"Nothingess" argument. Is this proof valid?

[Qoeleth]

No, it is *very *basic logic. If there are three possibilities that collectively exhaust a set (say A, B, and C) then

not A implies B or C
However the original proof requires
not A implies B

I suppose if “nothing” is defined as “not something”, then the original assumption (that if nothing is not X, X must be something), hold true.

How to define “something”? “Something that exists” seems like a flawed definition, I agree, since it uses the term it seeks to define.

Could you propose a definition of “something”?

 

[slotty]

Could you propose a definition of “something”?

I would suspect something would be any entity that can be defined by characteristics that allow it to exist within the created universe.

 

[tonyrey]

Essentially what you are saying is that if there is ever some logic which casts doubt on your conception of God, you will play the “God is special, logic does not apply” card. There is therefore no point in continuing this discussion.

Essentially what you are saying is that if there is ever some logic which casts doubt on your rejection of God you will play the “Only my explanation is true” card. There is therefore no point in continuing this discussion with you.

It doesn’t make sense to apply “In the beginning” to the Supreme Being **who transcends time and space. **Cantruth, goodness, freedom and love be **observed **in any particular place or at any particular time?

 

[Qoeleth]

I would suspect something would be any entity that can be defined by characteristics that allow it to exist within the created universe.

If a ‘something’ is an entity (en-tity), it, by definition, exists. Therefore, all ‘things’ (for want of a better word) which qualify as things by definition exist.

But how do we define a ‘thing’???

If we define it as ‘entity’, we are predicating existence, and also tending towards circularity, because how does one define ‘entity’ except for ‘existing thing’.

So, what does “thing” mean??

(Please do not say ‘res’!)

 

[davidv]

If a ‘something’ is an entity (en-tity), it, by definition, exists. Therefore, all ‘things’ (for want of a better word) which qualify as things by definition exist.

But how do we define a ‘thing’???

If we define it as ‘entity’, we are predicating existence, and also tending towards circularity, because how does one define ‘entity’ except for ‘existing thing’.

So, what does “thing” mean??

(Please do not say ‘res’!)

These common definitions of thing indicate to me that this term is far too generic to be of much use in discussing the OP topic.

1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it.
3. anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.
4. things, matters; affairs: Things are going well now.
5. a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs: It is a curious thing.