Thought and extension are what we are condemned to epistemologically and so ontological statements will always be hindered by language.
Turns out that Dasein or ‘being-there’ (Heideggers’ break from Descartes) requires nothing to be a something, or a being (ontical) in being (ontological). This ‘nothing’ is our temporality, the investment in time towards ‘das nicht’ or death. To be something is to come from nothing be thrown into being, to become other (facticity) to our particular or ontical being and then to be nothing.
I do not suggest anything yet. I am trying to find a common ground before we can try to suggest anything. I need to know what is meant when we say "this post does not exist". If this post does not exist, what are you reading at this moment? Cause we know that if it does exist, you are reading the post, but what is happening if the post does not exist? I need to understand the proposal properly before I weigh in my opinion on it.
In order to set out to prove any theorem (in this case existing or not existing), you have to have an axiom (already accepted truth) to start from. For example, we usually take our sensory information as a "ground" axiom that something exists, and it's only the nature of the something we can try to discover from then on. And if you do not accept your sensory information as even existing, you have nothing to work with. Whatever proof you try to think of, without an axiom to start from it's like trying to play jenga in zero gravity with no surface to start from - it's pointless.
An axiom can be anything you choose, but you should be careful to use only the most basic/stable axioms and build your way up from them. I can't think of a fruitful theorem or conclusion coming out if one ignores sensory information, because it's all we really have to work with. And if you claim nothing exists despite receiving sensory information from the world, you are essentially only ignoring the sensory information.
I have offered you 3 axioms as a starting point to prove that there is Something instead of Nothing: "I do not exist", "Existence is not" and "Oneness encompasses both Being and Nothingness". The last axiom is about the all encompassing Oneness. Since "One" is a single unit it must therefore be all inclusive. Oneness is like Infinity: there is only one Infinity (there can be no two Infinities since one of them would be the border of the other - making both "Infinities" finite. Similarly, there cannot be two "Onenesses". Oneness is where all opposites merge into one so everything is included in Oneness. From the above we see that Oneness is all encompassing therefore it is logical that "Oneness encompasses both Being and Nothingness").