| 
I'm enjoying this more and more with every post. Anyway, what we are arguing about now, is not whether nothing is something, but rather if nothing, in the form of a perception (or idea, or thought, or concept, or anything of the sort) is something, specifically. "Nothing" can't exist. Something, implied by its very definition, ALWAYS exists, and therefore is the opposite of Nothing. If Nothing were to exist, it would become something, but during no point in the transformation would both exist at the exact same time. Something removes itself from Nothing once its evolution to Something is complete. For instance, if you were to believe that the planets in this universe were formed out of "Nothing" (a difficult concept to grasp, yes), at no point in time would the Nothing and Something be on the same level, which is, in this case, measured by "existence". Nothing can never "exist", because if it was to evolve into something existing, it would instantly become Something, in which case Nothing is only becoming Something and really is not Something in the present form. Nothing can never be Something, for this reason.
"He who refuses to seek will never learn"
|