Let us first examine nothing. If there is nothing, it must exist forever because a boundary would be something other than nothing.
Rubbish. First off you haven't even defined 'nothing'. As such there is nothing to preclude a state whereby nothing at some point becomes something, as the nature of nothingness might allow that. In fact, the coolest, trendiest theories in cosmology, the ones with dark sunglasses and impossibly thin girlfriends, explictly point to nothing (as per your man in front of TV's definition of nothing) becoming something because it was bound to.
If two things cannot exist at the same time in the same place, than nothing cannot exist with or create something.
If. Define thing. Define place. I can exist in the same room ('place') as someone else, which immediately ruins that bit of congecture. Even if we tighten the definition, or actually give definitions to the terms you are using, such as 'two solid objects comprised of matter cannot occupy identical Euclidian time-space co-ordinates at the same time', it doesn't allow you to make the second part (in red) of that statement with any assurance, as you've not proven it.
If an affect cannot be greater than its cause, than nothing cannot cause something. Nothing an infinite amount of times is still nothing.
If. Define greater. Do you allow retrospection in this? Like, if Phillip of Macedonia had been in a bad mood the day his wife had the egg that would result in Alexander the Great, and had gone for a ride on his horse instead of on his wife, and she menstrated directly afterwards, then the effect WOULD be greater than the cause. In some frameworks of analysis, the cause and effect are the same, as they are bound by physical laws to be so; E=Mc sqaured.
(Can we have a superscript button please Simon?)
Now let us examine something. If it is possible for nothing to exist forever, than it also must be possible for something to exist forever. If two things cannot exist at the same time in the same place, than something cannot exist with nothing. If a cause must be greater than or equal to its affect, than something cannot cause nothing. Something an infinite amount of times is still something.
"If it is possible for nothing to exist forever, than it also must be possible for something to exist forever." No. For a start, you've not proved the former statement. The second statement is not automatically true even if the first is; nothing, it can be argued, doesn't suffer from entropy, so might indeed be able to hang around indefinately. Something on the otherhand is arguably subject to entropy, so can't. The rest of the paragraph is similarly imprecise, so I'll pass over them and go to your point...
Something exists, therefore I humbly assert that “nothing” as the term is commonly known, does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. The question is, what is something? Something can only be confined to what “It is”.
You can assert that, but you've most certainly NOT proved it. You've just said it. Different. I can say Bush likes having his nose tickled by horses. Doesn't make it true. Define somethings when you make an arguement, as otherwise you're all-too-likely to get lost in a semantic fog - and don't start an arguement with the goal already in mind, as you've obvious done, as it means it's too easy to overlook flaws.
Since “It is” cannot also be “It is not”, than in human terms, “It is” cannot lie. “It is” cannot be both life and death, both good and evil, both light and dark or both intelligent and stupid. Since an affect cannot be greater than its cause, “It is” must be life, good, light, and intelligent. “It is” time, therefore when we move through time, we are moving through “It”. “It is” whatever it says it is. Anyone who says something contrary to what “It is” is not telling the truth. Anyone who disagrees with “It” is wrong.
Sorry Chap, this is psychobabble.You are still wading around in imprecisly framed assumptions, without even the most basic of terms given anything other than the meaning you have in your head. You have asserted several things, and proven none of them.
Your point is? That there is a god. Have you proved it? No.
I suggest either to investigate presuppositionalism (there is a god cause there is a god cause there is a god - not exactly a rivetting arguement, and one that isn't even WORTH arguing with), or accept that you, as a believer in god, have to use faith, as there is no proof of god, and faith is all you have.
