Cast this one to the rhetoricians:

The very existence of any question as to whether anything exists is always a positive. Does this thing exist or not? Whether it does (in the reality we observe or believe in) or not, there is the concept of the thing in our mind, positively existing as a concept. This is because the mind is the universal in which all things can exist. The proof of that is that whatever we think of, we can, so far in our experience, always find one thing more which is different from everything previous we have thought or observed. Whether any of those things that exist in the mind exist outside of it as well is a matter of proof - but the mind is proof itself of the existence of everything, so that everything exists and nothing does not exist - at least as concepts.

Nominalism asserts that things exist only as concepts, not connected with any universal (let alone themselves being universal). But to say that nothing exists universally is to say universally that things do not exist universally, which disproves the very ground. Interestingly, the assertion effectively separates from a universe of universal wholes and becomes its own universe, where everything is only universal on its own arbitrarily presupposed terms. Which is the path away from the infinite whole to the infinite broken. To cast that in religious terms, I would say it is the path from holiness to damnation. As well, where we have no proof of the apparently arbitrary absolutes which our finite minds cannot measure or prove against infinity, it becomes a matter of faith to decide which absolutes you believe in. The same logical problems apply to relativism.

Human beings are beings of universal absolutes, and all the attempts to disprove it are always grounded in the very pretext of universal absolutes which they attempt to disprove.

This was actually inspired by this blog entry which I ran accross for some reason, and which I wanted to comment at but I’m way too amateur and now way too late.