is there proof of nothing?
can we say that the opposite of something is nothing?
isn’t that insufficient proof?
is there nothing past the edge of the universe?
or is it something different or unknown?
There indeed is such a thing as nothing. Look in my wallet.
…well to me…
everyone says there is no proof of God, so God doesn’t exist.
but there is no proof other than the opposite of something that nothing exists.
so does nothing exist?
Nothing is not the “opposite” of anything. It is the absence of anything.
You cannot prove that “nothing” exists because it is the absence of anything existing.
So in other words, there’s nothing there until you prove otherwise.
I see something… COBWEBS! 
so nothing only exists as theory.
there can be no actual example of nothing.
what about memories when we die?
does that become nothing?
By there being no actual example, there is proof of nothing. If there was an example, that would be something, but there is not, so that is the proof.
Memories when we die are what once was; there is no physical substance, but they did exist at one point. One differenciates, in your mind, memories of the dead and memories of the living? Both have no substance, no physical properties, so what’s the difference?
actually i’m talking about nothing at all.
not nothing in one aspect. no proof of nothing doesn’t mean there is nothing. it means there is no proof.
did nothing ever exist?
Well, if there is something then their must be nothing because if we subtract something then their would be nothing , so hypthetically nothing is possible, unless you would like to define and proof that something exists.
I can’t answer this meaningfully, but here are a couple of books I found helpful in considering the idea of nothing.
If we were to look in the spaces between gluons, what would we find?
(If we’ve found things smaller than gluons/leptons, look between them, repeat, etc.)
I claim that I really AM a philosopher.
One small part of my philosophy (it’s basically ontology as related to “meaning”) has to do with just this question.
The word “nothing” is used meaningfully and (thus) refers to some “X” for which it stands.
But if you will examine how the word is used, is stands always for some RELATIVE condition of absence or lack, not for “absolute privation”–that is, not for “nonentity” taken in its most literal, etymological sense.
So my complicated answer is:
Yes, there is something (in fact, a wide variety of “cases”) that constitutes the meaning of the word “nothing.”
No, it is not the case that the term is meaningful if taken to stand for the apparently ultimate logical extension of those meanings.
I would daresay theres no such thing as nothing.
nada, zero, zippo, zilch, bupkus, goosegg…
To extend my good man Scott Dickerson’s point, if we base claims of existence on a model of sensation (phenomenology), nothing does not exist as it could never be perceived. But of course we use the word nothing frequently. It is not the absence of everything, it is the absence of something… which is not to say the space is devoid of anything. “There is no waiter here” can only be said if, in fact, we expect a waiter to be here. Well, it could be said in other circumstances, but I don’t see this in normal conversation, and why would we? Wouldn’t the statement, “There is no waiter here” be used to say, “Hmm, I would expect a waiter to be in sight, and yet there is none.” Which is never to claim there is nothing, there is just nothing we would call a waiter. This expediency can lead the mind looking for ideals to all sorts of problems! 
[absolute hijack]
Scott, do you consider the mind to be transcendent? I’ve been thinking about your nominalistic idealism lately and wondered if this is the case.
[/]
Is Nothing sacred?
Monday…nothing
Tuesday…nothing
Wednesday and Thursday
Nothing.
Friday for a change
A little more nothing…
It occurs to me that “nothing” is an abstract idea. That is, it is not associated with any particular instance.
The idea of “nothing” or the null set, or zero in mathematics, is a logical necessity. For example, in the positional notation that we use to write our numbers, after you have accumulated exactly one base with “nothing” over, the digit 1, indicating one base, by itself wouldn’t convey the idea. However 10 indicates that we have counted up exactly 1 base and no more.
I’m sure that our expert logicians can come up with other ways in which a null set is required for the formulation of abstract ideas.
How appropriate to read this on Christmas.
I just read (MSNBC?) that one of the reason they feel the date Jesus was born is incorrect is because there was no concept of zero…hence, we went from 1BC to 1AD…missing the year zero.
Happy 2004 to you all!
If nothing else, this thread proves I belong here. My motto for years now has been: Nothing exists. 
Both Descartes (Meditations) and Spinoza (Ethics) considered nothingness to be the least possible perfection (or expressed modally, the least possible necessity). Thus, nothingness, N is formally expressible as ~(<>(N)).
This idea is the 6th Inference of Suber’s famous The Great Chain of Being, which is a brief and breathtaking tour-de-force of ontology, ending with the conclusion that God is either uncaused or self-caused.