God exists; but how?

[yppop]

I present for discussion a thesis based on the premise: God exists. Given that premise, the question then becomes: How does God exist? The thesis will propose an answer. The answer describes how reality can have a dual nature — material and spiritual. The thesis is based on the idea that the space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete.

Discrete space, which has gaps between points, is permeated by the infinite nothingness that came before and exists beyond our finite universe. It is the infinite nothingness that provides a spiritual component to reality.

Discrete space provides the material component. The basic particle of matter is spatial, nothing more than a deformation in the otherwise homogeneous structure of discrete space. Since the basic particles are immersed in infinite nothingness, all matter has a spiritual component.

A reality grounded on discrete space allows us to describe reality as a unified whole. Also at the ground of reality, in addition to discrete space, I contend that the impetus that induces motion is information not energy, and reality will be described algorithmically not mathematically. This is the basic foundation of my thesis, which goes on to describe time, energy, life, mind, and soul in a coherently comprehensive way.

I know the ideas I plan to present are beyond the sphere in which science operates, many may consider me to be a member of the flat earth society, so I present a number of quotations by persons of greater stature than me to show that I am not alone in entertaining such ideas.

*1. If physical space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; many of its properties would remain the same even if it were discontinuous. And if we knew for certain that physical space was discontinuous there would be nothing to prevent us, in case we were so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous; this filling up would consist in a creation of new point-individuals and would have to be effected in accordance with the above principle. (of continuity) (Richard Dedekind - World of Mathematics, pg 530)

1. Nevertheless, there are some intriguing hints that this particular universe may in fact be a discrete digital universe, not a continuous analog universe the way most people would expect.
   In fact these ideas actually go back to Democritus, who argues that matter must be discrete, and to Zeno, who even had the audacity to suggest that continuous space and time were self-contradictory impossibilities.
   Through the years I’ve noticed many times, as an armchair physicist, places where physical calculations diverge to infinity at extremely small distances. Physicists are adept at not asking the wrong question, one that gives an infinite answer. But, I’m a mathematician, and each time I ’ wonder if Nature wasn’t really trying to tell us something, that the real numbers and continuity are a sham, and that infinitesimal small distances do not exist! – (Gregor Chaitin - Meta Math, The Quest For Omega – pg. 91)
2. Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)
3. We are a part of Nature as a whole whose order we follow. (Spinoza - Ethics, 1673)
4. …man’s general way of thinking of the totality, i.e. his general world view, is crucial for overall order of the human mind itself. If he thinks of the totality as constituted as independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken and without border (for every border is a division or break) then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. (David Bohm - Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
5. “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just appearances.” (Erwin Schroedinger - Life and Thought,1989)
6. “ But if the ultimate model for the universe is to be as simple as possible, then it seems much more plausible that both space and its contents should somehow be made of the same stuff—so that in a sense space becomes the only thing in the universe.” ( Stephen Wolfram - A new Kind of Science, pg. 474)

8.“The world of explicate structures and sequential processes in time, which has been studied by science over the last centuries, now turns out to be a manifestation of a deeper, enfolded order that constantly sustains them.” (David Peat - Synchronicity, pg. 185)*
Yppop

 

[St_Gregory]

I’m not entirely sure where your argument is for God’s uncaused existence.

 

[Eucharisted]

How God exists: Because He is existence itself, since He is goodness itself.

It is divine revelation that tells us God is goodness itself, but we can, through reason and study of science and philosophy, find out that God is goodness. How so? Like this:

• Via science, one learns that an infinite, inconceivable thing created the Universe
• Via philosophy, one figues out that this thing is a being, and, being supernatual, it is a god
• Via philosophy, one figures out that there is only one god in existence
• Via reason, one learns that this one god is the cause of all goodness, and so, it must be goodness itself
• Via reason, one learns that, because there is only one god and it is goodness itself, than it cannot be the god of any polytheist religions
• Via philosophy, one studies monotheists religions, looking for the religon with the correct understanding and knowledge of the one god
• Via philosophy, one finds that Christianity has the correct understanding and knowledge of the one god
• Via science, one confirms the beliefs of Christianity, which adds weight to it being the supreme religon, and hence, having the fullness of knowledge of God

 

[TheWhim]

Discrete space, which has gaps between points, is permeated by the infinite nothingness that came before and exists beyond our finite universe. It is the infinite nothingness that provides a spiritual component to reality.

