What do you mean by the reason for saying things are extended in space, and enduring though time are contingent applies to space and time as well? Like how would space and time have potentialities in need of actualization or depend on things outside of them to exist?

In an effort to argue against the CA atheists sometimes claim space or time is necessary. Does anyone know any good ways to show that neither is necessary, and that both are ultimately contingent, require potencies in need of actualization, are composite, etc?

EJ Lowe in his paper on the ontological argument argues that all material things are dependent by using the example of an electron which is postulated to be the most fundamental level of physics so far, and says it is dependent on space permeating fields. Lowe is saying here I think, that if the most fundamental material thing is contingent, then all material things are contingent correct? And if so does he articulate a general principle to argue for the dependency of material things in general?

Lowe also states time is dependent on concrete individuals existing through time. With regards to space under his view could space also be said to be dependent on concrete individual things existing in space? If not then how would under Lowe's position space be taken to be dependent as in his paper in on the ontological argument he argues an immaterial thing is what can be said to be truly independent  which for me looks like he also does not take space to be independent as immaterial things are not tied to space.

Pardon my language but %!%@%@$@% THIS!

In this case, would this necessary being merely create contingent beings and leave them be afterwards or would it continually sustain them in existence?