It doesn't rely upon a gentleman's agreement, it needs modernizing to make it less simplistic. This project has already led me to see that I should put some effort into improving the logical method as a whole, it doesn't do well when talking about both physical and metaphysical concepts at the same time. I have a another video that demonstrates at least a small portion of this, basically the idea is take what is normally seen as binary and twist it in a third direction--the 3D portion of the logical argument. I'll link it below, a good portion is introduction which you can skip, I get to the good stuff towards the end.

https://youtu.be/SVGVjsJ7JYk

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

It sounds like you got to the end of the road for the physical portion of the argument, the question is if it can make the jump into the metaphysical from here. In the video, the method I used to make the jump was to mention the finite beginning of the universe, the Big Bang. Here we see a certain curiosity in that there are potentially multiple forms of infinites. This is similar to my comment above where I mentioned eternity is the driving force for all other infinites, to include space, ideas, etc. In the case of the universe, with a finite beginning, we need to project a continuation before it, and a continuation that somehow established the laws by which the universe would be run. Now, I realize many of the universe's laws might be logically necessary, but certainly not all, and even to say it is random becomes questionable. Because, how is random generated in the first place? To say it just is because it is isn't an argument.

There is definitely a lot to say here, I'm curious to hear your thoughts before putting too much deliberation here as obviously I'm already convinced this is proof enough but needs proper criticizing to make the link stronger.

We potentially agree more than you think, but not in the way that you think. I think logic as it stands now is 2 dimensional, and as such you get contradictions when a 3rd dimension logical argument is provided that crosses the same point as the 2 dimensional one. For example, I personally believe in a physical life and a spiritual or "metaphysical" one. Seeing people obsessed with death, dying, killing, suicide, etc. I would say they are "dead" but yet clearly they are alive, so x and ~x simultaneously, but they are two different planes of realities and our two dimensional logic can't handle it.

We can only TRULY talk around finite things. Otherwise, we are forced to talk about the infinite from within. Thus, there is an element to which it can't be "grasped." And, this goes for logic also, it is a tool to "grasp" truth. Perhaps it is best to just talk about eternity as a continuation without an end. It is a direction. In this way, it is similar to directions such as up, down, left, right. They don't have outer limits, so they are infinite even though we typically use them in a finite way, "10 feet to your left." The reality is, you are arguing something which you have no ability to prove, and every attempt to prove it would render you wrong. If I told you to find the finite limits of the direction left, for example, and you gave an answer, I could immediately respond back with something further. The minute you establish an end, you demonstrate an end which is further away. It is simply a continuation, and the logic isn't so "flawed" as you presume.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading how you came to conclude the word "nonexistence" has the same problems I did, it simply is a concept you can't talk about, and you can't find! Hence, the idea that anywhere you look you find existence, and if you had the power of infinite travel you would still perpetually find existence hence the comment "in all directions." But the part it seems most people here struggle to grasp is the argument isn't purely physical, it is meant to be a metaphysical argument. It is OK for the universe to be finite as long as there is a greater existence within which it dwells and permeates it. For example, there is an entire world of ideas which dwell in our minds, their existence exists within the existence of our bodies. Thus, you could say existence is tiered. Ideas exist within our bodies, our bodies exist within space-time, and space-time exists within ??? (possibly God? this is where the metaphysical argument comes in).

Now, I also agree with you I could better explain how I gain the omni's from all this.

We start with the Eternal component--all time--and work our way from there. You can't say "there was a time when there was nothing." That, simply, wasn't a time. That was nothing, so we can ignore it (humor intended).

i) Omnipresence is infinite presence in all directions. So, one existence without divide that is everywhere.
n. This, alone, doesn't solve the need for infinite existence because "presence" alone isn't a thing, and isn't an existence. It needs to be able to "do" something. "Doing nothing" for an eternity is--begging the question here--pure nothingness. Hence we add in infinite potential and awareness.

ii)Omniscience is infinite awareness in all directions. So, one awareness without divide that is everywhere.
n1. I am purposely defining omniscience using different words than are typical because "knowledge" is a finite word, and adding the word "all" before it doesn't necessarily correct this limitation. The word "aware" is very open-ended and can't be put in a box, so-to-speak.
n2. Omnipresence and omniscience aren't enough to create change, so nothing changes here--we still have infinite nothingness.

iii)Omnipotence--now we add in potential in all directions
n. combined with omnipresence and omniscience change can occur anywhere, in all directions, infinitely. But, even with potential, there still is no "need" for it to occur. My car with a full tank of gas can sit perfectly still in the same spot for a very long time and go nowhere, even with perfect potential to do so. This is where we need the sort of "key and ignition" so-to-speak of this whole machine of existence.

iv)Omnificence--unlimited creativity
n. this concept is reliant upon everything else above, and to say it ever "stops" would be to put a limit on it so it wouldn't be "unlimited" creativity. Thus, this is what keeps the machine of "change" going ad-infinitum. This, ultimately, perpetuates existence and makes it eternal thus it truly goes full-circle from here.

