Is God Nothingness?

[zro_x]

As Fred Conty pointed out, God is the opposite of nothing. He is existence itself and the source of all existence, both spiritual and physical.

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

If you mean that existence outside of the physical realm is undefined, This simply isn’t the case. Your mind, your concious experience, is one example of something that exists that isn’t physical. Besides that, God does have a spatial and temporal location: 20,000 years ago in israel and right now in consecrated hosts.

God and non-existence may have some similar qualities in some respects, but there are some qualities of God that “nothingness” doesn’t have. For example, God is a concious person, or rather, three concious persons. Nothingness is not concious.

 

[Qoeleth]

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. "

The principle of Identity may, in fact, be considered a linguistic convention. The Trinity is a gesture denoting the paradoxical ipseity of God, who is both One and not-One. And the teachings of Christ abound in apparent contradictions- the first= the last, those who mourn= the happy, wisdom= the province of the simple, death= life, etc.

I agree, it is not a cime not to understand philosophy. Perhaps, however, it is a crime claim to understand it…

 

[Qoeleth]

As Fred Conty pointed out, God is the opposite of nothing. He is existence itself and the source of all existence, both spiritual and physical.

If you mean that existence outside of the physical realm is undefined, This simply isn’t the case. Your mind, your concious experience, is one example of something that exists that isn’t physical. Besides that, God does have a spatial and temporal location: 20,000 years ago in israel and right now in consecrated hosts.

God and non-existence may have some similar qualities in some respects, but there are some qualities of God that “nothingness” doesn’t have. For example, God is a concious person, or rather, three concious persons. Nothingness is not concious.

Well, the locus of God is indeed in Jesus Christ, but is also in the sacrament, in the least of our brothers and sisters, etc. The presence and location of God by its very nature, is a location which de-construction its own limits.

I am a conscious person. You are also a conscious person. Yet God is NOT a conscious person. If God were a ‘conscious person’, He would be the same type of Being as you and I. Yet, God, to be God authentically and not merely a “Supreme Thing amond other Things of a Comparable Type”, cannot be the same type of Being as anything else, or, indeed, everything else. Therefore, God is not a Being, not a Thing, not a Person, since He is wholly beyond comparison with any Being, Thing or Person, and not even within these categories.

Everytime we thing of God, we construct an image. Each of these images are false. Now, the image of a Great Nothingness, a void beyond the Outer Limits of Being and Time, which holds us, which is our origin, which is our destination, seems to be less false than other images. It is not more, however, than an image.

When I suggest that God ‘is’ Nothingness, the ‘is’ perhaps should be placed in inverted commas.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

An existent nothing is a logical contradiction and therefore an impossibility.

 

[MilesVitae]

The principle of Identity may, in fact, be considered a linguistic convention. The Trinity is a gesture denoting the paradoxical ipseity of God, who is both One and not-One. And the teachings of Christ abound in apparent contradictions- the first= the last, those who mourn= the happy, wisdom= the province of the simple, death= life, etc.

I agree, it is not a cime not to understand philosophy. Perhaps, however, it is a crime claim to understand it…

I do not think the somewhat paradoxical phrases from Scripture give support to your position. They can all be explained in ways which are not self-contradictory. Referencing them is not a sufficient response to the arguments which have been given here against God not being nothing.

 

[MilesVitae]

I am a conscious person. You are also a conscious person. Yet God is NOT a conscious person. If God were a ‘conscious person’, He would be the same type of Being as you and I. Yet, God, to be God authentically and not merely a “Supreme Thing amond other Things of a Comparable Type”, cannot be the same type of Being as anything else, or, indeed, everything else. Therefore, God is not a Being, not a Thing, not a Person, since He is wholly beyond comparison with any Being, Thing or Person, and not even within these categories.

I would agree, as far as I understand these things, that God could not most properly be called “a being,” but to say that “being” is not applicable to Him at all seems a leap.

Maybe the analogy of being is important here (although, frankly, I have never really understood it).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This thread makes me want to do this:

:banghead:

 

[harinanga101]

Well of course God is not strictly and ontologically speaking “nothing” since He is Being itself. But I see the OP’s point in that “nothingness” might be said of God in a more metaphorical/mystical sense. The fact that God exceeds all our understanding, His sheer incomprehensibility, might be what have led mystics to designate Him as nothingness. Also, I think God’s total self-giving nature might be another thing that evokes the metaphorical notion of nothingness or emptiness. God empties Himself both in His own Trinitarian life and, as St. Paul says, when His incarnate self died on the cross. God’s total emptying of self would then leave Him with…well nothing. The Crucifix must be the most vivid symbol of a being reduced to (almost?) nothing.

