Was there space before the universe came into existence.

Let's begin by defining "space. " According to the Britannica Encylopaedia, "Space [is] a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. " [1] In other words, space is essentially the region between objects, i. e. the distance between two objects in any given direction. Next, let's define "universe. " The universe is defined as all of time and space, and its contents. [2] Moving onto my arguments. 1. The "universe," by definition, includes space. That means, assuming the universe came into existence, there was no space "before" it because space is a *part* of the universe. That's simply true by definition. 2. "Space" is the three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur (an "event" is basically interaction between objects), and have relative position and direction. As such, space assumes the existence of objects. Without any objects, there's no distance "between" objects, so there's no such thing as "space. " The concept essentially becomes meaningless without objects. Since objects are, by definition, part of the universe, there are no objects sans the universe. Thus, "space" is meaningless without the universe. 3. The resolution says that space was there before the universe "came into existence. " The phrasing of the resolution assumes an origin of the universe. But for something to "come into existence," or have an origin, it requires time. By definition, time is a *part* of the universe -- it is a dimension. Thus, there couldn't be anything "before" the universe because the notion of something "before the universe" is inherently incoherent. Stephen Hawking explains that "space and . . . time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off. . . . Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. " [3] What that essentially means is that the notion of a "beginning" of a universe is incoherent. The universe didn't "come into existence" because there are no initial boundaries in the universe. As an extension of this, philosophers and scientists are increasingly beginning to accept a theory of time called eternalism, in which time is merely an extension of space, which implies that there are no "preceding" or "succeeding" events: every set of events, i. e. every point in time, is a reality. This further vindicates Hawking's theory. [4] == Rebuttal == Now let's look to their argument. Pro essentially argues that it's not possible to imagine the lack of space, therefore there was no lack of space. I've got three responses to that. First, the ability to imagine is not a precondition for possibility. Just because we can't "imagine" something doesn't mean it can't possibly exist. The human brain does not have infinite imagination capacity, or the ability to imagine every single possible thing. Second, it relies on a flawed conception of "space" itself. "Space" is not "something that surrounds a point of nothingness. " It's the distance between objects in multiple directions. If there are no objects, that "emptiness" isn't space. That's vacuum. "Space" is a dimension, not a region of emptiness. So, in fact, we *can* imagine -- or at least comprehend -- a lack of space. Because there's no space without the existence of objects. Third, it's not mutually exclusive to negating the resolution. In other words, the resolution doesn't require me to defend that, at some point, there wasn't space. It just requires me to defend that "there wasn't space before the universe came into existence. " If the universe *never* came into existence, then there's no point in time when there wasn't space, so the world under my third argument still exists. Thus, it doesn't fulfill Pro's BOP. To conclude, I've demonstrated that (1) without the universe, the concept of "space" is incoherent, (2) space requires the existence of objects, and sans the universe, there aren't any objects, and (3) the universe never really "came into existence," so Pro's position is incoherent. I've also shown that Pro's single, under-developed argument fails because it's inconsistent with basic physics and philosophy. For those reasons, vote Con. [1] . https://www.britannica.com... [2] . http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu... [3] . http://www.hawking.org.uk... [4] Theo Kuipers, "General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues," p. 326