The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

I know what caused the Universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 78423
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




Burden of Proof is on me to demonstrate I know what caused the universe.

By "demonstrate" I mean I have a viable theory as to what caused the universe which is more comprehensive and logical than any of the current theories.

Opponent must either address and dismantle my arguments or state his own case for the cause of the universe. If My opponent cannot do either of these then my arguments stand uncontested

First round is for acceptance

No semantics
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Con

Let' get this party started

In order for me to explain the cause of the universe, all I have to do is demonstrate how Nothingness -- that which is absent of everything -- is a negative "void" that must be filled. Once I've done this, I can explain very easlity and comprhensively why the universe came into being.

A1) Everything must have an opposite:

It's a self-evident fact that anything that exists must have something else that shares opposing attributes. The more opposing attributes this thing shares the more diamterically opposed it is:

HOT - Opposite - COLD: Coldness is the absence of heat so they arn't diametrically opposed but coldness contains the most opposing attributes than anything else and it is why we have a word for Hot and Cold. If heat didn't have a counter-temperature then all temperature would be called heat and we either would not have the word temperature or heat because they would the mean same thing.

HEAT: Makes things move faster. Increases temperature. Adds energy.

COLD: Slows things down. Decreases temperature. Subtracts energy.

Other, more obvious opposites are: Woman/Man, Up/Down, Life/non-life, everything/nothing

As you can see, everything that exists has something with opposing attributes which give that thing value to stand out as an individual thing. If there were no Man then the concept of Woman wouldn't mean anything seperate from Human. Woman would just be another combination of letters for the meaning of Human.

And everything that makes the concept of Man Man must have a counter attribute which makes woman woman.

No things has an absolute oppsite: But at the same time, there can't be anything with absolute opposite attributions or else it would circle around and cancel itself out simultaneaously cancelling out the thing it is being opposed to.

Woman: If the conept of Woman were to be the exact opposite of Man in everyway then it wouldn't even share the same attribute of being a combination of letters or an existing concept, which is 2 attributes man posesses. Which means the concept of woman would become non-existent, thereby leaving no opposite for the concept if Man.

The importance of explaining this is to demonstrate that the concept of everything must share an equal counter attribute with the concept of nothingness in order for everything to exist, whilst at the same time, sharing at least 1 attribute.

Everything: The universe and all that is in it. The existence of Time, space, matter and energy. Multiplying.

Nothing: All that is outside, before and after the universe. The non-existence of time, space, matter and energy. Subtracting

Here I have proposed that one of the attributes that Nothingness shares which counters everything is it's nature to subtract from existence whilst the concept of everything is to multiply.

The universe and all that is in it must have an opposite which gives the universe meaning and allows it to exist. The only possible candidate for that is nothingness.

So far, I have given valid reason to consider that nothingness is subtracting (negative) and NOT neutral. Now I will demonstrate this in the following arguments.


In order to evaluate what the nature of something is, we must observe that thing in action. Because we don't and most likely never will have access to nothingness we cannot evaluate it's effects directly but indirectly. This is the same way science evaluates the big bang theory. It doesn't attempt to observe the big bang actually happening. It uses indirect forms of analyzation to give presedence to it's viability as a theory.

You may think the concept of human language is a laughable way of analyzing nothingness but we actually see it's effect, by it's very concept, whenever we use the word.

Let's look at the phrase, "I'm doing nothing". To do nothing is to literally not exist because the very action of existing is doing something; it's existing. So the concept of nothingness has removed all that I am doing. No other concept coupled with something will completely subtract it's existence. Only nothingness does that. This is a evidence that the nature of nothingness is to subtract

You can apply this example to anything; "I'm placing nothing on this apple". Have a look at what the application of the concept of nothingness has done and you'll notice it has removed something from existence. It has removed the action of placing leaving the person making no action. To utilize the word placing is to imply a positive event because it implies a process about to come into existence; the process of placing something. Only by utilizing the concept of nothingness will it cancel out the process of placing and leave everything unchanged.


Just like in my argument of opposites, I will pose that if we determine what exists as an absolute positive and neutral then we can use this to determine what must be a negative. Positive must have an opposite (negative) and neutral is the middle ground.

