You mean: space is filled with potential energy arising from the mere existence of charge.

You mean: Coulomb described Nature as it behaves, in this fundamental definition of the static electric field.

You mean: charge, not space, gives rise to the electric field.

You mean: the field strength attenuates exactly as the subtended surface grows for a given distance r from the charge.

You mean: fields behave exactly as Coulomb discovered, and not one whit of it has anything to do with your beliefs.

You mean: Coulomb's law describes the way Nature behaves, and to claim otherwise is to deny that Nature obeys its own laws.

I mean the following.

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176
"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__

32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,

Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458
"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611
"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."