Strange

I think there are two different things there. "Space", when compared to space-time, can mean just the 3 spatial dimensions. And that is the "separation between objects". But if you start talking about the volume of space between objects, then that is full of all sorts of things: gas, dust, neutrinos, fields, photons, virtual particles, dark matter, dark energy, ... But I think of them as what is in space, rather then being space. So there is no such thing as "empty space" (although you can often treat it as that, for practical purposes).

Science is the process of (1) creating a testable hypothesis and (2) testing the hypothesis through observation or experiment. You do not appear to have done either of these, so you are not doing science. You might be doing philosophy, but you need to explain your ideas better. But you seem strangely unwilling to do that. So, again: please explain precisely what you mean by "reason" and "difference" (as you seem to be using these words in a way that does not make sense in English).

Space (to my mind) is just three of the dimensions in space-time.

If we are being that picky, then the wax may dissolve as well (if chosen appropriately). However, you have ignored the fact that the melting point of heavy ice is above the freezing point of (normal) water and so, as far as I can see, it is quite possible for heavy ice to remain indefinitely in liquid water.

Then there is no data.

So, ice can exist in water that is warmer than zero. Your statements seemed to imply that asking about whether it would float or sink were meaningless. You are comparing two different things: something in water above its melting point and something in water below its melting point. Surely, what you mean is: If I put some wax (which melts at 50C) in some water at 46.19 C what will happen? If I put some heavy ice (which melts at 3.81C) in some water at at 0C what will happen? In both cases, it will float.

After reading the previous posts, do you still think of this idea as a "solution"? If so, I think you need to work through the calculations again.

If so, perhaps you can present the question in a way that doesn't rely on the ambiguity of language. For example, every time you state a number say what item is being counted. I place a bag upon a table, ask "how many bags"? answer 1 bag. Another bag. Answer 2 bags. I open one bag, inside are two peanuts. How many peanuts? 2 peanuts. Open second bag, contents 1 peanut. How many peanuts? Some say 1 peanut in that bag, some say 3 peanuts in total. There seems to be no great mystery there. You have shown that 2+1=3. Wow. Or maybe the last question was "How many bags?" Or did you mean "How many things?" If you ask poorly phrased ambiguous questions you will get meaningless answers. GIGO. Textbook says no to what? Human perception says yes to what? Trash?

Could we ever know?

I am convinced. Many Christians do seem to draw clear distinctions between their own faith, Christianity, religion and/or The Church. (We have recently had the "Pope is not Christian" claim in another thread.)

What if there is no such thing? Can you define exactly what you mean by "reason" and "difference" in this context? Without such a definition, this statement has no meaning. So someone who is starving to death in a country struck by famine has great power because of their need for food? That doesn't seem to make sense. What data is this? Please cite your sources. I'm afraid I can't parse the grammar of that statement. "not duplicating reason"? "making it no error"?

What is there in Dawkins' work which could possibly have any connection to such a stupid question?

Although, linguistically, they are Austronesian they are largely African by ancestry/genetics (with a small South East Asian component).

No I don't. So now you are lying about what others say, as well as what you say. Vague unsupported opinions can't really contradict a theory. So you keep saying. You seem unable to define what this "different perspective" is, or why it is useful. What is the difference between eternal and infinite? One means "without end" and the other means, er... "without end".

The first recorded to do so, yes. It is, presumably, said repeatedly by members of the Abrahamic religions. Perhaps other monotheistic religions would disagree.

Icebergs are a danger to shipping in water above 0C. How about 3 C.

What a sloppy piece of writing. Does anyone "decide" to believe in god or not? Surely, the whole point about belief is that is not something you can choose. There is no contradiction there. You don't have to believe in a god to believe in a soul. (And some people believe in neither. But even if everyone has some level of irrational belief that, again, has nothing to do with atheism.) Not everyone does. But, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. And so on and so on. (His comments about Einstein and, even more so, Darwin are bizarrely irrelevant.) I give it a D-. An interesting idea, really badly presented. Maybe the author doesn't know what the word "atheism" means.

That is only because you are using the mathematical definition of sphere, while geordief is using the "lay" definition. So when he says one hole, he means two!

Flow of momentum is pressure, one of the components of the stress-energy tensor. (At the risk of sending Capiert off on another tangent!)

What is "the source"? Can you explain what you mean by "reason" and "difference"? And how they can possibly be the same thing. One is a method of thought, employing logic. The other is a statement of the inequality of two things. Because saying they are the same sounds similar to saying that elephants and the colour blue are the same. I think this is known in philosophy, as a category error. I think a part of the problem is that English is not your native language. That sentence makes no sense, I'm afraid.

Sorry. Forgot to include the source of my data. This should answer: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html So would normal water ice. That doesn't stop icebergs being a hazard to shipping!

Another twist on the idea is Arthur C Clarke's All the Time in the World, where a woman gives a thief a device which makes time stand still so he can steal works of art. When she has got all the things she wants, she asks for the device back. They argue and eventually she lets him keep it, with some warnings. It turns out she is a time-travelling alien who wanted to rescue the art before the Earth is destroyed by a huge nuclear explosion. The explosion has already started so the only way the thief can survive is to keep time frozen and wander around alone. The moment he returns to "normal time" to talk to someone, he will be destroyed.

Not necessarily. There are a number of cautionary tales about people who wish for eternal life, but forget the eternal youth bit. ("Be careful what you wish for.") You have to be alive to be immortal.

First world problems?

This is a good, non-mathematical, article explaining why the "expanding space" analogy is not very meaningful and why space doesn't need to be "made of something": http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08634