The Establishment of Something: Why Nothingness does not Exist

This blurp will be about why the concept of nothingness is wrong, and why there is necessarily something, which means there can be anything.

First of all, the theory of nothingness contradicts any kind of something, because if nothingness exists then only nothing can exist. The basic reasoning behind this is that if nothing exists simultaneously as something, then it becomes a relative something in the sense that it becomes comparable because there is something else that allows differentiation. The sensation of nothingness should contain no qualities other than that it is devoid of anything. Everything in existence is described in terms of its relativity to something else (think of big/small, dark/bright, dense/not dense, and many other things), and therefore nothingness can never be juxtaposed with something lest it lose its quality of being nothing.

Moreover, the concept of eternity stands in direct contrast with nothingness. This is so because eternity means some of kind of eternal existence, and nothingness cannot be branded with a quality like eternality. Nothingness would be nothingness, with no beginning, end, or anything. Nothingness means nothing, which is a hard quality to describe with words because words automatically make it into something. But nothingness cannot be eternal, it is simply nothing. Eternity exists whenever something has existed at any point because in order for something to exist there must have always been something, even if that something was eternity. Basically, if something existed or exists, then eternity exists, and both contradict nothingness. If something can be proven to exist, then nothingness is false.

To prove that something exists, I rely heavily on the Cartesian school of thought and on my theories regarding difference. Descartes classic "Cogito ergo sum," or, "I think, therefore I am," may sound simplistic and worthless, and may have been cliched by modern day society to the point where it seems to have lost value, but its message is still the same. When Descartes said this, he indicated that if a person can recognize they exist, then they must exist to be able to recognize their existence. It is somewhat similar to the cause/effect explanation that is often employed to prove the existence of God or other things. There must be a cause to every effect, and in order for there to be an effect, it necessarily entails that something exists to cause or effect. The basic counterpoint is that everything we think we perceive is not real. But if anything, even something false, can be distinguished from something else, or described, it is inevitably something. For instance, the essence of one atom is invariably different from the essence of another atom. Even if our senses were deceiving us (Descartes), it must be noted that if we can think that we think, then we think (in the sense that we think we are thinking), and therefore we exist. We do not create our own existence, we merely verify it. I am certain that I exist, and at another time, I will delve deeper into my theories abotu things being different. Anyways, since something exists, something always existed (eternity), and therefore nothingness is a false concept.

With that, I'll post more later.