So far as I can make out from what you’ve written, this opinion on the discreteness of space is a mere guess that cannot be verified in any way outreaching lucky guessing(which is not very substantial). - As a sidenote: if space really were discrete, it should be possible to make out where the gaps are to be found. If it’s impossible to find them - what a priori it seems to be since your thesis relies on man’s faculties, and therefore his experimental faculties being irredeemably deceived by the illusion of continuous space - then it’s no use of claiming their existence at all.

But, of course, I may have misunderstood your deliberations, in which case I aplogise for my premature dismissal of your contention.

 

[yppop]

I’m not entirely sure where your argument is for God’s uncaused existence.

St Gregory,

Thank you for your interest.

Since we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, philosophically we are free to assume either premise. My thesis begins with the positive premise: God exists! My argument addresses the question: How does God exist?

God exists! By God I mean the triune God of Christianity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons in one essence that is: eternal, infinite, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

By existence I mean: in addition to objective reality, the realm of matter and sensations, that is manifested as our body, to which science restricts its knowledge, I also recognize: subjective, rational, and transcendental reality. Subjective reality is how each of us views the world and is in rapport with others holding the same view, and is manifested as the heart. Rational reality is the shared knowledge of humanity, which is still evolving toward the truth, which is manifested as the mind. Transcendental reality is the appeal of the spirit to the mind in the form of Beauty, Justice, and Truth, and is manifested as the soul. This I will explain later.

In the meantime let me build a foundation at the ground of reality. The uncaused existence to which you refer, the thing that came before and exists beyond our universe, is the thing I refer to as the infinite nothingness or as you might say, the uncaused existence. It is the spiritual essence of the Trinity.

From the premise that God exists, one can reasonable assume that God was involved in creation, and the creation that we as Catholics advocate is creatio et nihilo, creation from nothing. Conveniently, modern science has provided us with the big bang theory. In the BB theory, at the beginning, the universe consisted of an unknown substance crammed into an infinitesimal volume (the singularity) from which space, time, matter, and energy emerged. But there is no need to create an unknown substance. The simplest view is to suppose the singularity to be enormous number of discrete points of space, which I refer to as s-points. As the gaps between points expanded so did the universe until it is now the size we assume it to be at the present time. It continues to expand.

To understand where I am taking this, one needs to imagine the universe a spherical lattice of closely positioned points immersed in infinite nothingness. (Think of the stars in the black background). I call this lattice the cosmic s-frame. Think of such an entity is a unified whole in which every s-point is in relationship to every other s-point in a fixed configuration. As long as the s-points remain in the initial configuration, time and energy do not exist. But given an impetus, the s-points assume a new configuration, time and energy appear. Matter comes later.
The universe begins and increments from the present configuration to the next configuration much like the frames in the movie film. This incremental reconfiguration of s-points at the ground of reality — the implicate view — is manifested as a continuous flow time and energy in the scientific or explicate view.

I apologize to anyone who may find this too tedious or silly to follow. I will continue only if there is any interest. I do contend however that such a structure allows us to understand much of what modern science can’t explain.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

How God exists: Because He is existence itself, since He is goodness itself.

It is divine revelation that tells us God is goodness itself, but we can, through reason and study of science and philosophy, find out that God is goodness. How so? Like this:

• Via science, one learns that an infinite, inconceivable thing created the Universe
• Via philosophy, one figues out that this thing is a being, and, being supernatual, it is a god
• Via philosophy, one figures out that there is only one god in existence
• Via reason, one learns that this one god is the cause of all goodness, and so, it must be goodness itself
• Via reason, one learns that, because there is only one god and it is goodness itself, than it cannot be the god of any polytheist religions
• Via philosophy, one studies monotheists religions, looking for the religon with the correct understanding and knowledge of the one god
• Via philosophy, one finds that Christianity has the correct understanding and knowledge of the one god
• Via science, one confirms the beliefs of Christianity, which adds weight to it being the supreme religon, and hence, having the fullness of knowledge of God

Eucharisted,
Thank you for your observations,

I agree with everthing you say. I am am merely trying to fill in the details. Of course, no one can explain how God implements His will, but we can at least find ways of thinking about it in light of what we mere mortals know. I could be wrong, but in my 75 years of life, in thinking the way that I do I have found meaning in life that is based on the existence of God and my Catholic religion.
Yppop

 

[Eucharisted]

Eucharisted,
Thank you for your observations,

I agree with everthing you say. I am am merely trying to fill in the details. Of course, no one can explain how God implements His will, but we can at least find ways of thinking about it in light of what we mere mortals know. I could be wrong, but in my 75 years of life, in thinking the way that I do I have found meaning in life that is based on the existence of God and my Catholic religion.
Yppop

I have no idea how God impliements His Will, since He is His Will. But my guess is that, simply by speaking - given that the Word of God is God Himself - things comes to pass. So, for example, by speaking His commands, He created the heavens and the earth.

