Creationist model

Just lay out your entire premise in one or two paragraphs and we'll then see if we agree with it. You are just using time and space inefficiently right now.

No. Space is not composed of matter - matter is that which has mass and takes up space. Planetary bodies, for instance, are real, exist, and are made of matter, yet are not contained in anything made up of matter.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

would you be able to exist as matter in a vacuum, if the vacuum did not exist in something of real matter?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The vacuum of space doesn't exist in anything. Matter exists in the vacuum.

so you are willing to say that you could exist in "space as matter"would space be real if matter did not exist in it?can you say that space is only space, as long as there is matter to judge what "space" is?let me be more clear: is it possible for you to exist and be "real" within anything that does not eventually lead to matter in the equation?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Yes. There is no matter that contains the space of the Universe, tesla.Are you seriously about to propose that there is some physical "barrier" around the Universe, and it is the Firmament of the OT? And that's what you've been referring to as "existence" all this time?

Please get to the point or come to chat and say what you need to before you use more posts.

Vacuum is the absence of matter, so if matter did not exist, the vacuum would be all prevalent. So yes, if matter did not exist, space would still be real. The two aren't inseparable.

All matter exists in space. That's part of the definition of matter. They teach you this in your first science class: matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. YES! matter is not required for space to exist. Space is space, regardless of whether there is an observer or a marker. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does still produce the vibrations we identify as sound.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

let me be more clear: is it possible for you to exist and be "real" within anything that does not eventually lead to matter in the equation?yes space is space, but if the matter did not exist in space, how could you, being made of matter, be a part of it ?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I am so glad we're not wasting posts in the other thread with this "20 questions" faux-Socratic method nonsense.

---

He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis

Um........Obviously, if matter didn't exist, we wouldn't exist, and we would not be having this discussion right now. So yeah, if space had no matter in it, we would not exist. Really, WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

If nothing could exist, we would not exist.We exist so things can exist.Can we move on?

my point is: you cannot be "real matter" and exist within anything that does not have "real matter" in its equation.can anyone refute this?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

For once, tesla, I fully understand exactly what you're saying - and the answer is yes. it is possible for matter to exist in unbounded empty space, which does not have any matter outside of the object in question "containing" the space, and still exist and be real.Now, write up a proper post. This is not an instant messenger - I'm not replying again unless you actually get to it and propose your model. Include a preamble of your assumptions like these questions if you like, but do it all in one post, and we can proceed without wasting space.