I know what caused the Universe

A1 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. A2 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. A3 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.