DOES NOTHING EXIST???

...you see but a car is not only the passive collection of its parts but instead the complete collection of its functions which are active...in that sense cars do work, thus meaning they do exist.

...obscurity exponentially grows among confused and confusing people around this forum...so lets clarify it a little bit shall we.
...it is or it should be quite obvious that every thing that exists, in its "thingness" naturally exists...it follows that everything exists is a formal necessary truth ! ...in turn that which does not exists cannot be spoken off...
...the problem is not with everything that exists existing, but rather in correctly classifying how it exists or what it really is in fact...
...even the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists as a symbol Deity created to fight Gods and Religion by making a mockery of himself...saying it exists is correctly classifying it in what way it does exist and it can serve a purpose...
Everything exists is a trivial truth !

If no thing at all does not exist, then everything exists, meaning either that:

1) Everything, including whatever does not exist, exists, by which all being (whatever exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist).

2) Everything that indeed exists exists, by which "everything" already means "everything that indeed exists," making it impossible for us to even refer to nonexistent things. But unicorns are different from squared circles, in the sense that unicorns, unlike squared circles, are not necessarily nonexistent. So we can refer to nonexistent things, as being either contingent or necessary. And since we can refer to nonexistent things, "everything (we can refer to) exists" must mean that even those nonexistent things exist, hence that all being (whatever indeed exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist), because they all exist.

...yes the second since the 1 one makes no sense...
...for instance there is information saved in our memory regarding things which at time X are not actual, nevertheless information on them and their functions prevails...things keep existing even when they are not actual in the immediate outer world...and even if not in minds their information would be travelling at lights speed around the Universe concerning the moment they did actually existed just like it happens with ancient stars which have already died...existing concerns potential objects also, not only immediately actual ones !
...think for instance how information of distant stars keeps affecting the cosmos even when they are long gone...ripples of gravity waves travelling in space come to mind.

If no thing at all does not exist, then everything exists, meaning either that:

1) Everything, including whatever does not exist, exists, by which all being (whatever exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist).

2) Everything that indeed exists exists, by which "everything" already means "everything that indeed exists," making it impossible for us to even refer to nonexistent things. But unicorns are different from squared circles, in the sense that unicorns, unlike squared circles, are not necessarily nonexistent. So we can refer to nonexistent things, as being either contingent or necessary. And since we can refer to nonexistent things, "everything (we can refer to) exists" must mean that even those nonexistent things exist, hence that all being (whatever indeed exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist), because they all exist.

I have read your posts time and again and what does not follow is your conclusion...that is, to think that a potential object is non existent only because it is not actual at time X...

...as for unicorns unicorns exist in fairy tails and myths, they are symbolic creatures who play a role in ancient mythologies that fulfilled a role in society...not the case of the empty meaningful pseudo concept of squared circles...which cannot even be conceptualized in any possible sense...

If no thing at all does not exist, then everything exists, meaning either that:

1) Everything, including whatever does not exist, exists, by which all being (whatever exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist).

2) Everything that indeed exists exists, by which "everything" already means "everything that indeed exists," making it impossible for us to even refer to nonexistent things. But unicorns are different from squared circles, in the sense that unicorns, unlike squared circles, are not necessarily nonexistent. So we can refer to nonexistent things, as being either contingent or necessary. And since we can refer to nonexistent things, "everything (we can refer to) exists" must mean that even those nonexistent things exist, hence that all being (whatever indeed exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist), because they all exist.

Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

You are taking nothing for something precisely to deny that nothing can be something.

The word "nothing" means not anything at all: you are confusing the word "nothing"---which is indeed something---with its meaning---which is no thing. So without that confusion what you are indeed saying is that "no thing cannot exist."

Once you stop confusing the word with its meaning, you will (finally)
understand that you are already presupposing what you believe to deny.

I simply put find it amazing that you think you can objectify a non possible object...what is it that is necessary non existent? Squared circles means nothing so you can ' t refer to anything as a non thing...lol a contradiction in terms.

Quote:

Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

not really

I was using something as the corner stone as to explaining nothing

north wrote:

Quote:

Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

not really

I was using something as the corner stone as to explaining nothing

That's why you will miserably fail: nothing is not something, so the sentence "nothing does not exist" means that "no thing does not exist" (every thing exists).

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

Quote:

Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

not really

I was using something as the corner stone as to explaining nothing

That's why you will miserably fail: nothing is not something, so the sentence "nothing does not exist" means that "no thing does not exist" (every thing exists).

i.e. double negative: a negative statement containing two negative elements (for example didn't say nothing).

north wrote:

Quote:

Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

not really

I was using something as the corner stone as to explaining nothing

That's why you will miserably fail: nothing is not something, so the sentence "nothing does not exist" means that "no thing does not exist" (every thing exists).