Wednesday, September 19, 2018

A Refutation Of Naturalism (Part 2)

Apart from the laws of logic, which cannot not exist even in the absence of everything else, and consciousness, there is another thing which is both immaterial and provable.  This thing is space, the dimension that holds or can hold matter.  Space surrounds all objects and beings, extending outward from them in all directions.  It is a prerequisite for the existence of any matter at all.  Without it, there could be nowhere for the matter to be!  The mere existence of space disproves even the possibility of metaphysical naturalism being true in the same way that the existence of reason and consciousness disprove it.

If the entire material world was to cease to exist--with every subatomic particle, molecule, and object vanishing entirely--space would remain unaffected.  This is because there is no such thing as the absence of a dimensional area that could hold matter, even if reality was completely devoid of physical substance.  Thus, space, like the laws of logic, cannot not exist, being uncreated and necessary in itself.  There is no height, depth, direction, or place where one can escape the omnipresent existence of space.

The very space that holds matter cannot be comprised itself.  Space precedes matter, for matter cannot have always existed (there cannot be an endless past series of events in the material world, or else the present moment would never have arrived, and the present moment cannot be an illusion).  Yet it is impossible for space itself to not exist.  Matter has a beginning and can have an end; space has no beginning or ending, existing by necessity.  Without matter, there is still the dimension that could hold matter.

Since matter cannot exist without space, but space exists without matter, the two cannot be identical.  This serves as a direct alternative refutation of metaphysical naturalism/physicalism, which holds that nothing exists that is not made of matter.  It is extraordinarily uncommon for a metaphysical truth this precise to be acknowledged or articulated, but this fact remains accessible to all people who take the time to reason it out.

Even if one ignores the immateriality of logic and consciousness, there can be no escape from the reality that the space occupied by matter is immaterial and thus falsifies naturalism.  The universe can expand outward, but space already stretches on, infinite, boundless, and immutable.  There is nowhere the cosmos could reach where there is not already space waiting for it.

4 comments:

  1. Giving in to my insomnia to think about space stuff haha.

    It seems to be commonly believed that when God started the creation sequence, space was among those things He created as He himself is "spaceless". My question is if we were to entertain the thought that God DID in fact create space, are there any consequences that follow from that? Is it similarly problematic as saying God created the laws of logic?

    (Looking back at it just now, the Bible never says that God created space! Genesis 1 says God created the heavens and the earth first, assuming space already existed for Him to put them there)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen many people describe creation as involving the beginning of space, but, as you said, the Bible only says that he created matter (along with time and other consciousnesses, of course)! If God did create space, there are no disastrous metaphysical or epistemological ramifications like there would be if God created logic. It's just that it's logically impossible for space to not exist, so it has to be uncreated. I love it when the nuances of reason and the Bible overlap perfectly!

      Delete
    2. Ah, I see. When I was a younger Christian it did kind of confuse me to think about that if God created space, what was it like before in a spaceless universe? I humorously imagined that God was just uncomfortably crammed up in one spot, before he decided to create space for elbow room.

      I think part of my mistake was that since I knew that the universe is expanding, space therefore is expanding too, as if there was a "wall" you eventually run into if you go far enough. I was conflating the expanding material universe with space. I didn't rule out infinite space then (though now I know it's correct), because it seemed the only two choices was either there's a limit to space or it goes on forever.

      Delete
    3. When I first learned about the scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe (before I was a thorough rationalist!), I thought something similar too. I assumed that space itself is expanding outward--though the obvious question that this brings up is "What is space expanding into?" Something can only expand out into space; space can't expand into itself, as if it both exists and doesn't exist in a certain place!

      Delete