The syllogism equivocates only if you don’t know what I mean by “nothing”. So this can’t be an intellectual discussion if you don’t accept what I mean when I my use the word nothing, especially since the truth of the first premise “nothing exists” is a statement that can only mean that “nothing” has some existence.
Your equivocation involves the reification of “nothing” in the phrase “nothing exists”, and thereby posing it as the direct object or subject of “existence”.
Furthermore as you said, “God is Existence”; then consider this: God is also infinite and God is also omnipresent, so infinite, omnipresent existence leaves no room for non-existence, therefore everything, including whatever can be meant by the word “nothing”, is existent.
“Nothing” means “no-thing”. It does not mean “every-thing”.
Try imagining “nothing’ in the sense of non-existence; in all cases that I am aware of, the thought of nothing stimulates dimensionality, empty space if you will. This also includes words like void, true vacuum, nihilo, and plenum, and yes, existence.
This just means that “nothing” is not being correctly conceived. You have derived your meaning from what the mind may wrongly think, or that the person may rely on mental images, but the imagination, in this instance, only interferes with a proper conception.
The only thing that can truly be labeled “nothing” in the meaning of non-existence is a single point of space imagined from its interior so that it doesn’t exist in a background of dimensionality and that falls into the category with squared circles, effects without causes, and the fourth and higher spatial dimensions. At a deeper level of thought, “non-existence” does not exist.
By the very fact you can refer to a point in space, etc. indicates that the subject is some-thing and not no-thing. Hence, there is no logical warrant for calling it “nothing”, a nothing that supposedly exists.
What I have been trying to explain with my spatial model of dual reality is a possible way of describing creatio ex nihilo based on physical concepts,
You may as well try and conceive of a round square.
Creatio ex nihilo cannot be “described”. Furthermore, it cannot be conceived by means of physical concepts, or in spatio-physico terms.
You just can’t get there from here. The mere attempt leads to greater errors, or as Aristotle said, a little error in the beginning amounts to a colossal one in the end.
…namely by applying the distinction in space determined by the mathematics of rational versus real numbers. Can you offer anything better to counter the non-believers arguments about creation?
The first consideration is whether human reason is sufficient to the task of proving
creatio ex nihilo in tempore of the universe, or whether it is strictly a matter of Revelation and faith. Aquinas thought creation in time could not be proven. Apparently, you have made an assumption in this matter, one which says it can be proven. In any case, in light of the above comments, I do not see that you have a meaningful argument.
Sorry, but the “existence" argument just won’t wash. Since joining this forum, especially on my own thread "God Exists, but How?’
When you ask “how” God exists, it indicates that the ontological reality that “God is Existence” did not register with you. Nor should it, unless you have some background in classical metaphysics.
in order to present my model of dual reality as a possible physical explanation about how God might have created reality,
You are committing a category error. There can be no “physical explanation” whatsoever of that which transcends the physical. In other words, your train has been running on the wrong track.
