue that independent of your or my own endeavour, it is ultimately deep. You can try to answer the "how", but not the "why" without circular reasoning. Circular reasoning (which is tautologic, but not necessarily a formal fallacy) is rather human indeed, insofar we ascribe reason ability exclusively to humans--because we are egoists, since we are limited by our event horizont. So in contrast to assuming the anthropic principle as an answer, I'd rather hold it with Plato. tl;dr: Here's the fallacy. "Why am I"--"because I am not not" is an inadmissable argument, if nonexistence (not being) cannot be the cause for anything. It's nothing, pretty much by definition. Coralary: If you take the short cut and reduce the double negation, "Why am I"--"Because I am" is a step back from descartes, "I think therefore I am", who managed at least to include a necessary argument for the definition of being human. Although, this only answers the how. Beyond that, I am only able to argue on linguistical semantic grounds. If "why" is as good as "what for", while "to be for something" means preference, the real content of the question becomes apparent. What am I to do, write more philosophical absurdity, get a cheese cake, or try to have my cake and eat it too?