"nothingness"(non-existence) can't exist therefore there was always something. prove me wrong

This is a truism, not an argument.
A lack of personal experience of something isn't evidence of its nonexistence or of the impossibility of its existence in any time and place.
We aren't talking about nonexistent objects.

I) Words in language are used to pick something out or to refer to something.
II) Non-existence is meaningfully used in conversation.
II.I.) In your original post you take us to understand what non-existence means, and what it is outside of language.
II.II.) So, (II).
III) If (II), non-existence possesses the qualities of (I) - that it picks something out or refers to something.
IV) Therefore, non-existence must exist if (III).

I'm talking about a state with no properties. If nothing exists then it is something.

>A lack of personal experience of something isn't evidence of its nonexistence or of the impossibility of its existence in any time and place.
not my point. thats the scientific method, is it not? if something is observed to be true then it is true until proven otherwise
all we have observed is something coming from something.

>I'll prove my axiom with another axiom

OP is right, hebrew mythology and other assorted idiocy btfo

Thank you, Parmenides. Nobody is going to be successful in showing that "is not is".

What axiom? It is for you to show that something can come from nothing, or that "is not is". The OP is only guilty of falling into your trap of trying to prove a negative.

Here is how a formal discussion would go. The OP or myself would put forward our first principles. At no point would we say that you can create or destroy the fundamental substance.

Without somone putting forward that we can create or destroy the fundamental substances, logic concludes that being is fundamentally without change.

So, if anyone wants to take up the torch of creatio ex nihilo or any ridiculous, related argument, let them. It is not our burden!

Symbol manipulation such as math or language alone can tell us nothing about reality-as-she-is.

OK but why is it here

Your first premise is overly simplified. It erases the distinction between an actual thing and the concept of that thing. Nothingness can exist as a concept, i.e our conception of nothingness exists. But by definition, nothingness itself does not exist.

Words like "nothingness" can refer to our concept of nothingness and still not imply that nothingness really exists. I can say "lightsaber", in reference to the weapons depicted in Star Wars, yet as far as anyone knows no physical piece of technology like that exists. But our conception of such a piece of technology does exist, in this way I can refer to a concept linguistically without implying that the thing itself exists.

That's the most fundamental part of the system. You can formulate that most important axiom however you like, but it comes first. Some might phrase it "is", or "there is", or "being is", or "being", etc.

So, to answer your question of "why is it there", the answer is that the first principle states that being exists. If your question is, "what created being", then the immediate answer is "we have not posited change yet, so the process of creation has not yet arisen".

If you believe that something must be created, then it is for you to put that forward. In our system, there is not yet creation or destruction; it always was and always will be, by necessity, because it encompasses all and nothing is beyond it.

If you feel that everything must be created, then it is for you to posit "change" and then define "change" in such a way that it affects "being". You have not done so, and you have presented no practical phenomena that would make me do so, hence the question is premature at best, and will be shown later to be wrong-minded.

I will actually posit change later, but it is subordinate to limit.

>nothingness can't exist therefore there was always something
By contraposition:
>nothingness can't exist therefore there was never nothingness
I'm not judging the conclusion, just the argument itself and the argument itself doesn't hold because it's predicated on circular reasoning.

>hebrew mythology and other assorted idiocy
Literally every major cosmology in the modern age, theistic or otherwise, posits that forces or material came from nothing.

>nothingness can't exist therefore there was never nothingness
Exactly

No, that's not my argument. I did not say those things.

I am putting forward a true account of reality. So far, I have only put forward the most fundamental principle: "being".

In an account that consists of only one principle, that there is being, what room is there for the conclusion that there is something outside of being? What room is there for forces of creation and being?

Any attempt to say that there is nothing, or that there is creation and destruction, requires that the speaker posit further points.

I would posit many further points, of course, because how else can I explain our conversation? However, I will never posit a point that would logically allow for things to create or destroy the fundamental being, or exist outside of the definition of being. Nobody else has done so, either.

Even if you are right, and I don't pretend to know everything about major modern beliefs, popularity doesn't make something true.

Nothingness being impossible must be proven before it can be used as a jumping point to the conclusion that there never was nothingness.

No, because in the metaphysical account given there is no possible basis to posit something that is not part of being. If, on the other hand, you are positing "nothing" as something that is part of being, then it is just a semantic error and you aren't really positing nothing.