I would say no. It the opposite of a thing.

>>7848007
>debating the unanswerable

>>7848007
Nothing is the total absence of "thing".

It also doesn't exist, because even space has dark energy and what have you.

>>7848062
But no thing already implies it doesn't exists. If you say something that doesn't exist, in reality doesn't exist, you make it exists by saying so. Minus and minus give plus

>>7848067
>If you say something that doesn't exist
>you make it exists by saying so

kek

>>7848144
Yes

>>7848067
Not really. Perfection doesn't exist but we know about the concept of it. Speaking of something does not will it into existence

>>7848162
Perfection exists in it's nonexistence.

nothing is the concept of the absence of something. The concept of nothing is something, however there actually being nothing is nothing.

It's like trying to say that open is the opposite of closed.

>>7848162
>implying god isn't perfect

>>7848229
Or take this anon as an example. If he believes in an imaginary nonexistent being, how certain can you be that said being doesn't exist? It at the very least exists as a concept in his head

>>7848229
touche

>>7848245
>>>/r/atheism

>>7848250
>>>/r/atheism
I don't visit you're furryporn websites *tips*

>>7848166
Existence is reality, which we live in. if something doesn't exist, it's not real.

>>7848272
Nice. Had me thinking for a bit. But with your logic gravity waves arent real - until tomorrow.......

>>7848279
No, I never said undiscovered things aren't real.

>>7848279
And what I said I shouldn't have you thinking. That should be very evident to you if your brain isn't being compromised.

>>7848067
You're pretty much repeating Descartes. You can negate anything except the act of negation. Negating negation only affirms its existence. So if the act of negation is the only thing that can't be negated then negation and the conscious thought it stems from is the proof of your existence. Thus, cogito ergo sum - I can think reasonably therefore I am.