We already know that all forms of existence are positive. They are an increase in something. Even anti-matter is a positive because it's an increase of 1 thing from no things. Anti-matter is still matter. So, we know that all things are positive. They may not have a positive effect on each other but they are positive in the grand scheme of things.

Now I must demonstrate what is neutral. Neutrality means to be in existence without having an effect. A neutral country for example is one that exists but picks no sides in a conflict. Neutrality implies inactive existence. The best form of neutrality I will utilize is the quanitifiable number 0. 0 does not add or subtract but it exists as a place holder. It allows an escalation in numbers. Without five 0's we cannot get to 10,000

0001 (zero was required to even start at one. IN this case, it is implied)

As you can see, we do not have a fith 0 so we cannot continue to 10,000.

The reasons I say this is because we can use simple maths to discover what is the equivalent of the quantifiable number of 0 in reality and they share the exact same attributes.

I claim that empty space is the mathematical equivalent of 0.

Empty Space: The absence of everything, other than itself. A neutral area

Empty space shares the same attributes as 0 in that it is a place holder. It gives an area for things to come into existence. In order something to exist it must have an area to exist in. A singular point of empty space would allow 1 thing to come into existence. YOu would require another singluar point of empty space to escalete up to 2 things existing.

In mathematics the set {} is suppose to represent nothing but this is a miscomprehension of nothingness. For there to be complete nothingness there cannot even be area or empty space. The gap between { & } is not nothing it is an area that allows us to put numbers {0} or letters in {a}. If we remove that gap and place nothingness in there that would subtract the area and not allows us to place anything. This is another example of nothingness subtracting.

Let's go back to our linguistics example and utilize the concept empty space as opposed to nothingness: "I'm placing empty space on this apple" . Notice how I am able to walk forward and place my empty hand on the apple thereby placing empty space. no effect has occured in relation to adding anything to the apple but the neutralility of empty space allowed my action of placing to come into existence. Whereas with nothingness I could not do this. Nothingness subtracted my very intention of placing by preventing it from happening. the negativity of nothingness and the positivity of placing cancelled each other out leaving me with only a phrase "I'm placing nothing on this apple".

Lack of characters forces me to summarize pre-maturely: If empty space is equal to 0 then if we go below/remove empty space (nothingness) we have -1.

Because a negative quantity cannot exist on it's own (it must subtract) this obligates the universes existence.



Both of your assertions, that every thing in the universe has an opposite that is not an absolute opposite are required to show that everything (the concept) must have an opposite, nothingness, but that they cannot be absolute opposites. This is to show that the concept of "nothingness" is not neutral and can be regarded as negative in the same way that "everything" can be regarded as positive--one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, if I disprove one or both of the pieces of evidence your conclusion lies on, that conclusion will be false.

Your first assertion is that everything that exists has an opposite. However, there is a difference between an opposite which we can say actually exists in nature without a human mind looking at an interpreting it and an opposite that we perceive after analyzing data. I will call the first type an objective opposite and the second one a subjective opposite.

To distinguish between the two is important because the universe ("everything") exists independently of us, assuming that we are using the definition that you have provided. If humans did not exist, "everything" would look different, but there would still be an "everything." Therefore, in order to say anything meaningful about the universe, it is necessary to show that the "everything" and "nothingness" are objective opposites.

In order to show that, according to your argument, every thing (with a space to distinguish it from "everything") that exists would have to have an objective opposite. The first example that you provide is "heat" and "cold", which are certainly subjective opposites in that humans consider them to be. However, I don't believe that they are objective. We know from science that heat itself is a measurement of how quickly the atoms in something are vibrating. Whether they are vibrating quickly or slowly doesn't matter, the attribute of the object is still called "heat". An atom can have more or less heat, but it cannot have cold. Therefore heat and cold are not objective opposites.

Since there exists something that does not have an objective opposite, everything (the concept) does not have to have an objective opposite.


It will probably make more sense if you read A3 before you read A2. I have kept it here to reflect the order in which you brought up the concepts.

Here I assert that empty space is not a negative, but rather a neutral and that this can be seen in linguistics. You used the example of "I'm placing nothing on this apple" to show that "nothing" negates words and so therefore is a negative. However, "I'm placing nothing on this apple" could reflect you physically walking over and opening your hand over the apple without anything happening. This is a lot like your argument for empty space. I'm aware this is delving a bit into semantics, but when using linguistics to analyze a concept it feels rather necessary.

