Empty Space Within Atoms

Supposedly, the miniscule particles of matter called atoms contain more empty space than actual matter--to the extent that atoms are said to be more than 99% empty space.  When touching a physical object, this does not at all seem to be the case.  One feels solid matter that does not even hint at its alleged emptiness.  All of the evidence for this even reduces down to mere hearsay based upon prior assumptions, so it is not as if the interior empty space of atoms can truly be proven or disproven.  People enamored with contemporary claims about atomic science simply get swept away with things like the empty space conception of atoms due to arbitrary persuasion.

If this is true, though, it would provide an alternative way to approach the distinction between space and matter.  Anyone could realize the conceptual difference--and therefore metaphysical difference--between the space in which matter resides and physical substance itself.  Then there is the fact that there would be absolutely no reason to use the two terms at all on a linguistic level if the two were the same.  That people do not use the words space and matter interchangeably reveals that they are not referring to identical concepts even if they would deny it in order to manipulate how their metaphysical ideologies are perceived--for instance, a strict naturalist who never thought of the ramifications of space itself might spontaneously struggle to conflate the two.

No, space is not and cannot be matter, and the former term does not refer to outer "space."  The concept of outer space is the idea of the very low-gravity vacuum between the atmospheres of celestial bodies like planets.  The kind of space that contains matter transcends the gaps between planets and stars.  According to some dimwitted metaphysicians, though, space is matter, and yet they still distinguish between the concepts and words at other times!  The only way for them to be consistent is to ignore the conceptual differences and abolish use of the two words except as synonyms, which would still contradict other modern scientific ideas like the positing of empty space between the matter of atoms.

Empty space is something or else it could not be conceptually identified and thought of in the first place.  Now, one would not have to know if it exists or would exist in the absence of matter to simply identify the concept.  This is the first step.  However, it follows from the conceptual nature of space as a dimension that holds matter or that could hold matter (in its absence) that space is something that both precedes the physical cosmos and would exist if the universe in its entirety disappeared.  If it is the nonphysical, boundary-less region in which matter created by God or some natural process is placed, it clearly does not depend on matter for its existence.

The notion of empty space within atoms only even works if space is made distinct from matter.  Otherwise, it is just a gratuitous way of saying that matter resides within matter, which does nothing to address spatial dimensions directly and would not do anything more than present a repetitive statement that ultimately communicates nothing clear.  Why care to even use or explain the phrase if space is not separate from matter?  Of course, the two are conceptually, metaphysically distinct no matter how much some people contradict themselves to say the opposite, but the laws of logic and the physical world are not dictated by misperception.