Infinity isn't a thing, but a perpetuation of a thing or state of being, a property. In your argument, you treat it as a thing which it is not.

I'm not against your conclusions, and not against your arguments, mostly because there is an oversimplification of my argument which is missing key elements. Perhaps I did myself an injustice by saying "look at this video" instead of writing a novel, but that video was already on my to-do list and got my argument out for criticism.

i) There must BE an infinite existence, but it doesn't mean we must always use the word "existence" in an infinite way. We can still say finite things don't exist.
ii) space-time IS and existing thing, but NOT necessarily and infinite one. I actually argue in the video that it isn't an absolute infinite because it has a finite beginning with the big bang, hence the metaphysical component of the argument is that there must be a greater existence which is infinite across all time.
iii) this one is answered also above ^

A lot of your problems I tried addressing already in the video I made, the words "exist" and "doesn't exist" operate fine when speaking about the material world. You begin with an existent idea and then point to the tangible world and say that idea isn't manifest in a tangible way. But it isn't absolute nonexistence, because the idea exists. Ideas also take up space, even if that space is in our neurons. It takes up time, thinking about them and talking about them isn't instantaneous. They also have an effect and affect things, otherwise we wouldn't discuss them. So, ideas belong to the realm of existence, so whatever is truly nonexistent can't exist even as an idea.

Your predicate argument can also be used to prove my point. If there can't be absolute nonexistence anywhere, then we need to define whatever it is that fills in all the gaps, and so it is quite convenient to use "exist" as a predicate for something which is infinite and fills in all the gaps which we call "God." Now, I was hoping to establish a more sophisticated argument than that, but if we want to get into the semantics of exist being a predicate that is what I would do.

I should also mention, it isn't the sentence which is the contradiction as much as it is the word itself. Nonexistence is a noun, nouns refer to things. But Nonexistence refers to nothing...

If language, philosophy, etc. don't allow for the discussion of absolute nothingness, that says it all right there. I talk about absolute nothingness as being "smaller than infinitesimal" and existing for a time that is "less than instantaneous." This is why it can't be found nor pointed to nor talked about. It doesn't even exist in the plane of ideas, because if it did, it wouldn't be absolute nothingness. Even ideas take up space and time. Even if it is just in the neurons of our brain or data on a computer hard drive.

And we are back to the notion it is impossible--grammatically, logically, etc. I am aware of this, and is the basis of the argument. Now, whether I am good at articulating it, that is a whole different question...

I should also probably mention, that although the argument begins from physical and scientific position, it is largely meant to be a platform by which to lunge into the metaphysical. I only argue that "absolute nothingness" can't exist, but there is nothing stopping the possibility of material nothingness. But I am unsure of even this last part, things become difficult when you think of multiple planes of existence.

I mention in the video that there is a distinction between saying something doesn't exist and talking about nonexistence itself. When you say something exists, you refer to it in the material sense as not existing, but by naming it (such as unicorn) we recognize the existence of the idea.

Saying things don't exist in a material way poses no problem, we are just left with space. But space is still a thing, so as long as we only talk the material it poses no issue for us. But when we talk about a total or absolute nothingness, in which space could also not exist, this is when the problems arise. And to be honest, it also poses problems for language as well. The Meriam-Webster definition of nothingness is "the quality or state of being nothing." It is odd to attribute qualities and states of being to that which can have no qualities nor state of being because it is nothing, but language doesn't offer us much choice here. The word itself in many ways seems out of place with every other word, as nothingness or nonexistence makes reference to something that can have no reference to it. This is absolutely a part of the argument, and a part of how I establish certain qualities or attributes must necessarily exist and exist in an eternal sense which combined together begin to look very similar to the long-held notion of God thus pointing to the idea that we could grasp this idea from a purely logical angle.

Go ahead and form it better, I have run through many different sentences in my mind and any sentence discussing nonexistence in general seems to face a strange language breakdown, which I somewhat discuss in the video and I will further discuss in my response to jorndoe.

I wasn't a part of that discussion, is this "vacuum energy" you talk about the same as dark matter or just a related concept?

Either way, the longer I think about this subject the more I notice logic and science go hand-in hand here. Even the string theory, if it is true--would argue that atoms are made up of strands of energy that are in constant motion (take up space and are reliant upon time to do so--a union of the two). Stop time, the strings stop moving, they no longer take up space, thus they no longer exist. The entirety of material existence, you could thus argue, is made up of the union of time (change) and space. Returning to the God-argument, it is intriguing that the Christian concept of God has similarities--God the Father begets the Son, and the union of the two is the Holy spirit. Time begets space, and the union of the two is the material world...

But will a "quantum vacuum" hold that state perpetually for all time? Or is it a transient state? Can an infinite quantum vacuum exist on the outskirts of the universe for all time and if so, what does that say about nonexistence existing?