"It is a contradiction to say all of the following:
1. For all X, if x exists, then x was created.
2. God exists (and therefore satisfies the first predicate)
3. God was not created
Your logic does not apply to God. He was not created, so your number one is bad.
Re: If there is nothing, then that's all there is. It's called the empty set. The quantity of all things that exist is zero.
"In order for there to be an empty set, it must exist. The empty set is distinct form nothing. Therefore, nothing can only exist locally (relative to some context,) and cannot exist universally."
The empty set is a rational construction used to describe something. The empty set can not exist w/o someone to ponder it and in fact can not if there is nothing. There are no distinct forms of nothing. Nothing is indistinguishable from itself.
nothing = nothing.
There are no subsets in the empty set, because each would be equivalent to the empty set.
"Distinction does not exist as a side effect of the existence of different things. Different things exist as a side effect of distinction/differentiation (or alternatively, both things and distinctions are co-causitive.)"
Distinction depends on distinguish ability, which is a property of things. Nothing is indistinguishable from itself, and also any subset of it. That is because it is it's own unique identity. That means if there's nothing, then there's no distinguish ability, or anything else. If any thing exists, it has properties which give it distinguish ability. It is those properties that are fundamental. Distinction itself is a conclusion, or result.
It's not my logic, but that of Rutles4Ever in post 141, who said "Anything that exists was created." I am simply demonstrating the logical contradiction between the assertion that "Anything that exists was created" and the assertion that "God exists."
You can, of course, adopt a different set of assertions than were stated by Rutles4Ever, such as "Anything except God that exists was created" and "God exists." Then there is no contradiction. But once you permit one exception to the rule that "anything that exists was created," it becomes much more difficult to justify the universality of that rule. If God is an exception, why not other things? Why not everything?
The empty set is a rational construction used to describe something.
As are all the terms in every statement anyone ever makes.
The empty set can not exist w/o someone to ponder it and in fact can not if there is nothing.
The empty set can exist whether anyone ponders it or not. Same as anything else. And nothing cannot exist universally, since 'nothing' is itself something. Absolute nothing is a logical contradiction, and its universal existence would be a clear example of a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
There are no distinct forms of nothing. Nothing is indistinguishable from itself.
Nothing is always distinct from whatever is not-nothing. That is intrinsic to what it is. It can only be defined as the negation of existence--which requires both that existence and negation exist.