Is God Nothingness?

[NeoScotist]

Well, God’s ‘being’ is different from our ‘being’, and the ‘being’ of other things in the universe. This kind of infinitely simple being (of God), untouched by time and space, could be compared to Nothingness. What we experience as ‘being’ has nothing in common with the ‘Being’ of God. Therefore, maybe Nothingness is a valid image of God.

How is the nature of God be even relevant to ascertain whether being is identical to or kind of like nothingness? A nature presupposes being or existence. And with that in mind, how is being identical to or kind of like nothingness?

Sorry, but the OP is nonsense. Are you really a professional philosopher or you call yourself one?

 

[Dolezal]

The following proposal is purely speculative theology. Just a theory, but maybe worth considering-

I would like to suggest that maybe ‘God’ is actually nothingness. Nothingness seems to fit the following features of God:

• Nothingness, like God, is eternal and changless
• Nothingness, like God, is entirely beyond understanding and predication
• Everthing that is came from nothingness, and unto nothingness will return (like God). Nothingness is “the Father of All”, and eventually everything is re-absorbed into the arms of Nothingness.
• Nothingness, like God, is paradoxically both absent and present, transcendent and immanent. It is outside of time and space, yet all around us.
• Nothingness is entirely invincible and impassible.
• Nothingness (the Void) holds all thing in ‘Being’, is everywhere and nowhere.
• Through nothingess, paradoxes like “The First will be Last, and the Last will be First” make sense, because eventually everything becomes nothing, poverty, riches, honour and humility are all levelled.
• God, like Nothingess, communicates with us most truly through Silence.

It seems to make a bit of sense…

It’s obvious that you do not understand what actual nothingness would be. You cannot think about something about which nothing can be thought. The problem is that you are thinking of nothing as a thing.

We cannot conceive of nothingness because we cannot positively think about nothingness. When we attempt to think about what nothingness is, we are really thinking about some positive reality that is absent. It is obviously not possible to **perceive **an absence.

Actual nothingness or an empty world is impossible. This is easily understood by using the concept of possible worlds. A possible world is any possible state of affairs. Suppose that an empty world (that is, a world of total absence or nothingness) is possible, then this world could be the actual world. In an empty world there is no actual state of affairs and no possible state of affairs (or else it would not be empty). However, there are many states of affairs in the actual world. It follows that an empty world cannot be the actual world and that actual nothingness is impossible.

God is by definition a necessarily existing object which is the cause of everything outside of itself. In an empty world, as said above, there is no state of affairs and no possible state of affairs. Therefore an empty world does not contain something with causal power to bring about a state of affairs. God has a causal power, therefore God cannot be nothingness.

I suggest you that read by Naomi Thompson**Nothing **.

 

[fred_conty]

Qoeleth,

Actually we cannot really say “nothingness” because that implies “something”, because:

there is no concept of nothing.
For as soon as we say “nothing” we are thinking of “something” which it is not.

God brings into existence creatures, but not from nothing, and not from non-existence.

He makes them exist period.

So should we eliminate “nothing” and “non-existence” from our vocabulary since they are imposibilities, since God himself cannot bring a creature into existence from nothing or non-existence?

Just a thought.

 

[Qoeleth]

To answer a suggestion like God= Nothingness, to me seems like the biggest blasphemy at all, for God is not “nothingness” (match the “absolute nothingness” in the Zen-Religion) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
but God very much contrary to such abstruse thoughts: God is ALL! The absolute contrary of “nothingness”. So, such suggestion like God= Nothingness, actually hurts badly and Christian thought.

Is the Zen concept of absolute nothigness perhaps a different way of seeking the same God?

 

[Qoeleth]

It’s obvious that you do not understand what actual nothingness would be. You cannot think about something about which nothing can be thought. The problem is that you are thinking of nothing as a thing.

.

God is by definition a necessarily existing object which is the cause of everything outside of itself.

Yes, it is obvious I do not understand Nothingness, it is beyond thought. It is also obvious that I do not understand God, who is also beyond thought. Nothingness and God are thus similar in their total transcendence of characteristics.

I don’t think it is quite right to think of God as an ‘existing object’- since He has no spatial or temporal location.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m sorry, but none of this makes any sense at all. God isn’t nothingness because God exists. The end. There are a billion other problems with this theory but right from the bat we can already tell that it’s nonsense.

 

[Qoeleth]

Recall that St. John of the Cross, in his diagram of the soul’s assent to God, has at the very peak (beyond Love and Glory), ‘NIHIL’, inscribed three times.

Recall that Meister Eckhart says that God is “no-thing”.

Recall that Blessed Jacapone da Todi says that the name of the highest Heaven is “not-being”.

It’s not such a radical idea as it might seem…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Recall that St. John of the Cross, in his diagram of the soul’s assent to God, has at the very peak (beyond Love and Glory), ‘NIHIL’, inscribed three times.

Recall that Meister Eckhart says that God is “no-thing”.

Recall that Blessed Jacapone da Todi says that the name of the highest Heaven is “not-being”.

