Originally Posted by
Seika
He makes a reasonable point when discussing, "Nothing doesn't exist, that's the point of existence". If you've given it a name, if you've ever conceptualised it, it exists. There is no such thing as 'nothing'.
The problem (I think) is when, having concluded that everything is, he tries to make that property absolute over all, which denies the existence of any other property. Instead, I think it's much more reasonable to say that everything has that first property, but everything can also have subsequent properties: names, movement, and so forth. Being is the foundation of everything, but it is not the whole of everything. Those foundations have a house on top of them.