I don't think your second (or first) example, "I'm doing nothing" can be used as an example because it is an idiom. When people say it they don't literally mean that they have stopped existing, they mean that they're sitting still (and existing). It's a case of where the phrase means something different than the words, and what is important in language is the meaning.

Additionally, when we add everything to nothing, however, the result is not zero as you would expect from a negative and a positive. Rather, it is everything. This indicates that "nothing" is not a negative. The same is true if you add nothing to everything--you get everything instead of 0.


First of all, you're assuming that in a relationship there can only be one neutral, one positive, and one negative. While it makes sense to conclude that there should be one positive for every negative for balance reasons, it doesn't make sense to say that there can only be one neutral for every positive/negative pair. For example, in the core of many atoms there are more neutrons that protons. Therefore, simply because we can find *a* neutral does not mean that another does not exist. If we look at three objects, it's possible that two of them are neutrals and we aren't looking far enough to find the positive/negative.

You assert that empty space is neutral, the "0" of the everything/nothing/space relationship. One of the ways you show this is through linguistics again, where the existence of "empty space" in a sentence doesn't negate what comes before it. However, empty space cannot be neutral because it is part of "everything", according to our (your) definition, which is "Everything: The universe and all that is in it. The existence of Time, space, matter and energy. Multiplying." Empty space is part of the universe, in fact it is a very *large* part of it. This would, by definition, make it part of "everything" because it and the universe do not exist separately.
Debate Round No. 2


A1) Con states that Cold and Hot exist yet Heat does not have an opposite.

I'd like to reiterate the fact that I mentioned that opposites are not diametrically opposed. I even demonstrated this by explaining that to be diamoetrically opposed to something that does exist is to not exist. So all forms of opposites that exist are not going to be diametrically opposed, or else we have to conclude that no thing has an opposite.

Then Con just supported my case by saying heat is just the measurement of how quickly atoms move. so Cold does not exist. Cold simply means less heat. So objectively heat does not exist. It's just a word that means movement. Heat itself is not an existent thing; it's just a descriptor for a type of movement. This was the point I made previously. If there was no MAN then WOMAN would just be another word for HUMAN. There is no such thing as COLD therefore, HOT is just another word for MORE MOVEMENT. But cold does exist, it means less movement and hot means more movement. so, subjectively, these 2 things do exist and subjectively these 2 things are in opposition with each other. less movement of atoms vs more movement of atoms.

However, in absolute terms, The direct opposite of heat would be the direct opposite of movement. Let's look at what that could be: It is not non-movement because non-movement is neutral. The direct opposite would have to be some form of anti-movement. something that when applied to movement cancels movement out. The only thing in the world that doesn't move is empty space. This is what makes empty space neutral/0. Everything else that exists is moving. See string theory. So, to not move at all would be empty space. Therefore, to reverse movement or be anti-movement would be to be non-existent. What happens when you apply an anti to a something? anti-matter destroys matter. so non-existence would remove existence.

Nothing: the complete absence of everything - non-existence.

Something: Anything that exists. Existence

Apply the anti nature of nothing to the positive nature of something and they cancel each other out.

Con has not negated my first argument, he has strengthened it.

A2) Con says that walking over to an apple and placing your hand above it is the same as placing nothing on an apple. This is incorrect.

CON: "However, "I'm placing nothing on this apple" could reflect you physically walking over and opening your hand over the apple without anything happening."

But you would not be committing the action of placing, would you. All I'm asserting is that nothingness cancels out what it is coupled with, it doesn't cancel everything out. You coupled the word nothing with the specific action placing and now no matter what you do you will not be able to follow through with the action of placing.

Yes, you could lie and place a sticker on the apple anyway but your statement wouldn't accurately depict what is taking place.

If you said, "I'm placing a sticker on this apple" then the only thing you could do is walk over and place a sticker on the apple. Anything but placing a sticker on the apple is not an accurate depiction of what is taking place. The action of placing hasn't been cancelled out

If you said "I'm placing empty space on this apple" then all you'd have to do is apply the empty space that is without the palm of your hand to the apple. the action of placing hasn't been cancelled out

As you can see, there is fundamental difference between the application of nothingness and everything else.

