the existence of non-existence

This would be my first debate here at debate.org. If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me. Do you believe in the existence of nothingness? here is my argument against it, along with a definition of existence; EXISTENCE (definition from Dictionary.com) 1. the state or fact of existing; being. 2. continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence. 3. mode of existing: They were working for a better existence. 4. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order. 5. something that exists; entity; being. I. If I am to believe that I indeed exist, then I must also believe in the principal of non-existence, that of nothingness. Because the only way for human beings to concieve and understand existence is to place it in contrast with it's apparent opposite. In this way have all wordly theorems and formulae been proven, as expressions or facets of existence. II. Nothingness, as the opposite of existence is an extreme paradox. When there is an "empty" space, and one is asked to describe it, they will of course respond; "there is nothing". Within that single statement lies the contradiction. There IS nothing. In using the word "IS" it is implied that there is, indeed, something there. Therefore, nothing or emptiness or void are not correctly applicable statements. III. This goes beyond the grammatical contradictions which I have mentioned. Nothingness is, in actuality, something. If it was truly "nothing" then we, as humans, would not be able to understand it, nor describe it, and certainly not put a name to it. IV. Therefore, the human kind will never be able to percieve of nor understand true nothingness or non-existence; because it does not exist. Human knowledge is confined to that of existence, when it is said "there IS something", it is not a contradiction. We cannot define existence either, nor can we prove "existence" exists. "I think, therefore I am" is a fundamentally flawed statement, and it is how most people would argue in order to prove their existence. They would say; "I percieve the universe, I think, I feel, I hear, I touch, I smell, therefore I exist." Saying this is akin to saying, in mathematical terms, X=Y, because X=Y. Using the answer as the only proof of the questions solution, while leaving out the formula which would be necessary to prove it. V. I can "prove" that a book is indeed sitting on my desk. I do so by seeing it, and recognizing that it is there. I am what provides the basis for this proof, because I am what percieves it and states that it is there. VI. There is no apparent external source of proof, no higher influence which may tell me that I exist, or recognize that I do so. Therefore I cannot prove that I exist, and subsequently I cannot prove that the world around me also exists; because if I do not exist then I do not have the ability to prove the existence of other things. VII. Therefore, if something was to recognize my existence, then something would in turn be needed in order to recognize it's existence, and so on. Because of this, there would have needed to be something beyond existence or non-existence as a point of origin. Or, existence and non-existence do not, in fact, exist.