Spot the fallacy of the statement.?

Question

Is the following statement merely caused by a semantic issue or a fallacy, or otherwise?

"Nothing by definition does not exist.
In which case, since nothing does not exist, everything must exist.
However, if so argued that nothing exists, everything does not exist as nothing exists."

Strange answers, from extremely valid ones to outright misintepretations.

It is best concluded that the false conclusion is due to the confusion of the terms "not-anything" and "no-thing".

I am quite surprised to see that people think that the conclusion "everything exists" is valid.

For if this is so then:

'As everything exists, there must exist a true statement "everything does not exist"

That is: Everything does not exist as everything exists.'

Answer 1

Interesting. In one respect, with double negatives canceling each other out, it becomes somewhat of a math equation. On the other hand, in a creative writing sense, it becomes what is known as a "Juxtaposition." A technique in which two sentences or thoughts, which by themselves sound quite normal, are put together in such a way that they contrast with each other in funny and witty ways.
I would simply say, "I think, therefore, I am."

Answer 2

.Fallacy of circular reasoning also as Kant proved existence is not a property or a predicate. So the statement nothing does not exist, everything must exist are empty tautologies

Words like exist ,truth, good and real. Only have meaning were the criterion of what is a fact is clarified. This error is called the Ontological Argument.

Answer 3

I feel it can not be a fallacy for this reason.

Nothing by defination does not exist therefore nothing =0

Everything must exist therefore everything = 1

Since nothing exist (= 0) everything does not exist AS NOTHING EXIST-if nothing is 0 and everything DOES NOT Exist as 0-- then everything must be 1.

Dr. Tommy Skelton

Answer 4

No 'thing' is undefinable.
Every 'thing' is definable. A 'thing' is defined by its essence.

If 'to exist' you mean to say 'is comprised of matter at a temporal present' then yes, every 'thing' exists because we know it to be so by our mere definition of it as a 'thing'.

I hoped this helps. Oh, and the fallacy of the statement is the repeated use of the word 'nothing' as an ambiguous term while referring to existence, i.e., if you use vague terms to state a question, vague answers might evolve of them.

Answer 5

The statement contradicts itself. If it is accepted that the phrase "Nothing by definition does not exist" is true, then it is not possible to argue that nothing exists. I believe the fallacy is equivocation; you are defining "nothing" in two different ways in a single statement.

Answer 6

The inadequacy of language is at fault, specifically regarding the word 'nothing'.

'No thing' refers to that which does not exist, and 'nothing' to both that AND infinite Space, the 'nothing' containing everything. Now that 'nothing' exists, as a void, with every thing that exists contained within it.

Answer 7

It is good to ask for opinions on such language issues.

Word play based on equivocation in the defined meanings of the words "nothing" and "everything". It is pure nonsense that tries through misuse of language to lead to a contradiction from the premises.

Added comment:
Contradictions makes the conclusion derived from the premises logically "invalid. " It is best to find ways to avoid the fallacy of equivocation sticking to agreed definition for the meaning of words and the relation between words and their referents(ie "de dicto & de re" distinctions).

The cure for such nonsense is doing real philosophy and learning to identify such logical and semantic-based fallacies when you see them and to avoid making them yourself.

Answer 8

The trick is that one is changing definitions in the middle of a syllogism.
The example given in the logic textbook is:

Only some dogs have floppy ears.
My dog has floppy ears.
Therefore, my dog is some dog!

Here is a goody which seems to be a favorite with comedians:

I can prove you're not here. You're not in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Saint Louis, are you?
If you're not in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Saint Louis, you must be someplace else, right?
Well if you're someplace else, you're not here!

I knew a believer in a minority religion who told a mainline Christian about her belief.
The mainline Christian told her "You don't believe in God."
Here is the line of reasoning which the mainline Christian took:

You don't believe in Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, you don't believe in God.

Answer 9

Strange question.

Probably merely a trick with language, when you confuse the term "everything exclusive" with "a thing with everything exclusive".

Then again, i have no idea what is the difference between the two.

Answer 10

The first two staments are correct, but the third one does not follow from them. The first stament says that "nothing does not exist", therefore one cannot argue that "nothing exists".