It’s not such a radical idea as it might seem…

It’s not an idea at all. It’s nonsense. God exists. He isn’t “nothingness”. We are not Buddhists who believe that our ultimate goal is to become nothing. We are to live forever. Heaven is a place. God is real. He interacts with the world through prayers and miracles. He became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He is in no way “nothingness”.

 

[Patrick1540]

The following proposal is purely speculative theology. Just a theory, but maybe worth considering-

I would like to suggest that maybe ‘God’ is actually nothingness. Nothingness seems to fit the following features of God:

• Nothingness, like God, is eternal and changless
• Nothingness, like God, is entirely beyond understanding and predication
• Everthing that is came from nothingness, and unto nothingness will return (like God). Nothingness is “the Father of All”, and eventually everything is re-absorbed into the arms of Nothingness.
• Nothingness, like God, is paradoxically both absent and present, transcendent and immanent. It is outside of time and space, yet all around us.
• Nothingness is entirely invincible and impassible.
• Nothingness (the Void) holds all thing in ‘Being’, is everywhere and nowhere.
• Through nothingess, paradoxes like “The First will be Last, and the Last will be First” make sense, because eventually everything becomes nothing, poverty, riches, honour and humility are all levelled.
• God, like Nothingess, communicates with us most truly through Silence.

It seems to make a bit of sense…

The Bible is very clear on what God is Hebrews12:29 God is Holy Fire. God’s Love burns so much for us, He is Holy Fire, most perfect and pure love, beyond human understanding. The Israelites say this Holy Fire in the Shekina, Holy Cloud, on Mt.Siani,lead them through the wilderness,and rested on the Ark of the Covenant. Isaiah,Ezeikel,and John are describe the Holy Fire of God.So God is something, pure Love which burns.That what Scripture says so I believe it.The “Shekina” Glory of God.
God Bless

 

[paduard]

Qoeleth,

Actually we cannot really say “nothingness” because that implies “something”, because:

there is no concept of nothing.
For as soon as we say “nothing” we are thinking of “something” which it is not.

God brings into existence creatures, but not from nothing, and not from non-existence.

He makes them exist period.

So should we eliminate “nothing” and “non-existence” from our vocabulary since they are imposibilities, since God himself cannot bring a creature into existence from nothing or non-existence?

Just a thought.

Yes I agree; well put.

 

[Portofino]

Recall that St. John of the Cross, in his diagram of the soul’s assent to God, has at the very peak (beyond Love and Glory), ‘NIHIL’, inscribed three times.

Recall that Meister Eckhart says that God is “no-thing”.

Recall that Blessed Jacapone da Todi says that the name of the highest Heaven is “not-being”.

It’s not such a radical idea as it might seem…

Well, my friend, it is also true that Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven as a mustard seed, which – practically speaking – is among the least of all things; practically nothing.

Those who balked at the metaphor (?) that God is nothingness, might also have balked – if they didn’t know it came from the Lord himself – if someone were to dare compare the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed, to the smallest of all seeds

 

[Qoeleth]

It’s not an idea at all. It’s nonsense. God exists. He isn’t “nothingness”. We are not Buddhists who believe that our ultimate goal is to become nothing. We are to live forever. Heaven is a place. God is real. He interacts with the world through prayers and miracles. He became incarnate in Jesus Christ. He is in no way “nothingness”.

If you care to read John of the Cross, he says that the soul, passing through spiritual dryness, eventually leaves behind all ideas and images of God. “Heaven is a place” is a valid image, but it is not really a place, is it?

Angelus Silesius, another important mystic, encourages us to go “beyond God”- beyond our images of God, to find God who is ‘purest naught’.

The paradox of everything and nothing is found frequently- “Possessing nothing, I possess everything”- has been said by more saints and sages than I care to remember. Is everything really nothing?

Lao-Tzu said that all true words are paradoxical. Maybe that applies.

 

[davidv]

If you care to read John of the Cross, he says that the soul, passing through spiritual dryness, eventually leaves behind all ideas and images of God. “Heaven is a place” is a valid image, but it is not really a place, is it?

Angelus Silesius, another important mystic, encourages us to go “beyond God”- beyond our images of God, to find God who is ‘purest naught’.

The paradox of everything and nothing is found frequently- “Possessing nothing, I possess everything”- has been said by more saints and sages than I care to remember. Is everything really nothing?

Lao-Tzu said that all true words are paradoxical. Maybe that applies.

So, does that mean the nothing you are speaking of, is not really nothing?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If you care to read John of the Cross, he says that the soul, passing through spiritual dryness, eventually leaves behind all ideas and images of God. “Heaven is a place” is a valid image, but it is not really a place, is it?

So you’re saying it doesn’t exist? This is obviously not true. Since it exists, it isn’t nothing.

I am not a mystic. I would consider myself a scholastic. I can’t pretend I know what they were talking about, but I doubt they would agree that this is an intelligible thought. You haven’t really given an argument for why it’s an intelligible thought, just given us names of a bunch of people who said things that sounded kind of similar.

 

[fred_conty]

If you care to read John of the Cross, he says that the soul, passing through spiritual dryness, eventually leaves behind all ideas and images of God. “Heaven is a place” is a valid image, but it is not really a place, is it?