CON then goes on to say that I can't use the idiom "I"m doing nothing" to demonstrate the true nature of nothingess. Idioms in themsleves are not literal so he just rebutted that argument for me. I'm arguing as to what the literal nature of nothingness is. To be literally doing nothing would be not-existent.

Premise 1: Movement is existence
premise 2: actions are movements
Premise 3: Doing is an action
Premise 4: Nothing is non-existence
Premise 5: To do nothing is to subtract ALL your actions
Premise 6: The inclusion of nothingness has subtracted your existence

Conclusion: Nothingness is subtracting

CON states that when we add everything to nothing the result is not zero, it is everything. Con is not reading my demonstration carefully enough.

The net result of adding everything to nothing is 0.

Firstly, to add everything you must have everything at your disposal. So let's assume you do. Currently in existence is YOU and EVERYTHING. 2 things. YOU and EVERYTHING are occupying empty space or else you couldn't exist. If nothingness is a negative then its utilization should cancel something out to leave a net quantity of 0. It does:

There are 2 things currently in existence. You and Everything.

You want to bring a 3rd thing into existence -- the action of adding something.

You add everything to nothing...

What have you done? Have you added everything? NO. You have made no action. Everything has remained unchanged. The net result of new things that have come into existence is 0. The word nothing cancelled out your action of adding.

1 + 1 + 1 + -1 = 2 or You (1) + Add (1) + Everything (1) + to Nothing (-1) = 2.

Let's look at You add everything to empty space.

All you need to do is place everything into an empty area. Your action of ADDING came into existence unhindered. Now 3 things exist: You, Everything and an action.

1 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 3 or You (1) + Add (1) + Everything (1) to Empty Space (0) = 3.

My linguistic demonstration goes unrefuted

A3) Con states that mutliple variations of neutrality can exist at once, then goes on to talk about neutrons in atoms. Neutrons do not encapsulate the full nature of the quanifiable number 0. They just share an attribute of 0; they lack an electric charge. Neutrons themselves still occupy space so they are 1 thing. 0 + 0 = 0. Neutron + Neutron = 2 neutrons. Empty space + empty space = emptyspace

It's important that we remember that we are refering to an all ecompassing nature of neutrality. This is what it means to be absolute. I use the intergor 0 because it represents neutrality in mathematics and mathematics is the nature of my argument. Nothigness is subtracting. Everything that exists has some negative attributes, some neutral and some positive. But we are speaking of absolutes here.

If con can demonstrate how neutrons in atoms are more equivalent to the quanitifiable number 0 than empty space is then I'll concede my point. Let's look at the similar properties of 0 and empty space

Zero: Is the basis of all numbers. We cannot begin at 1 without a 0 present. More zeros are required to escalate.
Empty Space: Is the basis of all existence. Things cannot exist without empty space to exist in. More empty space is required to bring more things into existence.
zero: A single zero cannot be divided.
Empty Space: A singular of empty space cannot be divided.
Zero: Below 0 is -1. Empty space: Remove empty space and there is nothingness aka, negative.
Zero: 0 + 0 equals 0. Empty Space: Empty space combined with emty space leaves the same amount of empty space.
Zero: More 0's equals a greater ability to escalate in numbers.
Empty Space: More empty space equals a greater ability to escalate forms of existence.

There's only 1 absolute netural/0: Empty space. There's only 1 absolute positive/1+: Everything within empty space. There's only 1 absolute negative/-1: Nothingess (outside, before and after space/time)

Con thinks that because empty space is a part of everything then it must have a quantifiable value similar to everything else. This is not the same with numbers so why should it be the same with reality? 0 has no quantity yet it is still included on a scale of escalating numbers. It is a place holder. Empty space has no quantity yet it is included in the realm of everything for anything to exist. It is the ONLY thing that has the nature of a place holder just like 0. 0 + 1 = 0. Empty space + Dog = Dog. Dog + Dog = 2 Dogs. Nothing + Dog = 0/ an empty space where the dog was.

All my claims have gone unrefuted.




