My further postulation/assertion/statement what have you is that not only one thing can exist. So?

I didn't expect to recieve some of the answers that i did and indeed disagree with many. I would have rather thought that many would understand that simply it is impossible for noting to exist by it's mere definition or as many of you all appealed to a concept and as such can't be answered. I disagree and say that although it is a concept it isn't what one called emptiness for that is something and it is spatial and temporal in fact, and although it is a concept one can conclude that it can not exist. One has the concept of perfection or of an equilateral triangle but no suchthing which exemplifies either of these example exists. No perfect object if so how, why? Like a perfect circle whats it's size if i drew it exactly with the same ratios but bigger ( clearly now a different circle ) is this one not the perfect circle why or why not? So even though it is a concept one has to admit that it is like infiity and such and is hard to comprehend/understand and mostly hard to imagine. Now i am not saying tht b/c it is hard to imagine it being means that it can not be. Never once. But by sheer definition or essence of the word nothing and the same with the word exist(s) there can not exist nothing.

Here is where i think you all will enjoy tearing me to shreads. Before i state it i must also state why i stated the first conclusion mainly b/c when one asks me what came before the big bang, and how can something come from nothing, and so on i appeal to my first conclusion that it is impossible for nothing to exist ,so although i may not know what it is or was ( like ) at the beginning, i still can know a priori that nothing can not exist, therefore something existed. Put forth in a better way as to the guy who enjoyed my Plato reference even when all matter is taken out of the equation there seem to still exist some things ( ideas/concepts/numbers/laws ) . By the way i appeal to Plato clearly for those who like Plato's idea of forms and i mention Plato b/c he was at the very least a dualist/perhaps pluralist but nonetheless to help present ( PRESENT not justify or give proof i use it as a tool of presentation for those who at least understand forms or ideas/concepts in the manner that he had ) what i will state here. So let's say that there is no universe,no matter and no time or space. Logically there still exist numbers and ideas namely laws such as modus ponens and modus tollens, Law of substitutivity, law of excluded middle, Demorgan's law, etc. so if you like Plato and can imagine these intangible ( perhaps unattainable ) highest forms then it isn't hard for one to understand what i mean when i say that even if we assume and grant that all matter and the universe itself didn't exist that there would still exist these things or "objects" ,for the lack of a better word ( because a very widely accepted in phil. of language is that something is an object and ideas or things which we attribute names and the such pick out objects and since ideas like numbers 1 or 2 and 4 can not be picked out then they are not really objects but like i said i lack a word for them that correctly places them i will think on a term for them later perhaps necessary truths or objects but nevertheless you should be able to understand what i mean), and/or those ideas and concepts. So when asked," how could something come from nothing?", i merely respond there cannot be nothing and therefore the question is nonsense i agree that something cannot come from nothing but i never said that there was nothing ( to begin with ), quite on the contrary, there can not be/exist nothing and so by that principle to ask the question which involves some object or entity that exists as nothing and to say that how is it possible from this object or entity which is here called nothing could something arise or come into being is already presuming ( quite fallaciously i might add ) that this nothing is somehow something which then admits that there is something and in fact not nothing in there example and so either they don't really understand the concept of nothing or they somehow make this nothing the subject of a question ( how can nothing bare something? ) which to them now makes it a thing which to me is also fallacious. I believe it is more likely the former namely they don't have a clear understanding of the term/word nothing, but even this isn't enough, for one would also have to understand what we mean when we say exists. If one does sufficiently comprehend both of those ideas/concepts then one ultimatley must conclude nothing cannot exist and so to ask the question how can something come from nothing becomes nonsense and clearly something has gone wrong, like i sad earlier there seems to be a presumtion in the question that nothing can exist and just be there.But that is the problem where is this there and how is that so? Further i seem to know a priori that nothing can not exist anyways so why bother trying to figure out if or how something can