>>14138916>Your claim was "it" is defined in a dictionary. You lied.You are just being pedantic, not accepting that if every part of the whole is defined, then the whole is effectively defined, doesn't matter, the base claim, that it is defined off the numberline, in an encyclopedia, is still in tact.
>I said what is in between. That is subtraction, finding a value between two others, It is even visualized as in between when you subtract geometric polynomials.
>I say no and you respond with yes you agree I said yes? I said it isn't on atheist/theist spectrum, but you can add a dimension and have gnostic/agnotics on another axis of a new inclusive spectrum, but then theism is belief, atheism is disbelief, gnostic is determination, agnositc is indeterminate.
>prescribe meds if nothing exists everywhere?Because there are also other things on top of nothing, you can't even put something somewhere unless there is already only nothing there, pigeonhole principle.
>If he exists then at his location something existsYou can only put something inside of nothing, if there is already something else there, you can't necessarily fit something there unless they perfectly intersect due to perfect relative ratio of nothing/something, the fact that something is there proves that nothing is also there.
>No it results in 0. It does not result in nothing. 0 is the numerical equivalent of nothing.
>right now quoted me saying "nothing" is not a distance but has a location>A DISTANCE is not a LOCATION. You said the opposite, yes distance, no location, but it does have a location, 0, at the absolute origin point and you are the one who proved the distance from 1 to .9... is 0, absolutely nothing is in between 1 and .9....
>proves that "nothing" != 0Nope, you still proved that it is both a distance and didn't disproven the clear fact it is located at the origin point, you are the one who asserted the fact it had a location because you didn't like that it was characterized as 0.
