Apparently you didn’t read the OP
Either existence is eternal, which means there’s no reason to cause existence as it always was. Or existence occurred spontaneously and wasn’t eternal. Either way, there would have had to be something to cause existence to be, which in turn is paradoxical; because whatever that cause was, would also have to exist, thus there is no reason for existence, which means existence is absurd.
I guess that you did not read/understand the “absolutely zero opportunity for nothingness” argument.
The reason/cause for the universe to be eternal is the fact that it is impossible for it to not be eternal. There is a reason “cause” for its existence.
The error is that the question implies the answer. There cannot be nothing as this question cannot be asked if true. So there is no alternative. The alternative to something, is something else; NOT non-existence, or nothing.
Or look at it this way. You cannot ask “why” there is something, unless you can assert a reason for a reason. What makes you think asking ‘why’ is valid? If you had an answer it would only beg another why question ad infinitem.
And just because you can’t think of an answer; that only makes asking the question absurd. Existence is what it is; absurdity is a human frailty, not an absolute quality. Not a quality of the universe, though you might apply it to your life.\
PS. If you want to see something that IS DEFINITELY ABSURD it is here; "The reason/cause for the universe to be eternal is the fact that it is impossible for it to not be eternal. There is a reason “cause” for its existence"
WTF?
The question does not imply the answer. The question implies that something exists, but is asking why existence exists. The alternative to something is not something else, something is all inclusive of things. The alternative is non existence.
I can ask why, but that doesn’t mean it has an answer.
I agree this statement “The reason/cause for the universe to be eternal is the fact that it is impossible for it to not be eternal” is fucked up.
Well, if you can come up with a means for the impossible to be the state of reality, have at it.
Until then, intelligent people seem to understand that it is only the possible that can ever be the situation. There is not merely nothingness because nothingness is an impossible state - the same reason that you don’t have square-circles.
Are you aware of the concept of whitenoise?
Is that related to this OP?
And yes, I very well know and understand white noise (and pink and blue).
No, there is valid reason as to why an eternal universe is postulated to be impossible.
For one, it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get to this point in time, yet it is impossible to get through an infinite amount of time, so its paradoxical. Also, the origin of time has been postulated to come about with the origin of the universe as we know it, particularly argued by Stephen Hawkins that time and the universe have a beginning at the big bang. Prior to that there was no time.
I personally say, perhaps it is possible that the universe always was. But perhaps it’s not.
Its unknown and anyone putting out any definitive claims, simply doesn’t know what they are talking about.
That is an aged argument, but none the less invalid.
You can say that it takes an infinite amount of time to get to this point, but then with eternity you already postulate that an infinite amount of time has been provided. As in all calculus, infinities tend to cancel each other; something infinitely small, but an infinite number of them. Calculus resolves all of Zeno’s motion paradoxes.
Time and the physical universe are paramount to the same thing. Time is the measure of relative changing and the universe is the relative changing of which time is the measure. If you have one, you automatically have the other.
The Big Bang theory is a fairy tale. Every reason put forth as evidence to support it, has greater rationality against said reasoning (such as red-shifting).
There is also the simple logic that because time is merely the measure of change, if at any moment there is no time (“before the Big Bang”) then at that moment, there is no more change. The universe could never escape the shortest fraction of a moment of zero time/change. Something has to change for the universe to begin. And the universe has to begin in order for anything to change.
And then there is also the age old, “something from nothing” argument. Need I go into those details?
Yet you declare yourself the infinitely wise who knows what it is that anyone else can possibly know or not. 
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
So yes, whatever you say St. James.
If, say, the universe devolved into whitenoise, there would be no consciousness, no?
“IF” … yeah.
… and?
No consciousness, = no thing. Nothing
So you’re a solipsist? If there is no one to think it, it doesn’t exist?
You have a very different definition of “existence”.
That has little to do with solipism, dear.
People can exist, but they are in different timespaces.
But if noone had any consciousness at all, if there was not any consciousness anywhere to be found, nothing could exist.
They call that “Solipsism” and whether they do or not, it involves a different definition of “Existence” than normal and certainly different than mine.
Solipism, is the notion that noone else has sentience but yourself.
That is a distinctly different notion than what I describe, which is that if there were no conscious beings at all, there would be nothing said to exist.
By my definition of existence, no one has to say (or know) that something exists for it to exist.
And if you have no consciousness any more, nothing exists to you and thus to you, nothing exists merely because your consciousness doesn’t. It doesn’t really matter if it is merely one person or all people.
How exactly would one accomplish this non-consciousness, when there are active consciousness about? They would simply have to be non-existent, they would have no “you”, no “I”, only words, but no connection to phenomena. What you describe would be solipism.
You say that there is no existence if there is no one to know of it. When you no longer exist, there will be no one left to know of anything.
“Existence” as, you have defined it, includes other consciousnesses, other people. But when You no longer exist, those other parts of consciousness and existence cease to exist also because You are not there to know of Them. Thus as soon as there is no more You, there is no more Them. The entire universe ceases to exist merely because You no longer exist = “Solipsism”.