quote:
* Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't.
I was more interested in your reason for saying it isn't.
Well, the absence of things for there to be mutually inconsistent statements about.
Huh? That didn't make any sense. Can you phrase that differently?
We're talking about "nothing"
existing 
That don't make no sense!
Can there be a complete absence of unicorns in my back yard? By your reasoning, no. "Complete absence", you would tell us, "indicates a lack of a subject", and "be", you say "indicates the presence of a subject" ... so an absence of unicorns cannot be.
Well then, where are the unicorns?
There are not any unicorns being in your backyard. But 'an absense of unicorns' doesn't
exist in your backyard. That's nonsensical, imho.
™ Version 4.2