 

[TheWhim]

But there is no need to create an unknown substance. The simplest view is to suppose the singularity to be enormous number of discrete points of space, which I refer to as s-points. As the gaps between points expanded so did the universe until it is now the size we assume it to be at the present time. It continues to expand.

By obviating an unknown substance that was to expand you claim the existence of a sort of crummed or dense space, or rather portions of space, seperated by infinitesimal small gaps. These gaps extended and thereby extended the universe(here I have to mark a first, and rather technical point; shouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that the points of space extended into lenghts of space(so to say) instead of having the gaps extending? – otherwise it doesn’t seem explainable anymore how we can perceive space in any possible way to be continuous and not trip into nothingness every second step we make – the extent of nothingness would be far too great).

However, I find it worth remarking that by omitting this ‘unknown substance’ you render space itself to be such an unknown substance. An unknown substance called space, or closely packed portions of space, that was to expand. In other words, your view of space is substantial. I do not quite understand that it seems unappealing to you to accept the idea of an unknown material substance expanding and thereby creating space(because space is deemed to be dependant on objects existing), but, on the other hand, that you find no difficulty at all with, and even deliberately choose, a view that reveals at its very core the idea of quasi-material substantial space(that cannot be said to be ‘known’).

Please be aware that I find your theory neither silly nor tedious, but rather very intriguing. I’m just trying to understand it.

 

[yppop]

I have no idea how God impliements His Will, since He is His Will. But my guess is that, simply by speaking - given that the Word of God is God Himself - things comes to pass. So, for example, by speaking His commands, He created the heavens and the earth.

Euchariste,
Thank you for your response.
No one knows God’s will, of course. Your guess is that He implements His will merely by speaking it. Yes, something like that. Remember, however, what I am speculating about is the details of how He may do this. So my guess will be a bit more detailed and based on a reality that we all can relate to. However, I need to elaborate more of my thesis before I present the mechanism with which I think God could possibly implement His will.
I know my thesis could be dead wrong, but it may be of interest to those looking for a hypothesis with which to counter arguments of the science-wielding materialist. I have read your blog and believe you are a person of deep faith and probably have no need of a thesis purporting to describe how God works, but I will continue presenting it until I perceive that there is no interest.
I welcome you comments, however.

Yppop.

 

[yppop]

So far as I can make out from what you’ve written, this opinion on the discreteness of space is a mere guess that cannot be verified in any way outreaching lucky guessing(which is not very substantial). - As a sidenote: if space really were discrete, it should be possible to make out where the gaps are to be found. If it’s impossible to find them - what a priori it seems to be since your thesis relies on man’s faculties, and therefore his experimental faculties being irredeemably deceived by the illusion of continuous space - then it’s no use of claiming their existence at all.

But, of course, I may have misunderstood your deliberations, in which case I aplogise for my premature dismissal of your contention.

Whim,
The discreteness of space is not a guess; space is either discrete or continuous, and there is no way of proving which. Consequently, a viable system of mathematics can be built on either assumption. Intuitively space appears continuous and science and mathematics proceeded along that path. However, there have always been dissenters; especially when the assumption of continuous space resulted in problems — such as the unwanted infinities that showed up in the equations of quantum mechanics.

In my quest to find a plausible way that God might exist relative to our own existence, a model of reality that included both a material and a spiritual component had to be described. The simplest (and probably only) way to do this was to take advantage both forms of space. And this is what I have done when I describe our universe as a lattice of discrete points (s-points) immersed in a continuous form I call infinite nothingness. It should be apparent that i will use discrete space to describe the material nature and infinite nothingness to describe the spiritual nature of our reality. Discrete space immersed in infinite nothingness is this basic structure of reality that must be grasped and accepted, if you are to understand the rest of my thesis. Discrete space is an assumption, but one that I believe is as legitimate as the assumption of continuity. If you are interested in pursuing the idea of discrete space, you might want to go on “You Tube”, enter the name Gregory Chaitlin in the search block, choose his first Lisbon lecture, and listen to the first five or ten minutes. I am not alone in my assumption.
I will address your question about the gaps in my next post. Thank you for your interest, there aren’t many people around that are interested in this kind of mind games.
Yppop

