(March 10, 2010 at 5:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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?
Considering that our thoughts are the only understanding of the entity we could have?
An absence of belief in something is a void... which means it is something. It exists
Evie Wrote:The concept of nothing and "nothing" are different. Just as a thing and the concept of that thing are different. The concept of nothing exists but "nothing" itself can't exist by definition - to exist it would have to be a thing. Because "nothing exists" means: "not one thing exists" which is the opposite of existence.
I agree... but how could we consider anything about nothing except as a concept? Why can nothing not exist as something, especially when it by definition must be a thing?
By the way, I'm only trying to create non-metaphysical counterpoints here... I hold to the understanding that nothing does not exist.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
