Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore the sides need not collapse together, since God could sustain the empty interval as a real, extended nothing.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
An 'extended nothing' is ontologically incoherent—extension requires some property or substance, negating its nothingness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God sustains empty intervals, this demands explanation: why this particular spacing rather than others? (regress problem)
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural physical laws (electromagnetic repulsion) adequately explain gaps without requiring continuous divine intervention.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's omnipotence includes sustaining states of affairs that don't require physical collapse, like maintaining spatial gaps.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An extended nothing is logically coherent—empty space has measurable distance without material content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without God sustaining gaps, continuous material would naturally compress, so gaps require active divine conservation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.