Is God Nothingness?

[Qoeleth]

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”!!!

I am sorry that you seem upset.

As well as Earth, God created Heaven (see Gen 1:1), so ‘there’ was a time even before this. In fact, God created ‘existence’ itself. Therefore, God preceded existence.

If we believe in a temporally finite universe, eventually existence will also end. But God, the supra-ontic, will remain.

It would seem more blasphemous to say “God is everything”- because that would be to include within His essence imperfect things. And indeed, to say “God is something” would also seem to be blasphemous, to reduce Him to a player within the game of existence, rather than its Origin and End.

 

[BrunoMaria]

God is ALL, for all is God. We recognize God in all there is (Ignatius of Loyola)
1Cor 15,28: When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be everything to every one.

 

[J_Peterson]

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.

Very well put. To those bothered by it, I’d recommend The Cloud of Unknowing.

One place the metaphor falls apart is that nothingness can be thought of having infinite potentiality whereas God is Pure Act.

 

[yppop]

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

Wow, what a brilliant play on words; I’m intimidated!
.

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

The philosophical concatenation I presented goes like this: nothingness = space = dimensionality = pure existence = God. Which of those equivalences to you have a problem with?

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”!!!

Blasphemous? Stupid? You have wounded me deeply! Do I need to go to confession?

Please don’t go banging your head on a wall on my account.

Yppop

 

[inocente]

The philosophical concatenation I presented goes like this: nothingness = space = dimensionality = pure existence = God.

So you’re saying: nothingness = sorrow = pot noodles = thunderous applause.



Arguments which prove black is white tend to need a bit more work on the logic.

 

[yppop]

So you’re saying: nothingness = sorrow = pot noodles = thunderous applause.



Arguments which prove black is white tend to need a bit more work on the logic.

Baptist guy,
That ain’t what I said, but if that is how your mind interpreted it, I applaud you thunderously.

Now I will show you how I expected a philosophical dicussion should proceed:

Reading your idea of a philosopical concatenation, I would not condescendingly dismiss it with an attempt at parody, but rather would ask you: What do you mean by “nothingness = sorrow?”

On the other hand, why should I expect respect for any of my ideas on this forum where the usual intellectual discourse is equivalent to two little boys seeing who can pee the highest.

Yppop

 

[inocente]

Baptist guy,

I like that a lot, kind of wish that was my username now.

*That ain’t what I said, but if that is how your mind interpreted it, I applaud you thunderously.

Now I will show you how I expected a philosophical dicussion should proceed:

Reading your idea of a philosopical concatenation, I would not condescendingly dismiss it with an attempt at parody, but rather would ask you: What do you mean by “nothingness = sorrow?”*

I mean that it isn’t; from personal experience I know that nothingness = depression, while sorrow is a rich experience far from nothingness.

In post #57 you say: 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”.

In both cases you ask me to accept that “nothingness is something…” but it isn’t, by definition nothing is “not anything” and nothingness means “the absence of existence”.

Since this invalidates both your alternatives, you just proved that nothing does not exist. QED

On the other hand, why should I expect respect for any of my ideas on this forum where the usual intellectual discourse is equivalent to two little boys seeing who can pee the highest.

Ah, as a Baptist guy I empathize completely, henceforth we two are a band of brothers. Allow me to say this with the greatest respect:

First, the criticism was of your argument, not of you.

Second, your argument is still wrong.

 

[BrunoMaria]

above I stumbled over the word:
“The Crucifix must be the most vivid symbol of a being reduced to (almost?) nothing.”

Sorry, but hardly ever was here a greater nonsense than this written.

The cross - the crucifix is the symbol of all there is. The symbol of life in eternity with God. It’s the symbol and statement of our connection to and with God.
The cross, once a symbol for shame and outmost possible humiliation, is the sign of Jesus’ victory.
The cross was and still is reason for many martyrs to die from hatred hands who hate Jesus Christ. To them the Cross is annoyance and cause for bottomless hate.
St. Paul named in 1Cor 1,18 the Gospel as “the word of the Cross”. Jesus asked us to take up “our Cross” and so follow Him.
This sign of Jesus’ victory, The Cross contains all there is on heaven and on earth!

yours
Bruno

 

[po18guy]

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.

