While this question sounds like this one, bear with me and I'll explain why it's more of a revised version of this one instead (and to be honest I wasn't sure if I should've just edited it, but I think it'll need a complete rewrite and would be better off to just post a new one instead).
So, when people ask the question "is there something rather than nothing" (which some would claim to be "the root of philosophy") it seems like they assume that "nothing" is the 'default' status, while "something" would require an explanation - and an extensive question on this would be Does a negative claimant have a burden of proof?
Now, what I'm asking is, why - on the epistemological level - would we ask the question that way (putting "nothing" on the root of it) rather than, for example "why would there be nothing rather than something"? Why do we assume that nothing comes first and something has to "fill the void"? In other words (those in my original question) - isn't "nothing" and "something" equivalent on the epistemological level? (maybe Spinoza on God would be a good example, although I'm not exactly sure how much of this is my own interpretation and how much is what Spinoza actually meant because it's from memory - when Spinoza puts God and Nature as equals, the theological equivalent would mean that you can either take God as completely ontological, meaning "everything is God", or you can take God out of the equation - because you can say that Nature is exactly it. This would mean that "God" or "without-God" [similar to "something" and "nothing"] means exactly the same epistemology-wise - although definitely not the same theology-wise).
I hope this is clear enough. Tell me if you think this question should be closed and the original edited instead.
I just want to emphasize the statement in my question by phrasing it a bit more radically - why do we even ask the "why there is something rather than nothing" question? Why isn't it obvious that this question is meaningless because there both "something" and "nothing" are equal? In maybe a bit odd example - isn't it the same as asking why is the result of some calculation is 1 instead of 0? And although it may have philosophical significant, is it really that big as it is usually being portrait to be?