> How would the notion of nothingness even exist if there was no existence in the first place?
It wouldn't, that's the point. The is no need for a "notion of nothingness" if nothing exists.
Why do you think nothingness doesnt't make any sense? It's a simple concept: no space, no time, and therefore nothing else such as matter, etc.
> how would something even start to exist?
Perhaps it wouldn't. We weren't talking about the origin of the universe from nothing. If you want to say existence is irrefutable because we observe it, that's fine. But it's not irrefutable because of its definition, that's religious circular logic, like the ontological argument.
Not really, in mathematic or type theory it is a proof.
But that's besides the point.
If there was nothing, then we wouldn't be able to describe it.
We are only describing it because we think it might exist. So in itself it is illogical for it to exist since it can only exist if it does not exist.
Even if we had no data, the state before birth let's say, we still exist as a probability that is about to come to fruition.
That is still besides the point.
If there was nothing, as you are trying to call it, there would not be existence.
But then we would not be here. reductio ad absurdum. Even if life is a dream, it is still something, an experience. It is still an existence at some level. You are not discussing with nothing, while being nothing :)
It wouldn't, that's the point. The is no need for a "notion of nothingness" if nothing exists.
Why do you think nothingness doesnt't make any sense? It's a simple concept: no space, no time, and therefore nothing else such as matter, etc.
> how would something even start to exist?
Perhaps it wouldn't. We weren't talking about the origin of the universe from nothing. If you want to say existence is irrefutable because we observe it, that's fine. But it's not irrefutable because of its definition, that's religious circular logic, like the ontological argument.