Was there space before the universe came into existence.

OverviewVote Con because Pro fundamentally misunderstands basic concepts in physics such as the meaning of "space," and the distinction between a "vacuum" and "space," and because they've failed to respond to any of my arguments adequately.(1) Extend my definitions of "space" and "universe."Pro brings up a bunch of definitions of "space" from the Free Dictionary. They say "none of the definitions" relies on the existence of objects to define space. A few problems with that. One, definitions #2 and #3 both define space as a region with objects - definition #2 says it's the region where "all matter exists," and definition #3 says it's where "the Solar System, stars, and galaxies exist." All of these are objects -- without their existence, under these definitions, space can't exist. Two, the debate is about physics -- use the definition of "space" used by physicists. Take a look at any textbook of special relativity -- space has always been defined as the distance between A and B in multiple possible directions. [1] Without objects, space is incoherent. Vote Con right there: without the universe's contents, space becomes incoherent. Pro also *drops* my response that what Pro is talking about when they say "we can't imagine nothingness" isn't space -- it's vacuum. Space is a dimension. Vacuum is not. Vote them down because of that as well -- they've fundamentally misunderstood the concept of "space," so the resolution itself is incoherent. Next, let's look to the clash on what the "universe" is. By *definition,* the universe encompasses all space. Even Pro's own definition of "universe" has "space" in it. If there was anything before the universe, then space wasn't part of it. Pro completely *drops* this point of clash as well. Extend the definition of "universe" which is more than sufficient to independently negate the resolution. (2) Extend that "imagination" is insufficient to justify science.Pro's only response to this is that a scientific theory is essentially the same as imagination. That's nonsense. A scientific theory could be *demonstrated* fact as well. Indeed, a scientific theory is a "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." [2] Inability to "imagine" is insufficient reason to reject something because things can have *proof* that we can't imagine. Furthermore, Pro drops that we can "comprehend" stuff that we can't "imagine." Pro then says that the origin of the universe is "supernatural." Reject this claim since there's no justification. Science requires substantiation. That's it. You can substantiate stuff that you can't imagine. Therefore, inability to imagine is insufficient reason to reject the truth of something. Vote Con right there, because Pro's justifications are weak. (3) Extend that the universe never "came into existence."Pro drops my argument that the universe never even "came into existence" because something "before" the existence of time itself is incoherent. Time is a presupposition of something being "preceding" or "succeeding." Pro loses at the point at which they drop this, because Pro's position is completely meaningless if this argument holds. Since I've presented *evidence* for this notion to be true, vote Con because Pro has literally no means of affirming by assuming so much in the resolution. For all the above reasons, Vote Con. [5] Sklar, "The Philosophy of Physics," p. 43[6] https://www.nap.edu...