If there is absolutely nothing, then there has to be something. Otherwise how would you know that you have nothingness, if you have nothing to compare it to?
I still say that in order to have nothing you must originally have something. With everything there is opposites in order to prove the existence of the other. In order to be male, you must have female. In order to be wrong, there must be a right. St. Augustine used this argument to prove the existence of God. For there to be God, there must be Satan. Also, Shakespeare in his 116th sonnet, he describes what love isn't to prove what love is: LET me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove: O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,[size=-2][/size] That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken. Love ’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle’s compass come;[size=-2][/size] Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error, and upon me prov’d, I never writ, nor no man ever lov’d. The second line; "Love is not love" is the crux of the sonnet. Love is not love is Shakespeare's indicator that the rest of the poem will be about proving that love does not exist, thereby proving the existence of love. Also, look at Wallace Stevens poem "The Snow Man" One must have a mind of winter To regard the frost and the boughs Of the pine-trees crusted with snow; And have been cold a long time To behold the junipers shagged with ice, The spruces rough in the distant glitter Of the January sun; and not to think Of any misery in the sound of the wind, In the sound of a few leaves, Which is the sound of the land Full of the same wind That is blowing in the same bare place For the listener, who listens in the snow, And, nothing himself, beholds Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is. It is not talking about a literal snowman, but about nothing (note the two nothings in the last stanza). He illustrates that there is a nothing, by using beautiful imagery that there is something, thus ending his poem in a way to show that there is also a nothing outside of this beautiful something. It wasn't his sole purpose for this poem, but it's one of the things you can take out of it. So, in order to prove that there is nothing, you must prove that there is something. So nothing must exist as something exists. But nothing cannot exist alone, because then - it would have to be something.
nimic. if there is nothing there is no conscience realising the nothingness,no conscience to compare something to nothing
