I know what caused the Universe

A1) 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. A2 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. A3 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. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...