Now you are simply preaching what you prefer to believe (and happen to be in error). The “Higgs field” is also a fairy tale.
What is your proof that absolute nothingness is a viable option?
Mozart was only a genius, not a supergenius. No one lives their life according to the music of Mozart.
Socrates was only a genius, not a supergenius. Socrates has been overtaken by science, but people still live by the Word of Christ.
Of course, the Gospels contain the Word of Jesus. That should be obvious because only a supergenius could have come up with those Words, and the odds of all four Gospel writers themselves being supergeniuses is practically zero.
@James S. Saint.
True nothingness could have been possible, because I can point to any item and beg the question, “why wasn’t there a state where none of these things ever existed?”
So, I can prove that true nothingness was possible. I can also place true nothingness in a dichotomy with true everythingness and thereby rationally explain all of existence.
You can’t do that.
Moreover, you cannot prove that true nothingness was impossible.
Oh, I have already. But as I first stated, a proof is relative to the reader.
I can point to an apple and say,“Why couldn’t that have been a Square-circle?”
I’m not seeing anything even closely resembling a proof of the possibility of nothingness.
@James S. Saint
Really, you are equating an apple with the impossible square circle? And this proves what exactly?
Trust me, you aren’t getting out of the dichotomy between TE and TN. The dichotomy explains why TN did not come to pass. As TN does not requires a cause, you’ll never prove TN is impossible. Good luck! 
First, I didn’t “equate” anything. But what the assertion proves is that saying what you said;
Doesn’t prove anything at all. Nothing is proven just because you can ask a question.
“Trust me” … as I have already stated and demonstrated, you are wrong.
But it doesn’t really matter if I prove that nothingness is an impossibility. For you to have your proof, YOU must prove that it IS a possibility. And so far, you are not doing that at all. You are merely asserting it as a premise. One that I know to reject because I have gone through extreme detail concerning that issue many times. Obviously you have not.
A proposed proof is not a proof if it leaves any potential alternative. You are leaving an alternative and saying “trust me”. I have a higher source than you.
But realize that your lack of proof, regardless of why, neither proves nor disproves God.
@James S. Saint.
Really? You really want to go down the route that because I am asking a question, this is not proof?
Really? You really want to challenge the whole scientific method, which begins with asking a question?
It’s absurd to say that because I am asking a question as to why nothing does not exist, then I am not presenting a proof. I am presenting the proof that because A exists, there could be a state where A does not exist, where A is the set of all that is actualized. That is not a proof?
You need to show why TN could be impossible, before you can claim it as an unexhausted option. TN has no cause, therefore, there is no reason to believe TN is impossible. A square circle is inherently contradictory, but TN is not inherently contradictory. Good luck!
I didn’t “want to” and didn’t think such would be necessary, but you obviously need convincing.
It seems absurd to me that you would say that.
It certainly is not “proof” at all.
I would think that my reposed question would have made that pretty clear.
You have not supported that “because A exists, there could have been no A”. Proving the opposite of that proposition would be easier. Where ever there is an actual cause, there is its actual effect. “A” had a cause and because the cause existed, there was no option for A to not exist.
It actually is. You just don’t realize it.
@James S. Saint.
If A had a cause, then something eventually must have caused all without itself needing a cause. This something is TE.
Because TE forms a dichotomy with TN, I have thus proven that TN was never impossible.
Now, what exactly do you claim is the non-caused cause of A, if not TE?
@James S. Saint.
Look, I know exactly where you are going. You are claiming that because TN does not exist, then it must be impossible.
And my point to you is that because TN does not require a cause, then your theory fails because your theory depends on something which causes all, and because that something cannot cause TN because TN does not require a cause, then that something can never exclude TN. Because that something can never exclude TN, you cannot prove TN is impossible. The only thing that can exclude TN is a dichotomy between TE and TN.
Like I said, you will never be able to prove TN is impossible.
That is a non-sequitor (unrelated conclusion).
