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]. A2 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. A3) 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. CONCLUSION 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. [1] http://whystringtheory.com... [2] http://discovermagazine.com...