I think one way of viewing the OP’s idea is that, just as the things in this world can point us to God who created them, in a similar manner the “nothing” of this world can also lead us to know more about God. Contemplating about the “qualities” of the void/empty space can also help us have an idea of certain attributes of God. Empty space is invisible and silent, and yet this empty space is necessary for us to live. Isn’t God similar in the sense that He is hidden and silent or not self-evident, and yet He is the very cause of our existence? Again, I think the best way to understand what the author is saying is to take "nothingness’ in a metaphorical way. At least that’s my two cents.

 

[meltzerboy]

There was a thread some time ago on the opposite of nothing. Is the opposite of nothing ‘everything’, or ‘anything’? Or, mathematically, if the opposite of 1 is -1, then the opposite of 0 should be -0.

Nicholas of Cusa said that in God opposites are united. This seems to be the case for nothing (+0 being equal to -0).

Is there a true opposite except the negation of something? For example, what is the opposite of A? Perhaps only “not A.” Or what is the opposite of life? Perhaps non-life, but not death since death is the opposite of birth. The opposite of pencil is “not pencil”; cat, “not cat”; and so on. Likewise the true opposite of nothingness is “not nothingness” and the opposite of 0 is “not 0.” So the opposite of nothingness may be something, and the primal something is what we call G-d.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This thread makes me want to do this:

:banghead:

Agreed. I give up.

 

[inocente]

There was a thread some time ago on the opposite of nothing. Is the opposite of nothing ‘everything’, or ‘anything’? Or, mathematically, if the opposite of 1 is -1, then the opposite of 0 should be -0.

What’s that discipline called, mystic numerology or something?

The stem of the word “nothing” is “thing”, so cognitively you cannot arrive at the concept “nothing” without first knowing the concept “thing”. This is the opposite of our intuition that “nothing” comes before things, and the conflict sets us up for all manner of confusion and mystic mumblings.

The resolution is to realize that despite our intuition, “nothing” is the concept of “the-thing-that-is-the-absence-of-a-thing” which is a self contradiction, an impossibility.

That’s my five cents anyhow.

 

[BrunoMaria]

didn’t the world just recently celebrate the discovery of antimatter
ah well - this thread becomes peculiar
so I give up too :coffeeread:

 

[fred_conty]

What’s that discipline called, mystic numerology or something?

The stem of the word “nothing” is “thing”, so cognitively you cannot arrive at the concept “nothing” without first knowing the concept “thing”. This is the opposite of our intuition that “nothing” comes before things, and the conflict sets us up for all manner of confusion and mystic mumblings.

The resolution is to realize that despite our intuition, “nothing” is the concept of “the-thing-that-is-the-absence-of-a-thing” which is a self contradiction, an impossibility.

That’s my five cents anyhow.

I’ll add my nickle to that too.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well of course God is not strictly and ontologically speaking “nothing” since He is Being itself. But I see the OP’s point in that “nothingness” might be said of God in a more metaphorical/mystical sense. The fact that God exceeds all our understanding, His sheer incomprehensibility, might be what have led mystics to designate Him as nothingness. Also, I think God’s total self-giving nature might be another thing that evokes the metaphorical notion of nothingness or emptiness. God empties Himself both in His own Trinitarian life and, as St. Paul says, when His incarnate self died on the cross. God’s total emptying of self would then leave Him with…well nothing. The Crucifix must be the most vivid symbol of a being reduced to (almost?) nothing.

I think one way of viewing the OP’s idea is that, just as the things in this world can point us to God who created them, in a similar manner the “nothing” of this world can also lead us to know more about God. Contemplating about the “qualities” of the void/empty space can also help us have an idea of certain attributes of God. Empty space is invisible and silent, and yet this empty space is necessary for us to live. Isn’t God similar in the sense that He is hidden and silent or not self-evident, and yet He is the very cause of our existence? Again, I think the best way to understand what the author is saying is to take "nothingness’ in a metaphorical way. At least that’s my two cents.

Exactly. It seems that Nothingness is a reasonable metaphor (as good as Parmenides immobile sphere). For me, it is more effective than an old man in the clouds, and also supported by Christ, who empties Himself, and in doing so, reveals God’s glory.

 

[Qoeleth]

This thread makes me want to do this:

:banghead:

Well, penance is always meritorious.

But here is conclusive proof from the Psalms-
David says: “My souls thirsts for you alone, My LORD.”
Then he says: “I want NOTHING”.

If wants the Lord alone, and also wants Nothing(ness), an identity is logically implied.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, penance is always meritorious.

But here is conclusive proof from the Psalms-
David says: “My souls thirsts for you alone, My LORD.”
Then he says: “I want NOTHING”.

If wants the Lord alone, and also wants Nothing(ness), an identity is logically implied.

“Hey husband I love very much, I want you.”

“Could you grab a beer?”

Well, that settles it. Since my hypothetical wife wants me and I want a beer, an identity between myself and beer is logically implied.

