So you're assuming that "nothing" must mean "non-existence"?  Why?

In any case, "Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist" is 
really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from 
it.  While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume 
them axiomatically, so I see a critical difference between:
(1) Intrinsically non-existent things cannot exist
and
(2) The abstraction "non-existence" cannot exist.
because there seems to be excellent reasons (e.g. Russell's paradox and 
"heterologicality") to believe abstractions need not be instantiations of 
the property they describe.



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:25:48 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> That is the explanation....
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot 
>>> exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something 
>>> rather than nothing exist?'
>>>
>>> Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to