I responded thusly...
"Darkness within darkness;
the gateway to all understanding." ~Tao te Ching
Professor Heidegger wrote and dwelled deeply upon, "Why is there an Essent?" Or more commonly asked as, Why is there something, instead of Nothing? I think the Tao's author was getting at the same thing. I think maybe the point of this particular line of unanswerable questionings is to point one's wonder towards the Nothing, from which, had it ever held sway, nothing could arise. There would still just be Nothing. No darkness, and nothing wondering why there is only Nothing, and no undetecable germ from which something could arise, for that would be something. Despite what modern physicists may say on the topic, there has never been Nothing. Not the Nothing, with nothing anywhere else. Prior to the Big Bang (please excuse the temporal term), from where the physicist stands, there may have been nothing. No time. No empty space. No reference point from a being in this Universe, or multi-verse, or area of non theory-laden Being-hood for beings-in-the-world. But even if that's so, there sure as hell was something somewhere else that caused all this.
"The Nothing nothings. The Something somethings." -Heidegger
I think the point of meditating on the Nothing that never has been, the darkness within darkness, is to have the first person realization that it is always already eternal. The Something that somethings has always already somethinged. This insight is the lynchpin of Nietzsche's only posited metaphysic; the Law of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same.
It seems likely to me that the honest root of God which we may point towards with words like "That Which Cannot Be Nothing," is the Something that somethings, and is what experiences the Being of all of the beings (but the word 'God' carries the baggage of scared little girls and mythologies of Homo erectus, and the dreams of wealth and control of the poor of spirit and weak of body, and at best can be used among friends as shorthand to feebly point into the darkness). As physical systems arise, it is the fabric (something akin to Maurice Merlot Ponty's "Flesh") of the physical, which is pretty much insubstantial energy, until the systems develop to where there is Being, there is something that its like to be this, or that, in the form-world of substantiality; the Essent. It would appear that within the Essent, there are form-objects like rocks and packs of cigarettes, which are only experienced and real as they appear to an experiencer-in-the-world, a being. The Being of the beings is in each case, a case of "my own being" to that being. Other is the limiting case of self, and self is the limiting case of other, and each in its turn is experienced by T.W.C.B.N., without its consent methinks, as it simply is what it is: the Something that somethings.
Here's a question, provided these random speculations aren't just the utter pseudo intellectual bullshit of a well known day tripper that reads the continentals, and further supposing if only for the sake of supposition that Nietzsche was right, how does a finite being contemplate the redundancy of its infinite Being? I mean, it must be always already infinite or there would still be Nothing, so this means deductively that here never was a first time run through of any of it. No first time, because its always already eternal, and there you have the grounds for some old school methodological nihilism.
(You can't really break the rules in a rock fight that has always already happened.
(I have noticed that if whatever spawned this particular something is the Oceans, the Seals, and the Great White Sharks all at the same time, it seems to be trying a similar experiment inside me, but with many more combatants and far more motivating factors than I'm comfortable attributing to Oceans, Seals and Sharks. But I doubt it means to do it, or to work something out; I mean, its always already eternal, of this we can be sure for ourselves by staring into the abyss. It seems most likely this is just what it is.))
I agree; there are many questions that cannot be answered.