Angelus Silesius, another important mystic, encourages us to go “beyond God”- beyond our images of God, to find God who is ‘purest naught’.

The paradox of everything and nothing is found frequently- “Possessing nothing, I possess everything”- has been said by more saints and sages than I care to remember. Is everything really nothing?

Lao-Tzu said that all true words are paradoxical. Maybe that applies.

Spiritual dryness is not ideal position, it is one where a soul passes thru to a higher level of grace and awareness of God. So it is not nothing but a suffering, which removes all consolation.

Just a thought.

 

[MilesVitae]

Recall that St. John of the Cross, in his diagram of the soul’s assent to God, has at the very peak (beyond Love and Glory), ‘NIHIL’, inscribed three times.

Recall that Meister Eckhart says that God is “no-thing”.

Recall that Blessed Jacapone da Todi says that the name of the highest Heaven is “not-being”.

It’s not such a radical idea as it might seem…

We would have to consider the words of these people in the fuller context of their own writings and metaphysical understanding of reality. For instance, what does Meister Eckhart mean by “thing.” If “thing” has connotations of a finite, limited entity, than God (as infinite act of being) is not best-called “thing.” I’ve encountered this idea before, in the context of a metaphysics class with definite Thomistic leanings - God is not best called “thing,” or merely “a being,” since he is something more, He possesses the fulness of being…but not because He is nothing.

Nothing in the true sense is lack of being, absence of reality. God, then, is not nothing.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The following proposal is purely speculative theology. Just a theory, but maybe worth considering-

I would like to suggest that maybe ‘God’ is actually nothingness. Nothingness seems to fit the following features of God:

• Nothingness, like God, is eternal and changless
• Nothingness, like God, is entirely beyond understanding and predication
• Everthing that is came from nothingness, and unto nothingness will return (like God). Nothingness is “the Father of All”, and eventually everything is re-absorbed into the arms of Nothingness.
• Nothingness, like God, is paradoxically both absent and present, transcendent and immanent. It is outside of time and space, yet all around us.
• Nothingness is entirely invincible and impassible.
• Nothingness (the Void) holds all thing in ‘Being’, is everywhere and nowhere.
• Through nothingess, paradoxes like “The First will be Last, and the Last will be First” make sense, because eventually everything becomes nothing, poverty, riches, honour and humility are all levelled.
• God, like Nothingess, communicates with us most truly through Silence.

It seems to make a bit of sense…

God is not nothingness, but the universe is, in total. That is, it’s total energy content is zero.

astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

This is consistent with the Ex Nihilo creation of the universe, that is, from nothing.

It’s also consistent with the fact that at the end it will just disappear, and go back to nothing.

Isaiah 34:4 NIV All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.

Which indicates to me it’s a stage prop for the story of the human race. The physics of the earth are anthropromorphic, and of course we just happen to live on a planet with loads of coal, oil, uranium, aluminium, iron, and all the rest which is necessary for an advanced intelligent life form to do things eg. build and fly aircraft, launch into space (with the first two stepping stones, the moon and Mars just conveniently placed and suitably acclimatised so that its possible). Sheer coincidence of course.

Which is a bit convenient to have all been planned by Nothing. He’s a highly intelligent Nothing, if anything.

What makes us think He’s nothing is that He hides Himself so well. That’s the real mystery.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Is the Zen concept of absolute nothigness perhaps a different way of seeking the same God?

Of course all religions other than Christianity (and even including Christianity) is trying to seek the one and only God.
But in our time of common knowledge and the ease to get informed about everything, no matter if one is poor or rich, it’s a shame, if one doesn’t know about the one and only divine revelation of God, the one and only living true God in the most hold Trinity.
He who still seeks in spite of God’s revelation of Himself in both Covenenants, simply refuses God’s truth.

Jesus Christ’s word in Mt 10,32 was never as valid and current as today, when Jesus said:
So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Yours
Bruno

 

[Linusthe2nd]

True. Pure simple ‘existence’ (i.e. existence unqualified by any ‘characteristics’) of Aquinas and Plotinus and others seems, though, to be a quite similar to nothingness.

It seems impossible to ‘imagine’ a purely, utterly simple ‘One’. Is Nothingness the most viable simulacrum of ‘simple’ ‘existence’?

When you were a child and missbehaving and you Mother asked you what you had in your hand and you said, " nothing. " She didn’t believe you and told you to open your hand. And you did. And lo and behold, your hand was empty. You had nothing in it. That " nothing " is not God. God is a Pure Being that actually Exists, you just can’t see him. As Fred says above, the exact opposite or contrary of God is " nothing " at all, no-being, no existence at all. There is no similarity between God and " nothing, " or non-being. If you can’t see that, you should give up philosophyzing. This is a very basic truth in philosophy, if you can’t understand it philosophy can be a danger to your faith. And the purpose of philosohy is to help you understand, in so far as possible, the truths of faith. It is not a crime not to understand philosophy.

The most basic principle of philosophy is the principle of Identity. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same respect. " Nothing " either is or is not. Since it " is not, " it cannot also " be. "

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I can’t believe we’re still discussing whether or not something that exists is nothing.