Well I suppose on a trivial level "nothing" would work - but it's only correct within a given framework.
For instance, "poor people have nothing" is logically invalid - they clearly have "something" (physical presence, consciousness, life etc.) and "rich people want nothing" is hard to support - rich people always want something more, although they may not "need" anything.
As relates to "nothing is greater than God" or "nothing is more evil than the devil," that's also only true for monotheists - polytheists have a different perspective, as do atheists; a category that also includes Buddhism, according to some theologians.
[n.b. Do not confuse
Buddhism with
Bubbaism: the former believes in Buddha, reincarnation, and nirvana; the latter believes in Budweiser, a car nation, and Toby Keith.]
"If you eat nothing you will die" again presupposes "eat" refers to regular oral ingestion. Folks can live quite happily (or maybe unhappily) by drip-feed methods using liquid nutrients injected directly into the blood.
I suppose the reason a 5-year-old can get an answer so quickly is because he/she is not yet schooled enough in logical analysis or rhetoric to appreciate that other answers may also be valid. Or it may be that most 5-year-olds (and those of you with kids know this only too well) find that answering
any question with "nothing," "dunno," or "like I care" is going to get them through life 85% of the time.
Or maybe I'm just being a spoilsport and over pedantic. "So, no change there then, Siggy?"
Siggy
