[Dataman]

Uh, no, a vacuum is the absence of 'something'. Specifically it is the abscence of matter, which would allow for it to contain light, but it does not contain light by definition, so a vacuum could very well be 'nothing'.

Oh. Light, energy and matter exist in nothing. Space is nothing. The universe is therefore nothing even as it expands. OK, real good....

Do you think a vacuum requires space? Space is something-- even your naturalistic cosmologists admit that. A vacuum is the absence of something like a steak dinner is the absence of chicken. Things can exist in a vacuum. Things cannot exist in nothing.

I find the great lengths at which you evos will go to deny the obvious nothing short of astounding-- especially when creationists are accused of the same thing.

[donh]

Wait now. What we really need is a in intensity gradient of nothingness. If we call intersteller space nothingness[sub0]--really, quite a poor example of nothingness, what with all those dust particles, cosmic rays, and light beams constantly interrupting it's reverie. Then we can call ideal vacuum nothingness[sub1], what with it still having dimension to exist in, and spontaneous eruptions of particles from nothing. And we had better, than, call true absense of Anything nothingness[sub2].

But wait, what's a void, and what is nil? Is a nil argument in c++ an example of nothingness[sub2]? And with this tool, perhaps we can address a classic question: how many vacuums can you fit in a void?

I'll be applying for a Kirby Nothingness Duplicator patent shortly. If mickey mouse can belong to Disney forever, there's no reason I can't patent a technique for nothingness-stuffing.