The nature of nothingness is negative not neutral

Con did not address any of my arguments. She claims there's a lot wrong with what I said but hasn't specified WHAT and WHY. CA1: "Too long" This is subjective. To many it could be too short because they don't fully understand what I mean and therefore want me to elaborate. For other's it is too long because they understood what I'm saying from the beginnin or they didn't care. I assume Con didn't careCA2: "You assume so much." What Con does not realize is that EVERYTHING we "know" is an assumption. There is not a single proven fact that isn't an assumption on some level. You could be holding an apple in your hand and it's based on the assumption that you are not hullucinating to believe %100 you are holding an apple. There are NO certainties in life and all we can do is make our best possible assumptions. This is very true for the assessing the concept of nothingness. In the words of St Augistine: "we should not start at the beginning, nor at the end, but where we are, in the middle. We reach a verdict about the existence of controversial things by assessing how well these entities would harmonize with the existence of better established things. If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward" That is, what we don't have immediate access to now we must assess against that which we do have access to in order to understand it. I would not expect a scientist to enter the middle of the sun to be able to tell me what the sun consist of. We do not have access to nothingness yet scientists continue to debate it's nature so it obviously isn't as redundant an argument as most may think. However, we do have access to the concept of nothingness. Even the word has an effect on our actions. Allow me to demonstrate:Let's take the phrase: "I'm placing nothing on this apple" now, in your imigination what has taken place here? Has the person placed anything on the apple? No, they havn't, in fact they shouldn't even have moved because the reference of nothingness removes that persons intentions of "placing something" from existence. The person may as well have not said anything. By utilizing the word "nothing" they were able to positively remove something; the action of placing. Let's look at the phrase: "I'm placing empty space on this apple" Now, what do you imagine the person doing? Most likely walking forward with an empty hand and placing it on the apple. Notice that the person was able to follow through with their action because the application of empty space is possible. Empty space exists all around us. If you hold out your empty hand and apply that to an object you have applied the empty space that was within your hand to the object. This is the equivalent of applying 0 to 1 or 0 + 1. Nothingness does not have this capability. Empty space allowed you to walk forward and follow through with your action. Nothingness does NOT allow this. If you say you are going to apply nothing to this apple then the reference to "nothing" has canceled out your intentions of applying something. As you can see the concept of nothingness is not neutral. It cancels things out of existence. Empty space is neutral. If nothingness was neutral then i could juggle nothing; But I can't "juggle nothing" because the idea of juggling nothingness cancels out the very action of juggling. If I said "I'm juggling nothing" that would mean I'm just standing there not doing anything. I can juggle empty space which would be the equivalent of miming a juggle. If I said "I'm juggling empty space" then that would mean I'm just standing there miming a juggle; I'm still able to perform the action of juggling when I make reference to empty space. This is what makes empty space neutral. CA3: "I can not fight preconceived notions of the world that you are seeking to hold and justify". What is Con's evidence for the concept of nothingness being neutral? I've just demonstrated how even the word has a subtracting nature. Under what pre-text does Con use to come to the conclusion that nothingness is neutral? She just assumes that it is. As I've demonstrated, we have literally no reasons to believe that nothingness is neutral just because it doesn't exist. In fact, we have reasons to believe the opposite of that; If existence is a positive state (materialization, multiplying) then the opposite must be the opposite state (de-materialization, subtracting). Con herself states in the first round that everything MUST have an opposite, including the universe: "Then you immediately realize that this universe can not be negative for it has nothing to be compared to. It is nothingness that exists as nothing, neutrally. What can it be negative to?"If nothingness is neutral then what is positive and what is negative? We can assume all matter and energy are positive because they are the addition of something but then what is negative? A negative MUST exist in some form; Con said it herself, an opposite must exist or it loses all meaning. I look forward to what Con suggest to be the negative of the universe. As you can see so far I have already answered this question myself in my arguments. Nothingness is negative, empty space is neutral and is curently being occupied by the positive state of matter/time/energy. The burden of proof is shared so Con must breakdown my argument and construct her own argument in defense of Nothingness being neutral. CA4: "Just smoke some Salvia and you'll get it." Thank you Con but I prefer to use the most powerful chemical structure of all to reach enlightenment; My brain. Drugs are for the lazy. Due thought will bring far greater awareness of the truth than any plant. Humans have been given the 3rd tier of consciousness for a reason. I'll leave the intoxicating plant abuse for the wild animals. Sources: http://www.news.com.au...http://www.livescience.com...