Just because “A” had a cause, it cannot be said that “all” things had a cause. I am not saying that “all” did not have a cause. I am saying that your assertion is merely an assertion, not a logical consequence.
And that is kind of a meaningless assertion. “True Everything(ness)” actually means what? As I explained before, if you actually combine ALL possibilities, you end up with absolutely nothing at all - which causes nothing at all. So the inherent meaning of the term “True Everything(ness)” implies a non-causal agent.
That too is merely an assertion that is a bit meaningless. A coherent structure “forms a dichotomy with” an incoherent structure. So does that prove that incoherent structures (such as the square-circle) might exist? No it doesn’t.
Logic (the fact that “A is A” => “uncaused cause”). Or as Moses put it, “I am that I am”, or more accurately translated, “What is, is what is”.
You are presuming incorrectly and apparently not reading my posts.
@James S. Saint.
Please explain how combining all possibilities in TE ends up with TN?
TE means that ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS ACTUALIZED.
TE with a Constraint means that ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS ACTUALIZED IF THE CONSTRAINT ALLOWS IT TO BE ACTUALIZED.
TN means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS ACTUALIZED.
Where, neither TE nor TN is caused pursuant to the dichotomy.
And, by the way, claiming that the combination of all possibilities creates TN is inherently contradictory, because TN cannot be caused. 
I did that once already.
For a limited example you can mathematically examine what you get when you add all radio frequencies together. What you end up with a no frequency at all, zero signal.
On a more universal level, the concern extends to all possibilities of literally any attribute or property. So if you look at perhaps the size of something and say that “any size is a possibility” and then add all possible sizes together, what size do you end up with? No size at all. Or even much more relevant, if you add all possible degrees of affect that one thing might have on another, you end up with no affect at all. And that means no existence at all for that thing.
The sum of all possibilities is exactly zero (except for the more true fact that there has never been more than one possibility at any time).
@James S. Saint.
TN excludes even a single possibility from being actualized. Hence, the combination of all possibilities is not TN.
TN cannot contain “the possible”.
The mind of the Constraint under TE is that which contains “the possible”.
Do you agree that for every possibility there is a counter possibility?
@James S. Saint
Your theory is nothing more than a rehash of Zeno’s paradox. Essentially, it asks how can we have defined boundaries in a case of infinite possibilities. Well, that’s a good mystery. I would suggest that in order to have anything at all, you must have defined boundaries. TE creates these defined boundaries, and that is what separates TE from TN.
@James S. Saint.
When speaking of possibilities, are you referring to actualized possibilities only?
Well, no but…
This entire issue is actually very simple.
Either the universe has a cause or it doesn’t. To prove God is to prove that the universe has a cause for its existence. To say that there is no God is to say that the universe has no cause for its existence (those who try to claim randomness).
I can logically prove why the universe exists, its “cause” (assuming the reader can follow logic). If you want to prove God, you must do so also. But you cannot do it by presuming (the very seed of all sin).
@James S. Saint.
Ahh, now you will understand why my proof is a new proof. 
My proof says that God was caused by TE. TE does not have a cause. TE created the Constraint and the mind of the Constraint. The mind of the Constraint is God. Thereafter, God decides what shall be ACTUALIZED and what shall not be ACTUALIZED.
I simply don’t have the “well, what caused God?” problem. =D>
However, I should note that when I say TE “caused” God, I am not claiming that at some point in time God did not exist. Rather, TE always existed. However, as a Constraint on TE must also exist, then the Constraint must also have always existed, even though TE is the “cause” of the Constraint. It is a somewhat dualistic relationship, except for the fact that TE is clearly the cause of the Constraint.
Consider this;
- Wheresoever there is a cause, there is its effect.
- If God is the Cause of the universe and is eternal, having always existed, God’s effect must also have always existed.
- Thus the universe has always existed.
God, the cause of the universe, exists.
God, the beginner of the universe, never did.