 

[yppop]

By obviating an unknown substance that was to expand you claim the existence of a sort of crummed or dense space, or rather portions of space, seperated by infinitesimal small gaps. These gaps extended and thereby extended the universe(here I have to mark a first, and rather technical point; shouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that the points of space extended into lenghts of space(so to say) instead of having the gaps extending? – otherwise it doesn’t seem explainable anymore how we can perceive space in any possible way to be continuous and not trip into nothingness every second step we make – the extent of nothingness would be far too great).

However, I find it worth remarking that by omitting this ‘unknown substance’ you render space itself to be such an unknown substance. An unknown substance called space, or closely packed portions of space, that was to expand. In other words, your view of space is substantial. I do not quite understand that it seems unappealing to you to accept the idea of an unknown material substance expanding and thereby creating space(because space is deemed to be dependant on objects existing), but, on the other hand, that you find no difficulty at all with, and even deliberately choose, a view that reveals at its very core the idea of quasi-material substantial space(that cannot be said to be ‘known’).

Please be aware that I find your theory neither silly nor tedious, but rather very intriguing. I’m just trying to understand it.

Whim,

The concept of discrete space is best understood by considering the real number line. The real number line consists of all those points associated with rational, irrational, and transcendental numbers. When filled with all these numbers the number line is said to be continuous. A rational number is defined as the ratio of integers (fractions). They have the property that their decimal equivalent ends in an infinite string of zeroes such as ¼ = 0.25000000; repeats a single integer forever such as 1/3 = 0.333333333333333…; or repeats the same group of integers forever such as 1/7 = 0.142857214285721428572… It is easily seen that we can create an infinite number of non-rational letter by changing any one of the integers anywhere along the infinite line. Therefore, no matter how close we make two rational numbers there is always room to create an infinite number of rational numbers in between. There is always an “open space” or “gap”. Therefore, we can imagine God creating discrete space by allowing only points represented by the rational numbers. The beauty of infinity is that we subtract any quantity without diminishing the infinite in the least. How is God able to separate out and keep track of the points assigned to the creation of the universe? We are talking here about omniscience, omniscience, omniscience!

Regarding your thoughts expressed in your post #4 regarding the size of the gaps and science’s ability to find them. The smallest distance that has been resolved by experimental means is in the order of 10-20 meters. The size of the gap I envision currently existing between s-points is the Planck length = 10-34 meters, which based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, which is about 10-43 seconds. No chance of proving either discrete or continuous space, so it is fair game to build hypotheses from either premise.

I am not too interested in proving anything; I merely desire to explain how it is “physically” possible for God to exist in our world.

I hope this helps you to see that I have no need for the “unknown substance”, that it is the gaps that are expanding because in a discrete universe there are spatial lines. And I hope that I don’t scare too many people away with those numbers. That is the last of them.

Best regards,
Yppop

 

[yppop]

I apologize for a couple of errors I just found in my last post. Here is a corrected version:

easily seen that we can create an infinite number of non-rational letter by changing any one of the integers anywhere along the infinite line.

should read: easily seen that we can create an infinity of non-rational numbers by changing any one of the integers anywhere along the infinite line.

…The smallest distance that has been resolved by experimental means is in the order of 10-20 meters. The size of the gap I envision currently existing between s-points is the Planck length = 10-34 meters, which based on the speed of light and the duration of the Planck era, which is about 10-43 seconds.

The numbers should read 10 raised to the (-20), (-34), and (-43) power.
Is there a way to illustrate superscrpits in our posts? Help

I hope this helps you to see that I have no need for the “unknown substance”, that it is the gaps that are expanding because in a discrete universe there are spatial lines.

“there are spatial lines” should read “there are no spatial lines”

Yppop

 

[davidv]

{snip}
I am not too interested in proving anything; I merely desire to explain how it is “physically” possible for God to exist in our world.
{snip}

God existed “physically” in our world in the person of Jesus. He became fully human while remain fully God. Why do we need to postulate as discrete, rather than continuous, space to explain this?

In other words, is our own existance dependent on one or the other?

