Does the state of nonexistence exist (despite the apparent contradiction?)? Everything exists... but do non-things exist? Or will we hold to the classic view that nothingness does not exist as it contradicts its own existence if it were to exist? But what impact would that have on everything existing?

I'm interested in seeing what you lot have to say on nothing's existence (or lack thereof)

I think nothing is abstract. We can see a whole lot of something, and know that most something is not endless. So we can consider nothingness, like we can consider the number 3,126 without having 3,126 things to count. But in reality, outside of our heads, I don't think nothingness can exist. It's definition makes itself impossible. It is a paradox. What would nothing look like? White? Something. Clear? Something Black? Something. Would it have a smell? Something. Would it not have a smell? having no smell is something. Nothing as soon as it is defined, can be nothing anymore.

It is a deep and very old question, though, thank you for posing it.

What do you think?

'Nothing' is a description of an abscence of things, it is not a thing in itself.
In the same way that death is a description of the abscence of life and is not a thing in itself.

(March 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: 'Nothing' is a description of an abscence of things, it is not a thing in itself.
In the same way that death is a description of the abscence of life and is not a thing in itself.

(It should be noted: Nothing's definition makes itself logically impossible. However, I'm considering the logical standpoint so as to avoid metaphysics)

But is not the absence of being a thing a thing of itself? Nothing too would have to be a thing (else we could not consider it, also hence why it is declared a contradictory idea.). Of course, things can demonstrably exist outside of logic (hence fallacy exists)... why should nothing not also exist? (Joke question... note the above note in italic.)

Does existence suggest that there be an essence? If not, then why would nothing not exist? Can the state of lacking an essence still exist?

@plumb: Actually, death is not the absence of life. Rocks are not dead. Death is "the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism". Death requires former life.

Does absence of belief actually presume a belief in 'nothing' which would be the same as a belief in something which doesn't exist?

(March 10, 2010 at 4:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Does absence of belief actually presume a belief in 'nothing' which would be the same as a belief in something which doesn't exist?

No. However, the absence of belief is still a thing itself.

Nothing isn't something, it's no thing. So nothing can't exist because no thing existing simply means not one thing existing, which is the opposite of existence.

EvF

(March 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm)Saerules Wrote:

(March 10, 2010 at 4:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Does absence of belief actually presume a belief in 'nothing' which would be the same as a belief in something which doesn't exist?

No. However, the absence of belief is still a thing itself.

Explain

(March 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Nothing isn't something, it's no thing. So nothing can't exist because no thing existing simply means not one thing existing, which is the opposite of existence.

EvF

And yet it remains a concept. For it to be a concept, it must exist, at the least as a concept. Nothing can't logically exist, because for it to do so it would have to be something... in which case we cannot properly rationalize nothing as a concept, because that would be to presuppose its existence.

A lack of belief in something exists as a void. But nothing cannot exist as a void, because a void is a thing. Therefore nothing's existence tautologically becomes something... therefore nothing exists as something. Nothing cannot exist as nothing, because if it did then it would be something, that being nothing. Therefore nothing is always something, and therefore if nothing exists... it exists as something.

fr0d0 Wrote:Explain

Direct to the bold.

A void is nothing... but because of this it is something (that being a void). Hence the question is not "does nothing exist"... but rather "can nothing exist as something?"

I think my statement still stands. An absence of belief in something... a belief in nothing pertaining to an idea.. exists as an idea. Belief in God as 'non existent' also has substance as an idea demonstrably.

Does the existent thought necessitate anything further of this entity? Could the collective existent thought 'embody' the entity, if not encompass it completely?