I believe it's valuable to think of this question in terms of how our physical reality really can't answer it. It's a tacit acknowledgement that the rules of the physical world we exist in are not universal; We live with causality, but for existence to begin it must not be a universal requirement.

Eastern philosophy understood it quite early, you can only go so far with cause and effect.

Brahman, Prime mover, are great explanations as to why there must be a causeless entity, something that is not ruled by material nature in order to be the causeless source of it. The cause of all causes that is causeless itself.

The question is the launch off point for exploration. Just because a question is philosophical in nature does not mean it cannot be answered or that there’s no point in asking.

> Just because a question is philosophical in nature does not mean it cannot be answered or that there’s no point in asking.

I never made any claim starting from the premise that the question "is philosophical"

I directly explained why the question can't be answered definitively.

Lots of philosophical questions actually can be answered.

>If a question cannot be answered, there's no point in asking it I think.

how can you prove a question cannot be answered?

This particular question cannot be answered definitively because any answer is subject to the same question - why does that thing exist rather than nothing?

> What kind of answer could even possibly answer that question?

I don't know, but it's fascinating to think about.

> Any answer is subject to the follow-up question, well why does that thing exist? Why did that happen?

Various kinds of faith (religious, scientific, etc) can stop infinite regress.

> If a question cannot be answered, there's no point in asking it I think.

Easy peasy.

Faith can stop you asking the question of why God exists rather than nothing, but it can't actually answer that question.

The moment we ask why, it has to have a reason. However Vedānta for example, would argue that brahman or the entity that is the cause of all causes, is causeless in itself. There can be no other explanation.

If something has a cause then it's ruled by cause and effect. If something is causeless, it not only does not need a reason to exist but is also the entity that puts forth cause and effect in motion. Kinda similar to Aristotle's concept of the prime mover.

A contrasting take on it afaict:

https://share.snipd.com/chapter/ceddc8a8-939b-48c7-8cea-45d7...

Doesn't seem much contrasting. Dao concept sounds quite similar to the concept of Dharma outlaid in Bhagavad Gita.

Wu-Wei sounds very much like Karma Yoga and Yin-Yang too. It's all very much like the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

Contrast the uncertain sentiment in your last comment with "has to have" and various other "facts" of questionable origin above.

It can certainly answer it, but whether it can answer it accurately is another matter.

To make it even trickier: it isn't only religious people who are affected by faith, though clever word play, cultural norms, etc can make it appear otherwise.