What part of my explanation did you not understand?

"Nothing" as in "the absence of anything" cannot possibly exist. It is non-existence, and non-existence can't exist. Do you get it? Even if we talk about it and acknowledge it by arguing about it, it does not make it exist.

I'll give another example, which I used before but you must not have seen.

I'll argue against the existence of a four sided triangle. Here is my full blown explanation:

A four sided triangle cannot possibly exist, because a triangle is defined as a shape with three sides. A triangle with four sides is NOT a triangle, therefore it cannot exist. In the same way, a nothing, defined by non-existence, cannot possibly exist because non-existence cannot exist.

There it was, I gave a full blown explanation of four sided triangles and why they cannot exist.

By your logic, they should exist now since I acknowledged them and gave an explanation, but alas, a four sided triangle is still an utter impossibility that cannot exist.

I understand your point of view. Unfortunately, there is a whole lot of problems with thinking that way. A four sided triangle does not exist now, what exists is symbols on a screen, chemicals and impulses in our brains. You must have a different definition of existence than the most widely accepted one, because otherwise what you're saying is very ignorant, illogical, and poorly thought out.

If you give me your definition of existence and it makes what you have been saying true, then we won't need to argue anymore because I will be able to see that what you've been saying is actually true. Even if that is the case, what I've been saying isn't wrong, it's only wrong when you apply your own definitions to everything.

Do you understand? If you reply in an ignorant way once more I'm going to give up on this conversation, and just assume that at your age and mental capacity you are unable to have a proper conversation about this sort of thing.

__________________