Rather than the nothingness of dispersion, which is a limited human vision deriving from human limitation, He is the absolute of permeation. Yet, He does not exist in rocks and trees - rather, they exist in Him.

 

[JDaniel]

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:

Qoeleth:

Interesting. I just noticed this thread, and if I may, I’d like to respond, sort of.

• Nothingness, like God, is eternal and changless

So, likewise, is space.

• Nothingness, like God, is entirely beyond understanding and predication

So, likewise, is space.

• 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.

So, likewise is space.

• 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.

That’s enough; you can see where I’m going with my responses.

I think it’s a bit over the top to say, unequivocally, that God is “nothingness.” But, is it over the top to say God may be what might be regarded, even at the explicate level, as infinite “space?” The conception of “nothingness” is of: “nothing.” But, God is NOT “nothing.” Rather, God is “something,” albeit what he is is beyond our knowing.

What is “space?” It is a kind of nothingness, but it is a kind of nothingness that is the sort of “being” that can be participated in. So, it could well be maximal Being. Thus, it is not ‘nothing’, as we often perceive it to be.

We have no idea of what God consists. IOW, what his substance might be. But, we can reason that he must be infinite, and if so, he CANNOT be displaced, or be displace-able. Scripture has numerous references to the fact that God “is within all things.” How can this be if he cannot be displaced?

We get a glimpse of God whenever we think of an atom. He is that space, i.e., “nothingness,” that fundamental particles are immersed in. Do fundamental particles displace him? Of course not. For they are dimensionless. They are not little round, or oval, balls. They are “point” particles.

Just my little addition to a great post topic!

God bless,
jd

 

[po18guy]

I am sorry that you seem upset.

As well as Earth, God created Heaven (see Gen 1:1), so ‘there’ was a time even before this. In fact, God created ‘existence’ itself. Therefore, God preceded existence.

If we believe in a temporally finite universe, eventually existence will also end. But God, the supra-ontic, will remain.

It would seem more blasphemous to say “God is everything”- because that would be to include within His essence imperfect things. And indeed, to say “God is something” would also seem to be blasphemous, to reduce Him to a player within the game of existence, rather than its Origin and End.

I think you might be trying to separate God from existence. He is existence (“I AM”), and all that exists has its origin in Him.

 

[po18guy]

Nothingness has never existed, since God has always existed. Those who, out of hard heartedness or ignorance, reject God, must therefore construct this artifice of nothingness. Man thinks of no God, but God does not think of no man.

 

[Qoeleth]

above I stumbled over the word:
“The Crucifix must be the most vivid symbol of a being reduced to (almost?) nothing.”

Sorry, but hardly ever was here a greater nonsense than this written.

The cross - the crucifix is the symbol of all there is. The symbol of life in eternity with God. It’s the symbol and statement of our connection to and with God.
The cross, once a symbol for shame and outmost possible humiliation, is the sign of Jesus’ victory.
The cross was and still is reason for many martyrs to die from hatred hands who hate Jesus Christ. To them the Cross is annoyance and cause for bottomless hate.
St. Paul named in 1Cor 1,18 the Gospel as “the word of the Cross”. Jesus asked us to take up “our Cross” and so follow Him.
This sign of Jesus’ victory, The Cross contains all there is on heaven and on earth!

yours
Bruno

Yes, the Cross is a sign of victory. But also a sign of self-emptying, of pain and death. This is the mystery of it. The lowest state of humanity, it’s most wretched, is when the Divine is approached. Everything becomes nothing, and nothing becomes everything.

 

[Qoeleth]

Qoeleth:

Interesting. I just noticed this thread, and if I may, I’d like to respond, sort of.

So, likewise, is space.

So, likewise, is space.

So, likewise is space.

That’s enough; you can see where I’m going with my responses.

I think it’s a bit over the top to say, unequivocally, that God is “nothingness.” But, is it over the top to say God may be what might be regarded, even at the explicate level, as infinite “space?” The conception of “nothingness” is of: “nothing.” But, God is NOT “nothing.” Rather, God is “something,” albeit what he is is beyond our knowing.

