Does nothing exist?

[Violet]

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?

Because you've confusing 'it' 'itself' and it as a concept again. It itself can't exist by definition. The concept of it is different. The concept of God exists but that is completely different to God itself existing. There almost certainly is no God in my mind, but the concept of God surely exists, as does the easter bunny. The concept of "nothing" (what we mean by "nothing") exists certainly, the concept of anything we can conceive can exist as a concept. But "Nothing" itself by definition can't exist, the concept of it is different. God almost certainly doesn't exist - "Nothing" can't exist by definition - because it is the opposite of existence. The concept of both can exist.

"The concept of nothing exists" and "Nothing exists" are two different propositions. Of course the concept of "nothing" exists, for that is simply the existence of what we mean when we use the concept of "nothing". "Nothing exists" however, simply means "Not one thing exists" which is the opposite of existence - "Nothing" itself cannot exist by definition. That is different to it's concept, hopefully you won't confuse the two again

Be careful not to confuse concepts with the actual thing. I heard that there was a book called something like "The evolution of God", and it gives lots of evidence and support for the concept of God, as if this somehow gives evidence for God. But that is ridiculous of course, the two are different things. The concept of the Easter Bunny exists, the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I believe in the concepts of both of them - them themselves however I think almost certainly do not exist. Those are different propositions to the mere statement of the concept of them existing.

I understand those are different propositions... but we can't know it doesn't exist or not exist beyond its being a concept (As has long ago been established? If you wish to argue that point then very well). It is only as a concept that we can consider nothing's existence or perhaps nonexistence

See... we have no capacity to know the Easter Bunny, FSM, or God exist outside of them being a concept. If they are not a concept, then you can't consider them: simple as that. Everything exists (tautologically true... else none of it could be a thing)... therefore my questions are leveled at wether nothing exists as well, as even nothingness would be a thing (that thing being no thing ).

By the way, I'm only trying to create non-metaphysical counterpoints here... I hold to the understanding that nothing does not exist.

And cannot. By definition. We'd have to change the definition for it to exist, because it cannot exist any more by definition than "A" can be "not A" by definition.

Existing is not something that "nothing" can do. Nothing can't do or be anything because it is nothing at all. Hence, it cannot exist - it is the opposite of existence.

Ok, hopefully you're clear of my position on this matter now lol.

EvF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat

I think nothing both exists and does not, at the same time.

Of course... as i already explained before: to consider nothing... it must already exist, even if just as a concept. And we have no understanding of anything that is not a concept... therefore nothing must exist at least as a concept, and perhaps as more (or rather, less).

^ Counterpoints waiting to be refuted. ^_^