Is God Nothingness?

[tqualey]

Hi, Qoeleth,

All philosophies must be internally consistent. Nihilism simply denies everything - even meaning. It not only lacks logic but denies meaning. It has a tremendously short runway, it fails to gain speed, and has crashed on the trash heap of both reality and history. But, what is significant is that anyone that sipping this toxic slime of a theory loses perspective and tires to drink that swamp dry!

There have been many (and worldly ‘famous’, too) nihilists - perhaps the most recognizable is F. Nietzsche - who tried to de-construct God, Christ, the Catholic Church and anything else they have set their sights on. When I was in school, I recall a cartoon about Nietzsche. It had two panels: 1.) God is dead. Nietzsche. 2.) Nietzsche is dead. God! So, who are you going to beleive?

Nothing can do No-Thing and we obviously observing many Some-Thing(s) that were created and have been make known to our senses. There is meaning to life - but, not to the Nihilist. As the Catholic you claim to be - please review your position in light of the teachings of the Church and the Gospels. While we do not understand the ‘why’ we have Faith that God so loved the world that He sent His Only Begotten Son to die for our sins.

It really is a complex thought: our existence and meaning in life, and it has been at the forefront of most of philosophy. Look at all of the beauty that surrounds each of us. Beauty is a reflection of Truth - and Truth is an Attribute of God. Evidence of God - and that truly is Something - abounds. As we become aware of new aspects of beauty, we are moving closer to the Truth of God’s love for each of us. Nihilism ignroes and derides such thoughts. As I see it, their answer to life and its meaning is simply nothing. How utterly false and depressing - and one bearing the striking marks of the Devil himelf!

God bless

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…

 

[JDaniel]

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).

Miles:

I think of it like this: "Beings, per se, have (i.e., possess) properties, such as tallness, or heaviness, etc. God does not possess any thing we could understand to be a property. God is not a being, instead he is that from which being and all or any of being’s properties derive, including existence (the act of being).

Analogically, a builder is not a house, nor a house a builder. All of the properties possessed by a house are derived, including its existence.

Properties can be imperfected. God does not contain anything that can imperfect Him.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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…

Qoeleth:

Yes. And we are told in several places in scripture that God “is in everything.” How? Are there gaps within us where a piece of God might lurk? Or, is God truly “in all things?” In the space where we might encounter an electron, resonating, the equivalent of 4 miles above a 4 inch (equivalent) nucleus, is that air? Or, is it “nothingness?” Or, is it God?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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”.

Marc:

How? Does He become physical?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Patrick:

Can we see, touch, smell, taste, or hear “love?” Or, is it “invisible?”

God bless,
jd

 

[Linux]

Qoeleth:

Yes. And we are told in several places in scripture that God “is in everything.” How? Are there gaps within us where a piece of God might lurk? Or, is God truly “in all things?” In the space where we might encounter an electron, resonating, the equivalent of 4 miles above a 4 inch (equivalent) nucleus, is that air? Or, is it “nothingness?” Or, is it God?

God bless,
jd

The only way that we can make sense of this while respecting the distinction between God and creation is to say that God is the “isness” or “act” of creation, but is not the distinct “essence” of creation. For example God is not the nature we describe as a “human-being”, but he is the “reality” of a human being because the potentiality of humanity has no act in and of itself intrinsic to its nature. Thus God would be both transcendent and imminent, both in things and outside of them, insofar as God is the existence of those things but not their essence or nature. Otherwise it makes no rational sense, and we would have to admit that Catholicism is logically flawed insofar as it speaks of Gods attributes.

 

[JDaniel]

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

Portofino:

Good point. Also, the singularity: the start of the universe. Was it stuff that God said, well, I’ll just let it displace Me a little bit. But, oops! It “big bangs!” Now, it is constantly pushing Me out of the way! What shall I do?

Nothing can displace that which is Infinite! God is not displacable!

God bless,
jd

 

[Linux]

Miles:

I think of it like this: "Beings, per se, have (i.e., possess) properties, such as tallness, or heaviness, etc. God does not possess any thing we could understand to be a property. God is not a being, instead he is that from which being and all or any of being’s properties derive, including existence (the act of being).

Analogically, a builder is not a house, nor a house a builder. All of the properties possessed by a house are derived, including its existence.

Properties can be imperfected. God does not contain anything that can imperfect Him.

God bless,
jd

God is the act of existence.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Miles:

Unless WE are defining it incorrectly. What is the “substance” of God? What is “spiritual substance?” In the sense it is meant herein, “nothingness” = “spiritual substance.” It exists in us, in every one of our organs, in every one of our molecules, in every one of our atoms, and it concurs with us through each and every one of our actions. (Except “sin.”)

God physically interacts with mankind, and all of nature, via “divine concurrence,” a/k/a "“concursus.” How? Unless He is within us in a most intimate way. Which means, He is everywhere within us. There is nothing within us that displaces Him. That intimate level of concursus must take place at the cellular level, nay, at the particle level.

“Nothingness” does not mean “nothingness” as Lawrence Krauss might have us believe, for, everything within us is displaced by God. We are nothing more than dimensionless point particles latticed and immersed in Infinite Nothingness. Our only personal possession is our soul. It differentiates us and allows us to choose “sin,” if we wish it. We are absolutely dependent upon God for everything that we are and everything that we do.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Miles:

The problem with that is that there are not just a few so-called “paradoxical phrases.” There are numerous such phrases. Keep your ears open each time you listen to the readings at each Mass.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Inocente:

But it may well be that which is not the “nothing that we ‘think’ it to be.” It may be something that physics, and the Church have found some agreement on. It is quite possible that we humans can’t discern anything at the implicate level, but only at the explicate level. Those who can actually sense things at the implicate level are rare and are given that ability by God, however, I don’t know why.

So, here’s .03 cents change back!

god bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Marc:

No doubt. but everything else tells us that he doesn’t: he’s invisible, he has no mass, he has no definable substance, he is infinite and not displacable, yet here we are, etc. so, how exactly is he not nothing?

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.

Actually, Qoeleth hasn’t defined it. Or at least hasn’t defined it for each of us, that is, according to our predilections.Nor has Yppop (in this thread).

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.

Don’t bow out yet. you may find that there’s “something” to this after all.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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?”

Well . . .what can one say?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

J:

Don’t think of it that way. Instead think of it a pure distension, at the explicate level.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Inocente:

The same could be said for non-sensical comparisons!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Po:

No. The bible says “He exists in all things.” Not that anything exists in Him. This is not “pantheism,” or “panentheism.”

Watch and you will see.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Po:

Nope. I don’t think that’s possible.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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:

But, “space” is “nothing.” As mere distension, it is “nothing.” But, how does it actually exist if it is a contradiction?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Space exists; it is not nothing.

Linux:

So, pure distension exists?

God bless,
jd