Quoted By:
No. If there's nothing, then something can never become, as there must be something for something else to form from, which isn't the case if there's nothing, because if there's nothing, there's nothing something can turn up from, ultimately meaning that to become something the existence of a previous something is an absolute requirement in order for there to be not nothing, which is more than nothing, as nothing would be less than something, and thus polar opposites, that by definition never meet, and so, we're able to conclude that if there's not nothing, there must be something, whereas there being nothing implicates there never being something out of said nothing, ever, for if there's nothing in the first place, it's impossible for there to be something in it's place eventually.
Have I made myself clear and in a succinct manner?