What is “space?” It is a kind of nothingness, but it is a kind of nothingness that is the sort of “being” that can be participated in. So, it could well be maximal Being. Thus, it is not ‘nothing’, as we often perceive it to be.

We have no idea of what God consists. IOW, what his substance might be. But, we can reason that he must be infinite, and if so, he CANNOT be displaced, or be displace-able. Scripture has numerous references to the fact that God “is within all things.” How can this be if he cannot be displaced?

We get a glimpse of God whenever we think of an atom. He is that space, i.e., “nothingness,” that fundamental particles are immersed in. Do fundamental particles displace him? Of course not. For they are dimensionless. They are not little round, or oval, balls. They are “point” particles.

Just my little addition to a great post topic!

God bless,
jd

Yes. It seems that in imagining ‘nothing’, it is impossible not to imagine ‘space.’ And space is a powerful image of God. Even philosophically, what is the ontological status of space? Does space ‘exist’? Yes and no.

 

[Linux]

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 nothing physical. There is a difference between that and positing the existence of an actual object that is essentially nothingness. An actual nothingness is a contradiction. There is no such thing as nothing.

 

[Linux]

Yes. It seems that in imagining ‘nothing’, it is impossible not to imagine ‘space.’ And space is a powerful image of God. Even philosophically, what is the ontological status of space? Does space ‘exist’? Yes and no.

Space exists; it is not nothing.

 

[Linux]

I am sorry that you seem upset.

As well as Earth, God created Heaven (see Gen 1:1), so ‘there’ was a time even before this. In fact, God created ‘existence’ itself. Therefore, God preceded existence.

If we believe in a temporally finite universe, eventually existence will also end. But God, the supra-ontic, will remain.

It would seem more blasphemous to say “God is everything”- because that would be to include within His essence imperfect things. And indeed, to say “God is something” would also seem to be blasphemous, to reduce Him to a player within the game of existence, rather than its Origin and End.

God did not create the act of reality. God either is the act of existing, or he does not exist at all. If God does not exist at all, such would make it meaningless and contradictory to speak of God as a creative cause. From nothing comes nothing. There is no supra ontic-reality. There are those “natures” that are contingent upon existence, and there is that nature that is the act of existence (God). In fact potential natures in and of themselves are not real if by that one means reality is intrinsic to their natural acts; reality is never intrinsic to their nature even when they are actualized. That is the difference between God and the universe.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Let’s try to not separate philosophical speculation from theology and mysticism. I don’t understand why more focus hasn’t been given to apophatic theology here. Some mention, but not enough. It does truly seem that many revered individuals in Christianity – many orthodox individuals – have used nothingness as an icon of God. It’s actually quite traditional, so why don’t we explore this more? I’ve even heard God described as luminous darkness, so paradoxes aren’t absurd when talking about someone as transcendent and unbound as God.

 

[inocente]

Let’s try to not separate philosophical speculation from theology and mysticism. I don’t understand why more focus hasn’t been given to apophatic theology here. Some mention, but not enough. It does truly seem that many revered individuals in Christianity – many orthodox individuals – have used nothingness as an icon of God. It’s actually quite traditional, so why don’t we explore this more? I’ve even heard God described as luminous darkness, so paradoxes aren’t absurd when talking about someone as transcendent and unbound as God.

To me the problem is that if God is this paradox then chances are He is an intriguing illusion brought on by a wiring problem in our cognition, and we are not in God’s image so much as God being in ours.

 

[Linux]

Let’s try to not separate philosophical speculation from theology and mysticism. I don’t understand why more focus hasn’t been given to apophatic theology here. Some mention, but not enough. It does truly seem that many revered individuals in Christianity – many orthodox individuals – have used nothingness as an icon of God. It’s actually quite traditional, so why don’t we explore this more? I’ve even heard God described as luminous darkness, so paradoxes aren’t absurd when talking about someone as transcendent and unbound as God.

So long as you understand that the use of the word “nothing” is not being used in a metaphysical context but rather as a metaphor to experientially distinguish between physics and the non-physical then there is no contradiction because you are not really saying that God is actually nothing in real world terms. But it is confusing since people who go down this road tend to either fail to make a distinction and thereby mislead people, or they fail to remain within the metaphorical context from which they started the conversation.