Under a certain definition of "opposite", yes, every thing has an opposite, because every thing that is distinct must have a different set of characteristics than every thing that is not distinct. Otherwise it would not be distinct. To go the argument of MAN and WOMAN, it can be seen that they are opposites. However, MAN and BOOK are also opposites, because one is alive while the other is dead, and MAN and DOG are opposites as well because MAN is very intelligent while DOG is not.

Please define what you mean by "Opposite". I think it is necessary for this argument to continue in a meaningful way.

You argue that heat and cold are subjective opposites. However, I have just argued that subjective opposites do not matter, because it is impossible to say anything meaningful about our universe by imposing our own values on it. The universe does not care. It is its own thing.

To not move at all would be absolute zero, not empty space [1]. Empty space has nothing in it that can move, it is empty. A brief search online did not give me any results as to how string theory and the idea of absolute zero mesh. If you find any sources on that, please post them and I'll abandon the not moving=absolute zero idea.


After the apple argument, which I concede, you say:

" Premise 1: Movement is existence"
premise 2: actions are movements
Premise 3: Doing is an action
Premise 4: Nothing is non-existence
Premise 5: To"do"nothing"is to subtract ALL your actions
Premise 6: The inclusion of"nothingness"has subtracted your existence"

in order to explain the words "I'm doing nothing."

Your second premise, actions are movement, is false. For example, I could "pass a law" in the political sense, even though I have not moved the law in any way. The law has become valid to everyone, including people who I have never seen. Passing a law is an action that is not movement (or not pure movement). Your third premise is that "doing" is an action. I think that it would be more accurate to say that "doing" requires an action, not that it is an action. However, that is getting into semantics territory and I'm not sure that it's very important.

Your fourth premise is that nothing is non-existence. Then you go on to state that to do nothing is to subtract all of your actions. By doing nothing, you are not taking any action. I agree. However, in order for you sixth premise to be true, existence must be an action. Since an action involves movement, existence must involve movement in order to be an action. However, empty space exists and is not moving. You said this yourself in the first argument, with "This is what makes empty space neutral/0. Everything else that exists is moving. See string theory. So, to not move at all would be empty space." I don't necessarily agree with this (see A1), but if this were the case, then it's possible for something to exist without moving. Therefore, empty space can do nothing while still existing. NOTHING will not subtract existence.

On to your next statement, that the net result of adding everything to nothing is 0.

First of all, "you" (or I) in this case are part of "everything" because you (I) are in the universe. Upon skimming A3, I am not convinced that empty space is not part of the universe and therefore part of everything, so I will treat empty space as being part of everything for the purposes of this argument.

The action of addition already exists because it is part of everything. However, that's mostly semantics.

For the case of this, I am not talking about our current situation. This is a hypothetical situation in which only "nothing" exists, if nothing can be said to exist. This can also be modeled in math. Nothing can be seen as an empty set, notated by {}. Everything can be seen as the set of everything, as in {everything}. When adding these two sets together, you add an empty set to the set of everything, turning into the set of everything.

Second, your calculation equals two, not 0 as you said it would. Your argument is invalid.

I still argue that you cannot add everything to empty space, because empty space is part of everything. You cannot add the same dog to itself, you still only have one dog.


First of all, empty space+empty space=more empty space than you started out with. If we say that our original amounts of empty space were the same (say, a handful of empty space plus another handful of empty space), you end up with two handfuls of empty space.

Neutrons were just an example, and it wasn't a very good one. If we look at math, 1+0+0+0+0+0 is still 1. 1+0+0+-1 is still 0. The extra 0's don't matter. If you state that this situation can be modeled by math, then it follows that there can be multiple neutral "things", because it's there in the math.

Second, you have not shown how empty space is not part of everything. This means that, for the purpose of the relationship between everything and nothing, empty space cannot be the neutral element. Additionally, I never said it should be quantifiable, merely that it is part of everything. In certain relationships within everything, it could be a neutral element, but for the purposes of the everything-nothing relationship, it cannot be. That is all I have said. If you can explain why empty space should be considered separate from everything, I will cede the point.