In all seriousness, what you’re saying is getting increasingly nonsensical. Is this some kind of joke?

 

[yppop]

Qoeleth,

I think you are on to something here. I don’t agree with every proposition in your OP and I don’t disagree either, but I think I grasp your basic argument, namely:

God is nothingness
Nothingness exists,
Therefore God exists.

This of course is a tautology, unless it can be shown that the premises are independent of one another. I believe that by showing that “nothingness” has many of the properties attributed to God, you are addressing the first premise to make it a synthetic proposition.

To make the syllogism work, it is required that the second premise, “nothing exists” be given an independent meaning.

Recognize that the second premise is a paradox. If you wrap your mind around “nothing exists” it can mean either “nothingness is something that **does not **exist” or “nothingness is something that does exist”.

Those finding fault with your argument seem to be stuck with “nothingness is something that does not exist”, a contradiction. I will stick with "nothingness is something that does exist or more succinctly “nothingness exists”.

The question now is: What do we mean by the word “nothingness”? How would we describe it? The only way that I can bring it to mind is to suppose that nothingness is “spatial”. And if it is spatial it must be “dimensional”. And dimensionality is pure existence. So to say that God is nothingness is in my way of thinking equivalent to saying God is pure existence. So I contend that before there was a universe there was infinite nothingness.

If you are interested in where I take the contention “God is infinite nothingness” you might find the time to take a look at what I have presented in two threads: my own called “God Exists, But How?” now on page 35 of this forum and in JDaniel’s thread entitled “Space” now on page 21 of the this forum.

Yppop

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Qoeleth,

I think you are on to something here. I don’t agree with every proposition in your OP and I don’t disagree either, but I think I grasp your basic argument, namely:

God is nothingness
Nothingness exists,
Therefore God exists.

This of course is a tautology, unless it can be shown that the premises are independent of one another. I believe that by showing that “nothingness” has many of the properties attributed to God, you are addressing the first premise to make it a synthetic proposition.

To make the syllogism work, it is required that the second premise, “nothing exists” be given an independent meaning.

Recognize that the second premise is a paradox. If you wrap your mind around “nothing exists” it can mean either “nothingness is something that **does not **exist” or “nothingness is something that does exist”.

Those finding fault with your argument seem to be stuck with “nothingness is something that does not exist”, a contradiction. I will stick with "nothingness is something that does exist or more succinctly “nothingness exists”.

The question now is: What do we mean by the word “nothingness”? How would we describe it? The only way that I can bring it to mind is to suppose that nothingness is “spatial”. And if it is spatial it must be “dimensional”. And dimensionality is pure existence. So to say that God is nothingness is in my way of thinking equivalent to saying God is pure existence. So I contend that before there was a universe there was infinite nothingness.

If you are interested in where I take the contention “God is infinite nothingness” you might find the time to take a look at what I have presented in two threads: my own called “God Exists, But How?” now on page 35 of this forum and in JDaniel’s thread entitled “Space” now on page 21 of the this forum.

Yppop

The problem is that the first premise makes absolutely no sense. God exists. He isn’t nothingness.

Seriously, what are you even defining nothingness to be, anyway? Because honestly if you’re giving it a definition beyond literally non-existence then it’s not really nothing. And if you’re saying nothingness really is non-existence…then God exists, so He can’t be non-existence. In fact, He’s existence itself.

I don’t even know why I’ve stuck with this thread so long. It’s totally ridiculous. I think I’m out. I hope you all eventually figure this out.

 

[MilesVitae]

“Hey husband I love very much, I want you.”

“Could you grab a beer?”

Well, that settles it. Since my hypothetical wife wants me and I want a beer, an identity between myself and beer is logically implied.

In all seriousness, what you’re saying is getting increasingly nonsensical. Is this some kind of joke?

Closer to Qoeleth’s Psalm reference, if a man said to his wife, “I desire only you, there is nothing that I want,” his wife would be highly unlikely to reply “So, I’m nothing to you?”

Qoeleth, it seems obvious to me that David is saying there is nothing besides God that he wants, or he is satisfied with God.

 

[BrunoMaria]

I don’t even know why I’ve stuck with this thread so long. It’s totally ridiculous. I think I’m out. I hope you all eventually figure this out.

Ain’t it ever so amazing how with totally ridiculous threads so many pages can be filled with total no-thingness, better known as nonsense
:tsktsk: :banghead: :dts: :doh2:

for instancesuchlike:
“>God is nothingness< is equivalent to >God is pure existence<. So before, there was a universe there was infinite nothingness.”

The “there” here refers to our Universe. This universe however, had to be created by God before it was and existed. God was not in a huge empty room, but in His Heaven. Let’s get far away of this blasphemous and terribly stupid way of naming God as “Nothingness”!!!