 

[yppop]

God existed “physically” in our world in the person of Jesus. He became fully human while remain fully God. Why do we need to postulate as discrete, rather than continuous, space to explain this?

In other words, is our own existance dependent on one or the other?

Thank you for pointing out what some people may misconstrue in one way or another. I had hoped that putting physically in quotes would not lead anyone to believe I’d ignore the historical fact of Jesus Christ,

When I use the word God, I think and mean the Triune God. The incarnate Jesus existed physically; the transubstantiated Jesus that we receive in the Eucharist does not exist physically, but rather substantially. (If theologically incorrect, let me know and I will check it out with my resources. I am far more comfortable discussing science and math than theology.) When I used the word “physically” I did not mean materially; rather, I meant that God exists within the natural boundaries of our universe.

Discrete space leaves room for the presence of a spiritual component, continuous space does not. In a model of spatial duality, discrete space is the substance from which matter emerges; hence it is the foundation of objective reality. Yes, matter is nothing but a specific configuration of space. That leaves what we believe to be continuous space — but is really the infinite nothingness — to fill the gaps and add a spiritual component to matter in all its forms. Ironically, this scenario gives new euphemistic meaning to the pejorative meaning that Darwinists attach to the phrase “God of the Gaps”.

I don’t understand your last question.

Yppop

 

[davidv]

Thank you for pointing out what some people may misconstrue in one way or another. I had hoped that putting physically in quotes would not lead anyone to believe I’d ignore the historical fact of Jesus Christ,

When I use the word God, I think and mean the Triune God. The incarnate Jesus existed physically; the transubstantiated Jesus that we receive in the Eucharist does not exist physically, but rather substantially. (If theologically incorrect, let me know and I will check it out with my resources. I am far more comfortable discussing science and math than theology.) When I used the word “physically” I did not mean materially; rather, I meant that God exists within the natural boundaries of our universe.

Discrete space leaves room for the presence of a spiritual component, continuous space does not. In a model of spatial duality, discrete space is the substance from which matter emerges; hence it is the foundation of objective reality. Yes, matter is nothing but a specific configuration of space. That leaves what we believe to be continuous space — but is really the infinite nothingness — to fill the gaps and add a spiritual component to matter in all its forms. Ironically, this scenario gives new euphemistic meaning to the pejorative meaning that Darwinists attach to the phrase “God of the Gaps”.

I don’t understand your last question.

Yppop

RE: The physical/substantial question. There was thread on this topic some time ago. You may be able to find it with the search feature. My conclusion from following the discussion was that the Eucharistic presence is both physical and substantial.

It is my understanding the the “spiritual” takes up no space. So, why can it not be present in a continuous space?

Let me ask the last question differently. Do you and I reside in one of the gaps or some other place?

 

[TheWhim]

yppop,

Would you explain one more time to me why it’s the gaps that are extending and not the space between the gaps after the Big Bang?

 

[yppop]

RE: The physical/substantial question. There was thread on this topic some time ago. You may be able to find it with the search feature. My conclusion from following the discussion was that the Eucharistic presence is both physical and substantial.

I suppose that the spiritual can be present in continuous space, but I can’t imagine how. I can, however, imagine how the spiritual can be present in a universe based on discrete space. That is the premise on which I constructed a model of duality that satisfies my intellectual need to know how God may be present within my life. The alternative, a model based on continuous space, is one that modern science has developed and it leaves no room for God to exist within the boundaries of the universe.
Discrete space is a premise for which there are several good arguments. Since there is no way to prove that space is continuous or discrete, it seems legitimate to me to see where each will take you and then weigh the relative plausibility.

Let me ask the last question differently. Do you and I reside in one of the gaps or some other place?

The strucure that I imagine is a lattice of discrete points (s-points) immersed in an infinite expanse of nothingness. The gaps in discrete space are filled with nothingness. I propose that objective reality, that is defined by matter, time, and energy, is constructed from s-points and the infinite nothingness in the gaps is the spiritual component.

More about this in my next post.

Regards,
Yppop

 

[yppop]

yppop,

Would you explain one more time to me why it’s the gaps that are extending and not the space between the gaps after the Big Bang?

I refer to the “space” between the gaps as infinite nothingness. If it is that space that is expanding it is no different than if the discrete points are moving apart. In either case the gaps are growing.