Debate Round No. 3


A1) Con concedes that everything that exists must have a distinct counter-attributes. A rock is SOLID and water is LIQUID. And a rock & water can go in the category of non-life vs life which must have counter distinctions. We can increase this category to matter vs non-matter -- non matter are things like time, sound, love -- Both matter and non-matter require space to exist in. A sound wave cannot exist if there are no air particles to influence. Then we can increase this category to everything that exists within space vs everything that is space. So space has seperate attributes which make it distinct from everything else. Everything else is movement, space is non-movement. Everything else has an effect, space has no effect. Everything else takes up area, space provides area. The the final category is existence vs non-existence/something vs nothing. For existence and non-existence must have clear distinctions that separate them both. Existence manifests existence and non-existence removes existence or manifests non-existence.

Con says, that Man and Book are also opposites so Woman is not the opposite of Man. Con does not realize that it is Woman that makes Man distinct or else there would just be HUMAN. This is something I have been arguing since round 1 but Con refuses to acknowledge it. There is something specifically opposite about Man and Woman that narrows them down from just being human; Testosterone vs Estrogen for example. Put Estrogen into a Man and he starts to become feminine and vice versa. A book does not have this anti-male property.

Con drops my argument that heat is does not exist, it is just another word for movement. Heat does not exist because there is no objective opposite. If heat only exist subjectively then cold only exist subjectively and their opposites exist only subjectively therefore making the opposite of hot and cold valid states of opposition.

Con says that to not move at all would be absolute 0. I'd firstly like to thank Con for pointing this out. I should have done it in the first round. String Theory dictates that everything in the universe is made up of vibrating strings i.e. movement. Therefore, if something were not moving it could not be, and all that would be is the empty space which that thing would have occupied or absolute ZERO.

An area void of EVERYTHING but itself is empty space. I don't need to mention that empty space is not made up of strings.

A2) Con thinks that "passing law" is a physical action. I'm not sure what universe Con lives in where the restructuring of an immaterial concept is considered a physical action. The action of signing the new bill of legislation which leads to the passing of law may be an action but the reinterpretation of the law itself is not. If Con wants to argue that ideas exist independent of the brain then he'd have to prove it.

Con then argues that "doing" requires an action. This is obviously incorrect. "Doing" implies an action it does not require one. Doing IS acting. That is why the very act of doing nothing equals 0 because they cancel each other out.

Con says, that I stated that everything must move to exist, including empty space. This is incorrect. I've mentioned in every round that empty space is the exception because it is the only thing that is not doing anything yet is still existing. Empty Space is simply being. Or, it is providing an area for things to exist in. Which isn't an action, it just is. Just like the number 0. It is the only digit that exists without a positive or negative quantity. It is absolutely neutral.

Empty Space is absolutely neutral. 0 is absolutely neutral. Therefore, empty space and 0 are one in the same thing.

Con then states that YOU is included in EVERYTHING. That's fine. It doesn't change the mathematical equation. Just replace 2 things in existence with 1 thing - Everything. Now ADD that 1 thing to nothing and you are left with 1 thing, a net result of 0. ADD that 1 thing to empty space and you have 2 things -- Everything + an action, a net result of 1. Or Infinity + 1. (It would have been less confusing if Con did not use the infinite quantity of everything. A Cake would have sufficed.)

Con states: "The action of addition already exists because it is part of everything."

This doesn't make any sense. How can the action of addition exist if it hasn't happened yet? And if Con wants to include all future events in her/his calculations then why didn't the action make it into present existence? Because the Nothing cancelled it out.

Con states that the nothing set in maths is noted by the empty set {}. But I already addressed this in my first argument. The entire premise of my arguement sits upon the claim that this is a misunderstanding of nothingness.

Excerpt: "For there to be complete nothingness there cannot even be area or empty space. The gap between { & } is not nothing it is an area that allows us to put numbers {0} or letters in {a}."

I feel that Con has been skimming past some of my most significant arguments. I urge the audience to read my arguments comprehensively.

Then Con states: "When adding these two sets together, you add an empty set to the set of everything, turning into the set of everything."

Correct, I'm claiming that an empty set represent empty space, not nothing. This is how you are able to add them (figuratively).

Then Con states: "Second, your calculation equals two, not 0 as you said it would. Your argument is invalid."

