Added 9 May 2014:
If I have convinced you that Nothing can or cannot exist, depending on your deduction, then I have made a mistake in my argumentation. I still firmly believe in the statement of Pyrrho, on which the Sceptics base their philosophy: It is simple and it turns on one principle claim, which is that one cannot assert any proposition with any better justification than one can assert its contradictory. I find the latter the most interesting and creative result of God's creation and His nature. It is clear to me that God did not want us to prove His existence beyond any doubt, because then He would have given us free will in vain. He specifically wanted us to BELIEVE in him, and that is why the basis of any knowledge is a belief, what ever the knowledge may be and whatever the belief may be. It is such an ingenious mechanism for God to hide Himself, and that is why the claims of Christians and Atheists are equally futile. They each believe what they want and they build a philosophy thereon.
I conclude this part with two rational arguments advanced for the existence of God.
The first is by St. Thomas Aquinas, his third Way, which we know, by our argument above, is not true, but it fits perfectly into our discussion of Nothing:
It is noted that we observe that things in the world come to be and pass away. But clearly not everything can be like this, for then there would have been a time when Nothing existed. But if that were true then nothing could ever have come into being, since something must have always existed, and this is what people understand by God.
And while I am at it, let me confuse you further with the proof of the existence of God, by St. Anselm: Consider that by the term 'God' we mean something than which nothing greater can be thought of. Given that even the non-believer accepts that this is what the concept of God entails, the existence of God would seem to follow necessarily from the definition.