The Existence of Space

Alright, thanks Con for your rebuttal. In the future as you have seen with this debate it is necessary to define what it is you are actually arguing for or against. I find it interesting that you have declined to debate about the definition I used and instead have used a definition more in line with the first one I gave. That is the definition with the idea that space is the all encompassing word to define all of known existence. The reason I find this odd is that this conclusion would imply that you, I, and all of existence is actually non-existence. That everything is in fact nothing and that nothingness is all there is. This does clear up why this debate is in the philosophy category instead of science, but is completely not where I saw it headed. Revisiting Con’s Argument With the New DefinitionPremise 1: “Everything that is, is in something.”- This first premise is a loaded one with so much to be desired. You fail to give any real back up to this premise except for saying that the universe is in, or surrounded by nothingness. Are there some hidden premises here? Are you saying that for something to be, it has to be in something else? What are the parameters here? Are there distances, necessary contacts, or relations that deem if something is “in” something else? There is absolutely no evidence for this first premise. - Two major problems with premise one: Matter exists non-contingently of other matter. Take for example if there was some planet on the very outer limit of the universe, and I was standing on it and threw a baseball out into the nothingness. Would my baseball cease to exist? Or would it just venture out into the blackness? If what you’re saying is true then the baseball would cease to exist. But then why doesn’t all the outer rim of the universe simply stop existing? The answer is because premise one is false. The conclusion of the argument negates the first premise. If the conclusion is that space does not exist, then nothing exists in the first place. Therefore “everything” that is used in the first premise is actually nothing and falsifies the premise. Premise 2: “Space is in nothing” The assumption here (and I agree with) is that the universe is the sole existence of reality. This negates any assumption of a multiverse or many-world theory. I’m fine with this assumption as I believe the universe spontaneously began to exist out of nothing. The problem I have with this premise though is with the word “in.” I don’t think that it is correct to say the universe is in nothing. A more correct statement would be that the universe exists in comparison to its opposite being nothingness. You cannot quantify nothingness, and therefore can’t say that the nothing is bigger than something (the universe) in order for the universe to be in that said nothingness. If you try to set parameters by creating distances then you have in turn made nothingness into space by quantifying a distance. One could argue that in the presence of existence (the universe) there is no more nothingness. In stead there is an infinite (limitless) amount of space for existence to expand into. Nothingness ceases to be nothing, but becomes a potential existence. Either way…premise 2 is refuted. Conclusion: “Therefore space does not exist” Again since premise one and two are false the conclusion is false. However let’s examine the conclusion as a single statement and see if it makes any sense. Using Con’s definition of space being all of reality we can see that the conclusion falls apart on its own. If space does not exist then I do not exist, Con does not exist, the voter/reader does not exist, and this debate does not exist. If the conclusion is that space does not exist, then that would also conclude that there is only nothingness. The problem is that nothingness has no properties, no consciousness, no thought, no “debates”, and it is simply just nothing. You would have a better chance of arguing that nothing exists outside of my mind, but to argue that space does not exist at all is absurd. Even if I existed as a sole singularity (in order to have thought or consciousness) then there is still some form of existence negating the conclusion. Con’s only support for this conclusion is the idea that we cannot trust our senses. Again even if our senses are lying to us, the fact that there is even a lie shows some form of thought or existing reality. Even a false sense is still a sense. It may not show the true reality, but does positively prove its own existence. This conclusion falls apart when used to conclude the argument, or as a stand alone statement. My ArgumentLet me give you an argument that counters your argument.Premise 1: If I or any entity exists, then there is existence.Premise 2: I think, therefore I exist; or an entity that is able to project their consciousness as mine exists.Conclusion: Since there is an existence; space exists.For now I will turn this debate back to you Con….Good luck!!