I know what caused the Universe

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. ExistenceApply 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 outIf 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 outAs 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 movementsPremise 3: Doing is an actionPremise 4: Nothing is non-existencePremise 5: To do nothing is to subtract ALL your actionsPremise 6: The inclusion of nothingness has subtracted your existenceConclusion: 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 spaceZero: 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.