Everything + the action of adding equals 2. Or infinity + 1. The net result is 1 because you brought 1 new thing into existence; The action of adding. If you add everything to nothing you are left with 1 -- Everything/infinity. The action of adding wasn't able to come into existence. The net result is 0. No new things came into existence because nothingness cancelled it out. If Con didn't decide to use the inquantifiable number of infinity to add to something this would be a lot easier to understand.

Con States that you cannot add everything to empty space. All I need to do is revert to math to show that you cannot effectively add infinty to 0 either because that equals infinity. You havn't done anything.

A3) Con states that empty space + empty space = more empty space. Clearly Con has not been reading my arguments. You CAN place empty space beside empty space to equal more empty space the same way you can put zero's beside zero to equal more zero's 00000000. But combining them does nothing; 0+0 = 0. empty space combined with empty space = empty space.

The Neutrons were a perfect example Con. They demonstrated how there is only 1 absolute neutral which is empty space. Just like there is only 1 absolute positive and 1 absolute negative.

Then Con States: "Second, you have not shown how empty space is not part of everything."

Once again, Con has proven that he has not been reading my arguments. I never said that empty space was NOT a part of EVERYTHING. I said it is unique from everything else. Just like 0 is still a number but it is unique from all others.

Con: "If you can explain why empty space should be considered separate from everything, I will cede the point."

Con concedes the point.


I have demostrated how nothingness equals negative, empty space equals neutral and everything else equals positive. Therefore, if we say, "nothing was before, outside or after the universe" we can conclude that nothingness is currently subracting the beginning of the universe causing the infinite regress of time, the outside of the universe causing infinite expansion and the end of the universe causing an infinite life span. Nothing, somthing and infinity all exist at once.;

Nothingness caused the universe. I know what caused the universe.


A1) Every thing has separate attributes that make it distinct from every thing else. Even if you cloned, say, an apple, the two would still be distinct because you could point at the one on the left and say "That's the apple on the left" and people would know what you're talking about. If we couldn't say that something had a separate, distinct set of attributes, we couldn't talk about it.

Space does have an effect, because if you put a vacuum (which is empty space) in the center of the earth, there would be immediate effects. I can't say what exactly they would be, because I'm not a physicist, but since "Nature abhors a vacuum" something would happen. It probably wouldn't be something that we, as beings living on Earth, would appreciate.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that MAN and WOMAN are not opposites. I'm saying that MAN and BOOK are also opposites just as much as WOMAN and MAN are. MAN can have multiple opposites, as long as "Opposite" does not have a clear definition (which you have not provided).

WOMAN does not make MAN distinct. What makes MAN distinct is its unique set of properties"high levels of testosterone, a penis, etc. If WOMAN did not exist, MAN's properties would still make it unique from all of the other concepts/things in the world.

Additionally, there are many things that do not even have the semi-clear opposite that MAN has. What is the opposite of a chair? What is the opposite of a computer? A rock? A tree? What about glucose, or protons, or red blood cells?

String theory hasn't been proven by experimental evidence yet, although admittedly the strings' tiny sizes makes it difficult [1]. However, even if strings did exist, empty space does not truly exist, according to this article[2].


You did not specify that you were referring to physical actions. You simply said "action". I made an assumption that that word would mean all actions, not just physical actions. Apparently I should have somehow known that that was a wrong assumption to make.

Ideas do exist independently of the brain"just look at writing. Someone can write down their philosophy and die. Then, a hundred years later, someone picks up the book, reads it, and understands the philosopher's ideas. Doesn't that mean that the idea existed in the book and so is not confined to the brain?

I am arguing that the act of existing is an action, at least by the way you are talking about it. Otherwise, "doing nothing" wouldn't mean that the person who is "doing nothing" is no longer existing. Therefore, empty space is doing an action by existing.

Two things are not the same because they share the same property. A dog and a lion are both animals, but they are not the same. You cannot say that empty space and 0 are the same, especially because math is just a tool that humans use to model reality rather than it being actual reality.

I rather thought that we had agreed that "everything" meant, well, everything. That it meant the universe and everything inside of it. If we are to say anything useful about this everything, it is important to talk about it instead of a cake, because a cake could have different properties.