In any philosophical discussion we have to deal with ambiguous words as best we can. The two that give the most trouble in this discussion are: “space” and “nothing”. For example, consider this statement: “Nothing exists!” Are we talking about a void or are we talking about “nothing” being something? To avoid this particular ambiguity, I refer to the “space” that came before the big bang and exists beyond the universe as infinite nothingness, implying that it is not a void, but is free of all matter. I consider the infinite nothingness to be like the mathematician’s continuous space. Mathematicians believe that continuous space is not just infinite, but is an infinity of infinities. So in creating a model of dual reality, I assume that object reality (matter, energy, time, you, and me) is created from discrete space and the infinite nothingness (continuous space) that fills up the gaps, immerses the world in the spiritual.

It may help for you to imagine what I am driving at if you look closely at your computer screen and think about how the incrementation of signals to the array of pixels can create the illusion of motion. Then google “Zeno’s Paradoxes”, read what is said about the inconsistency of motion and continuous space, and ask yourself if the assumption of continuous space hasn’t led us down the wrong path.

Hope this helps a little and not more confusing. At this point I am contemplating dumping a synopsis of my entire thesis on this post just to show where I am headed.

Yppop.

 

[davidv]

I refer to the “space” between the gaps as infinite nothingness. If it is that space that is expanding it is no different than if the discrete points are moving apart. In either case the gaps are growing.

In any philosophical discussion we have to deal with ambiguous words as best we can. The two that give the most trouble in this discussion are: “space” and “nothing”. For example, consider this statement: “Nothing exists!” Are we talking about a void or are we talking about “nothing” being something? To avoid this particular ambiguity, I refer to the “space” that came before the big bang and exists beyond the universe as infinite nothingness, implying that it is not a void, but is free of all matter. I consider the infinite nothingness to be like the mathematician’s continuous space. Mathematicians believe that continuous space is not just infinite, but is an infinity of infinities. So in creating a model of dual reality, I assume that object reality (matter, energy, time, you, and me) is created from discrete space and the infinite nothingness (continuous space) that fills up the gaps, immerses the world in the spiritual.

It may help for you to imagine what I am driving at if you look closely at your computer screen and think about how the incrementation of signals to the array of pixels can create the illusion of motion. Then google “Zeno’s Paradoxes”, read what is said about the inconsistency of motion and continuous space, and ask yourself if the assumption of continuous space hasn’t led us down the wrong path.

Hope this helps a little and not more confusing. At this point I am contemplating dumping a synopsis of my entire thesis on this post just to show where I am headed.

Yppop.

I am still very confused. It still is not clear why your initial assumption that God cannot be present in a “continuous space” is true. How much volume does a spiritual being occupy? I submit the by nature of the definition of “spiritual”, it must not displace any volume. Therefore the need for gaps is not required.

 

[yppop]

I am still very confused. It still is not clear why your initial assumption that God cannot be present in a “continuous space” is true. How much volume does a spiritual being occupy? I submit the by nature of the definition of “spiritual”, it must not displace any volume. Therefore the need for gaps is not required.

David,
Where did I write that God cannot be present in “continuous Space”. It should be clear that what I am contending is that God is continuous space (infinite nothingness). Space does not displace volume; space is volume. Since God created the world from nothing (creatio ex nihilo); that nothing must be space-like, and I assume that it is discrete space. If you want to assume it is continuous space, go right ahead, but I can’t imagine how you would sort out the material from the spiritual since the substance of both is spatial.

In any philosophical discussion we have to deal with ambiguous words as best we can. The two that give the most trouble in this discussion are: “space” and “nothing”. For example, consider this statement: “Nothing exists!” Are we talking about a void or are we talking about “nothing” being something? To avoid this particular ambiguity, I refer to the “space” that came before the big bang and exists beyond the universe as infinite nothingness, implying that it is not a void, but is free of all matter. I consider the infinite nothingness to be continuous space. Mathematicians believe that continuous space is not just infinite, but is an infinity of infinities. I assume that object reality (matter, energy, time, you, and me) is created from discrete space and the infinite nothingness (continuous space) that fills up the gaps immerses to world in the spiritual.

It may help for you to imagine what I am driving at if you look closely at your computer screen and think about how the incrementation of signals to the array of pixels can create the illusion of motion. Then google “Zeno’s Paradoxes”, read what is said about the inconsistency of motion and continuous space, and ask yourself if the assumption of continuous space hasn’t led us down the wrong path.

Hope this helps a little and not more confusing. At this point I am contemplating dumping a synopsis of my entire thesis on this post just to show where I am headed.
Yppop