The Existence of Space

Thank you Con for your responses.Premise 1:You stated in your refutation “existence of one thing can only be if there is something in existence outside of the thing that supposedly exists.” You still have given no evidence for this claim. Being that this claim is the core of your argument I was hoping to hear some evidence for this other than you just stating it. The problem is that no matter how much finite mass / existence you have, it is still finite. Since it is finite there will always be a surrounding infinite amount of space. Therefore no matter how big or small existence is, whether it is just this universe or a massive multiverse, it doesn’t exist according to your argument. The only way for anything to exist then would be if mass was infinite in quantity; i.e. there was no limit to the amount of mass in reality. Infinity doesn’t exist in reality but only exists in mathematics. But you are not arguing an infinite existence so where does this leave us? It leaves us with an unsupported first premise. It is just a statement with no evidential back up. You state that in my first argued problem of premise one that I argued for an infinite universe. I’m not sure where you getting that because if you look back at my first posed problem of premise one it says nothing of the sort. Moving on…Your rebuttal of my posed second problem of premise one is as follows: “I am proving that if something did exist, then it could not exist.” This is my problem here Con. You have not proved anything. In stead all you have done in support of premise one, and the entire argument itself, is restate it in several different ways. There is no logical or evidential support for any of it. On contrary I have given logical and evidential support of why it is false. Premise one still holds no water. It is purely just a statement of Con’s own philosophical thoughts but has no place in the realm of logical argumentation.Premise 2:Here I am saying that in relation to existence there is no longer nothingness. There is a potential infinite of space for existence (the universe) to expand into. Existence is not “in” nothing. Nothing is nothing and has no relation to existence other than it is the absence of it. You have not given a rebuttal to this either. You either misunderstood my argument or have changed it to sound contradictory. I am saying that space (existence) is not in nothing, but is in a potential infinite amount of space (distance). You also say, “By saying there is nothing I say that something cannot be if it is indeed in a state of nothingness”. Again you have given no support as to why existence is in a state of nothingness. These are all just statements with no back up.Premise two still holds no water. No evidential or logical support has been given for it. Even if the two premises did logically conclude the stated conclusion they have been entirely refuted. Conclusion:Con’s concluding arguments are as follows in bold with my arguments below each: I have proved that premises one and two are true, therefore making the conclusion true. Con has not proved anything in this entire debate. Only statements have been made with no evidence. If your statements were true they would provide evidence for the conclusion but no evidence was given for the premises themselves. On the other hand I have given good reason logically why they are absolutely false. In my definition, when I said that space is all reality, I meant that space is all that is reality for the common person; i.e. everything physical.First this isn’t a concluding argument. Secondly this isn’t the definition you gave for space. You gave dictionary.com’s definition being, “the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur. In this is distance, time, and anything else which has physical properties.” You said, “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”. Who is saying it does?a. I am saying it does. I also gave evidence for this in showing how if there is any form of thought then something must exist. If something exists then your conclusion is false. Since I am here experiencing life as I experience it, then something surely exists. If nothing was all there was there would be no thought, or more tangibly no experiential reality. “If the conclusion is that space does not exist, then that would also conclude that there is only nothingness.” The problem with this statement is you are using nothingness as if it were something. Nothingness is not something; it is the absence of everything. It seems like you cannot quite grasp that notion yet.a. Where are you deriving this from? This entire debate I have been explaining nothingness as just that…nothing. No properties, no reality, no existence, just nothing. I have never once mistaken nothing as being a form of something. In fact I believe that you have a misunderstanding of “nothingness” in that you think that existence is “in” nothing. I have shown how this is false in that there is a potential infinite of space. Nothingness is not a reality when there is existence. You are trying to argue that the two are in an intimate relationship as you argue that the universe is in nothing. You are confusing space (distance definition) with nothingness. I have in the previous rounds shown how this is false. You have given no rebuttal to it. “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.” I agree that if one thing existed, there would be existence. However, what proof do you have that you exist? There is none, as I will show when refuting your argument below. Your last concluding argument then goes into attacking my logic of showing how at least one thing must exist in that there is some form of reality. a. You agree with premise one…great joy!b. I used a famous argument for a jump start. As you can see I adapted it to prove that there at least must be, even if just a singularity, existence. My argument doesn’t have to prove the “I” in the premise. It does prove though that there is something with conscious thought that is either I, or something else capable of consciously projecting itself as me. Since my reality exists, either in the form of myself experiencing it, or some entity that is experiencing it through the likeness of my mind then it, even if it is the sole of existence, does in fact exist. So premise 2 holds.c. Since premise one is true, and premise two is true, the conclusion logically follows and is true. Simply arguing against my second premise as if it were the premise used by Rene Descartes and not my adapted form does not negate it. You have to argue against my premise in the context that I proposed it in. Closing Thoughts I have shown how Con’s argument falls apart when it is examined. Con has not provided any support for her premises, and only has asserted them to make the conclusion true. I have given evidence to show how they are false and therefore have won this debate. I have given a logical argument in support of existence in contrast to Con’s argument. Con really didn’t negate the premises or the conclusion and thus my argument holds. Let me restate my argument in the form of a series of questions:a. I, and all of reality doesn’t exist?b. Does that mean there is nothing?c. Then how do I see this computer?d. Even if I don’t exist, isn’t something existing to make up this make-believe reality, and hence this computer?e. Wouldn’t nothingness have no computer whether real or imagined?You can logically conclude here that the idea that nothing exists is false. Something does exist, even if it’s not the reality as we see it to be, something does in fact exist. Thank you quantummechanics97 for this debate, and I am glad to have been able to take part in one of your first debates on this site.