First of all, an action isn't a "thing". In physics we talk about potential energy. Actions already exist in the same way potential energy does"a human has the potential to press a key, the potential to add something, etc. Since we can't create something from nothing, that only makes sense.

If I've misunderstood your arguments, then that's my fault. However, believe me, I have read all of them thoroughly.

You cannot add everything to empty space, because empty space is part of everything. You can't add something to itself. I can't add a human to their leg, because that leg is a part of them. It's the same thing with everything and empty space.


I would appreciate it if you would refrain from disparaging my reading skills. I have read every piece of argument. If I haven't understood some of it, that is as much your fault for not communicating clearly as it is mine for not understanding what was communicated.

How else do you add two physical objects? Empty space is something physical. If you're going to add more empty space, of course you have to put them side by side. If I have a droplet of water and I add another droplet of water, I don't combine them, I place them side by side. Even if there is a chemical reaction and a "new" substance appears, I haven't combined anything. I've just rearranged what was already there.

I thought you said that there couldn't be an absolute positive or an absolute negative? If we can talk about everything, then nothing cannot be the absolute opposite of everything, because then we wouldn't be able to talk about it. I believe this was one of your own arguments.

"Should be considered separate from everything" means that empty space and everything should be treated like two separate things, not that empty space is worth paying attention to. 0 is still part of the set of integers. It's treated as integer when doing operations with integers. Empty space should be treated the same way with regards to everything.

I have shown that every object is the opposite of every other opposite. Opposite pairs do not exist. With regards to your conclusion, we have no way of knowing what was before, outside, or after the universe. In a sense, it doesn't matter, since time (theoretically) started with the Big Bang. Additionally, if nothingness did exist, then it would already have "eaten" everything, and nothing would remain but empty space regarding your argument. The very existence of the universe as we know it disproves your argument.


Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ravensnow 3 years ago
Let me know if you find anything :)
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 3 years ago
@Ravensnow, Yeah I agree with that idea of a vacuum. Like scooping a bucket of water out of a hole, for a second there is a gaping hole but straight away the water falls back in. I was researching the official theory of empty space being a vacuum and could not find anything conclusive, I thought u may have had some inside information. Cheers, i'll keep searching.
Posted by Ravensnow 3 years ago
@Troy That comes from from my own knowledge, so it's quite likely that I'm mistaken in assuming that that is true. :)

I was referring to my understanding of, for example, lightning where thunder is caused by the air slamming back together again after lightning has forced them apart (hence creating a vacuum, or what I consider(ed?) to be empty space).

It's possible we've had a communication error this whole time about the meaning of empty space. :/
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 3 years ago
@Ravensnow, I'm researching some of your points and I have to ask, what makes you say empty space is a vacuum? Considering we have not been able to create a space literally absent of everything (quantum fluctuations) how can we say that is the emptiness of area that's causing a vacuum? Also, what do you mean by vacuum? Are you implying that the area must be filled or area is actively pulling things apart?
Posted by Ravensnow 3 years ago
You challenged me to think and I enjoyed that. :)

Once you start that debate, could you send me the link? I would like to see how it turns out. And yes, please clarify.
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 3 years ago
Cheers for the debate Con. I had some significant realizations throughout. i) that heat is only a concept and isn't actually a 'thing' and that's why it has no "opposite". ii) that to not move is to not exist -- reversing movement is reversing time. Go back far enough and existence will cease to be.

They're the two main things I realized were crucial aspects. With this new information I'll propose this debate again with someone else.

Once the voting period has finished I will clarify what it means to have nothingness before, after and outside the universe without consuming it. Just in case anybody is wondering
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 3 years ago
@Missmedic, I'd prefer if close-minded people were not involved. Condemning something because it makes you uncomfortable is poisonous. You sound like the kind of person that would have burnt someone for heresy, a thousand years ago
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
I will vote on Tuesday , oh yea I still think your theory is bollshit.
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 3 years ago
Sorry, I stated at the end "I know what caused the universe". I just want to remind everyone that I only have to show that my theory is just as viable as all the others not that mine is %100 proven correct.

Thanks Con and everyone else for viewing this debate. I hope everyone makes the effort to vote. thanks
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 3 years ago
C U Next Tuesday
No votes have been placed for this debate.