Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

A final house keeping point. I cannot prove nothing cannot exist. Con cannot prove nothing can exist. This debate doesn't carry the burden of proof for either position. I intend to try and use reason, logic, my imagination and yours to demonstrate that it seems likely that nothing cannot exist. This is why in the round 1 acceptance I rephrased the burden of proof, to the burden of logic. Where to begin? Lets begin with the question that lead me to consider nothing. Why is there something rather than nothing? I will begin with something. Whatever reality is, it is something. We experience it. It is there. Something exists. Something has meant the burden of proof. We know it is a state that is available, it can and does exist, something. But, what about nothing? Is that a state that can exist? We have no examples of nothing. We have no documented case of nothing existing anywhere. Nothing hasn't meant the burden of proof as far as existence is concerned, or as far a possible existence is concerned. Therefore, it is a mistake on our part to simply think nothing can exist. Since we have no confirmed examples of nothing, we must use our minds and try and get to nothing. We will try and figure out if nothing is possible. So lets begin, lets try and get to nothing. A1. "Nothing is in that glass. " Lets imagine a glass with absolutely nothing in it. Not one single atom. Not one single subatomic particle, completely empty. In order for the statement to be true, "nothing is in the glass," a glass must exist. If we remove the glass, the state becomes false. In this case, nothing is spatially dependent on the glass. Nothing needs a place to exist. The space in the glass is where nothing exist. The space in the glass is something, it is space, a location. If nothing is dependent on a location, nothing cannot exist in entirety. A location must exist. Conclusion, nothing is location dependent. A location is something. Therefore nothing cannot exist, unless it has a place to occupy. The space nothing occupies, is something. A2. Nothing is nonexistence. I don't accept this definition of nothing, which is why I didn't define nothing in this manner in round 1. But I do know that some define nothing this way. So lets look at this definition. The existence of nothing would violate it's own definition of non existence. If nothing exists, then logically speaking, there is some type of existence. Nothing cannot be defined as non existence, while claiming that nothing can exist. This definition violates itself. If we think about nothing not existing, this would be a double negative, implying something exists. This definition isn't logically sound. Both paths from the definition fail. Nothing (non existence) exists, contradiction. Nothing (non existence) doesn't exist, implying some type of existence. The definition doesn't work. This also relates back to the glass. The statement, "the glass has nothing in it" requires the glass to be true. We see a similar issue with this definition. Non existence would remove the glass, but the definition of nothing fails under non existence. Nothing seem like it needs a place to be. A3. Lets move to the universe. Lets begin, imagine ourselves in the universe, shouldn't be hard. Now lets try and start removing things from the universe, with the ultimate goal of eventually getting to nothing. We begin by removing moons, planets, stars, galaxies, atoms, subatomic particles and any other thing we can think to remove. Lets imagine this as we go. Once we have removed all things, lets imagine what this space looks like. We should be left with complete darkness. No objects, no light, no gravity, just an empty void stretching into the infinite, we think. So we have removed the easy stuff, objects. But we are still left with the space. The space is something, it is space. If we are going to get to nothing, we must somehow remove the space. But how do we do that? Is that something we can do? We are really close to nothing, but not quite there. Frankly speaking, I'm stuck here. How could I remove this empty void? What could be less than this, complete emptiness? Is empty space something that could be removed? I cannot imagine how. Here again, we could say, there is nothing here. But we need here to exist in order for that statement to be true. It doesn't seem like we could remove here. In this example, nothing exists in the empty space. But the empty space exists, so something exists. We are still unable to get to nothing. A4. So far we have gotten close to nothing, but not quite there. We have been able to get clear down to empty space, but no further. Lets try and remove a location, or space. If we can figure out a way to remove space or a location, then maybe nothing is attainable. Lets imagine one large box the size of a room. Lets imagine another smaller box within the larger box, a packaged sized box. Lets imagine that space comes in square cubes that we can remove one by one. Lets try and remove one cube of space from the smaller box. We reach into the box, grab the center cube of space and remove it from the box. What happens? Is there still a location where the cube of space was? Has the location left? What would that look like? How could the location leave? Did the space around the chunk we removed slide into the vacated spot. That would imply the location remained. Did the other chunks of space stay where they are? They couldn't move into a location that didn't exist. This would imply the location is related to space. Lets think about this a little more. If the walls of the box remained unchanged, the volume of the box would still be the same as it was before we removed the location. If the volume is the same, then the location still exists. It appears as though removing the chunk of space has changed nothing. If that is the case, we should be able to return the chunk we removed to the location we removed it from. That would imply the location remained. Maybe the box shrank down in size equal to the amount of space we removed. This would leave less space inside the smaller box, but more space outside the smaller box. Both would be equal to the amount of space we removed. It appears no change has occurred. We have gotten no closer to nothing. Trying to remove space doesn't seem to work. Space might not be removable. Space is something. If space isn't removable, and space is something, nothing cannot exist. A5. Lets think some more about space. It seems we have two options. Lets go back to the glass. "The glass has nothing in it. " This is space option one, empty space. We tried to remove space itself and that didn't seem to work. Space option 2. Can we remove the space in the glass by filling the glass with water? Not really. The water requires a place to exist. What was empty space has now become space with water in it. Removing space doesn't seem to work. Filling space doesn't remove space, it only occupies it. Space is becoming a real nuisance on our quest to nothing. A few quotes from "The Hole in the Universe" by K. C. Cole "nothing is that all important background upon which everything else happens" "anybody who knows all about nothing, knows everything" "in physics, the study of nothing lies at the bottom of every burning question" Nothing sounds incredibly interesting and very important. Nothing sounds like something. Summary A1. Nothing is spatially dependent. Space is something A2. Nothing defined as non existence isn't logically sound. A3. We can remove everything from the universe, except space, leaving us with something A4. Removing space doesn't seem to hold up logically A5. Seems like space has two options, space with nothing in it, or space with something in it, either one leaves us with something. We've tried to get to nothing. There doesn't seem to be a way to it. Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist, it appears. Con, the floor is yours. I look forward to your arguments. Lets see if you can get us a little closer to nothing. Lets see if nothing can exist.