When someone assumes there's something, the general consensus is that it means there was nothing, and he added a layer of "somethingness". I'd like to question that and ask, when someone argues that "nothing" is, in the rational thinking "steps", before "something", is that really true?
I know that Spinoza argued against such thinking (don't remember the quote but it's something around this) - when we think, the consensus is that we have an empty "bubble" of thought, and then a thought pops into this "bubble" (similar to the idea of void, vacuum). But Spinoza says that isn't true, when we start thinking we "create" this "bubble" at the same "logical step". [I might be totally wrong and Spinoza was thinking the exact opposite and just brought this idea to reject it, I sincerely don't remember, so correct me in the comments please.]
Now with this line of thought - can we say that assuming something is exactly like assuming nothing? Can we go from here, to also state that the thinking of "not assuming" is epistemologically impossible, because even when we think we don't assume anything, we are actually assuming "nothing"?
Note- this is an epistemological question, and it has deep connection (that's originally what brought me to this question) to the "creationism" against the atheistic "rational thinking" that the Big Bang theory brought upon us.