It's worth distinguishing between relationalism and substantivalism about space. Relationalism construes space as relations (e.g. to the left of and distance relations); substantivalism construes it as a substance that can exist independently of the entities located in it.

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?

I don't think so. Lowe could say that if he were a relationalist about space. Then the relations constituting space would depend on their relata*. He, however, explicitly denies the existence of all relations (see here). He thinks space is a simple, extended substance. So, he seems to allow that even if nothing existed in space, space could exist.

*If, for example, Bill is two feet from Hillary, the two feet from relation-instance depends on Bill and Hillary to exist.

Last edited by John West (11/16/2016 12:10 pm)

AKG wrote:

This discussion on the necessity of space-time may also wild some interest: http://christian-agnostic.blogspot.ca/2015/11/are-space-and-time-necessary.html

I only skimmed the article. It's, however, probably worth noting that the questions of dependency and contingency are distinct (see comments five, six, seven, eight, and nine, here).

Hey John, do you agree with Feser or Bill on this case? Matter of fact, what do you think about his articles on the existence of God in general? i've sort of found Bill's commentary on cosmological arguments quite interesting in regards to how he thinks that we ultimately can't prove or disprove the existence of God, which many here will obviously disagree with (probably myself included). It probably makes sense why he considers himself an ultimist and possibly even a panentheist in light of the recent articles he has posted regarding that topic.