Is God Nothingness?

[JDaniel]

How does nothing create anything? Out of nothing comes nothing. God can give actuality to an abstract idea precisely because God is the act of reality.

Linux:

Forget your current predilection with that definition. Open your mind to a definition that equates God as God of the Gaps. I think God is what fills the gaps between S-points spread out in 3-D lattices. I think it is God that gives things what we sense as mass, weight and solidity. In that sense He really isn’t “nothing,” is He? But, He is also not the soup people like Lawrence Krauss claim.

Now, all of what seems manifest to us may be nothing more than a very high-definition illusion, or hologram-like exigency. But, even if that is so, who is providing it to us?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

There is no actual “nothingness” between matter or whatever. There is “space” between distinct parcels of matter. Space is a thing, not a no-thing.

Linux:

Prove it. Space is pure distension. Pure distension is not a “thing.” A “thing” is defined as an objectum, that which “strikes against the senses.” But, space does not appear to “strike against any senses.” Isn’t that more like nothing, than like something?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You think God is physical.

Linux:

No. I think He is far, far more than simply “physical.” However, He is able to manifest as physical and thus cause everything that happens (except sin).

That said, His physical manifestation may well be naught more than a very, very high-def hologram-like exigency.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linux]

Linux:

Prove it. Space is pure distension. Pure distension is not a “thing.” A “thing” is defined as an objectum, that which “strikes against the senses.” But, space does not appear to “strike against any senses.” Isn’t that more like nothing, than like something?

God bless,
jd

And yet you treat it as an object that resides between distinct objects. You recognise its existence, otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of it as that which actually divides distinct objects. To equate space with God is basically saying that God is the finite distances between objects. That is not the Christian God, and your confidence in this idea is humorous at best. It reminds me of the pagans attempt to associate physical experiences with divine beings; it is the Gods that throw lightning bolts and boil volcanoes - that sort of nonsense. If there was literally nothingness between objects, as opposed to finite measurements of space, those objects would not be divided, and you would have instead a singularity. Pure distension? Prove it!! Space does strike against the senses. Space has dimension. We can perceive its dimensions, we can measure it. It is not me that needs to prove anything. It is you that needs to prove that space is not a thing. It is your claim that goes against self evident experience and science.

 

[Linux]

Linux:

No. I think He is far, far more than simply “physical.” However, He is able to manifest as physical and thus cause everything that happens (except sin).

That said, His physical manifestation may well be naught more than a very, very high-def hologram-like exigency.

God bless,
jd

If you think God is space then you think God is physical.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi, Sw85,

I think you’re totally correct!

It is beyond my imagination to see why ‘nothingness’ appears to attractive to anyone. After all, if their view of ‘nohingness’ actually was in place, when we looked to the sky we wuld see nothing but emptyness - because everything has been removed.

In my opinion, this ‘God is nothingness’ is a toxic swill that is being poured out and whoever eats of this poison will pay the price.

“Holy Mother of God, pray for us who have recourse to thee!”

God bless

Tom:

Man up. Love God and all of the tiny powers He has given us. Let us use them, not relegate them to Puritanistic over-reactions. No one is trying to take St. Thomas’ God away from us. Do you think Aquinas was universally revered in his day? Do you think there are no Atheists today? This may well be the idea that wins most of them back.

It has been Physics that has moved so many to atheism. Now, perhaps Physics can bring them back into the fold. Regardless of your preferences, Physics is here to stay. Let’s make sure we interpret it correctly.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You misread my post, I said a belief that God is nothing seems to end up with God being no more than a trick of the mind. No Baptist believes God is a trick of the mind.

Inocente:

I guess I did misread it. Thanks for the clarification. I do not think this idea is a “trick of the mind.” You have a good brain. Read through this thread.

God bless,
jd

 

[zro_x]

@JDaniel

physical space can simply be defined as the absense of matter. Abstract space can be defined as a coordinate system with three axes. Nothingness is defined as the absense of everything. thus, nothingness does not equal space.

 

[JDaniel]

Any church preaching that Christ is Nothingness wouldn’t survive long because that’s not the good news, it’s just opaque and complex theorizing. Christ is immediate, experiential, the way to get folk in church is less theorizing not more. Imho.

Inocente:

Try explaining that to almost any non-believer. Christ walked the earth 2,000 years ago. People today have immense problems with the “history.” People have even more problems with His invisibility. And you think the idea is complex and opaque? (BTW, we’ve been trying less theorizing and how has that worked for Christianity? When the Catholic Church has a cough, the rest of Christendom has the flu.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

One’s imagination or lack thereof has zero theological significance.

SW:

So . . . what is God theologically?

I don’t “imagine” it at all. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and upon the heart of man has not come up that which God has prepared for those who love him.” If you see Buddha on the road, kill him. Etc.

I’ve a better idea: let’s continue on our present road to annihilation.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hi,
This discussion has developed a good number of respondents on both sides of the issue, namely, “God is not nothing” or “God is Nothingness”. I think it’s time for some definitions. I have bifurcated the “nothing” concept into diametrically opposite meanings. Leaving theology aside for a moment and sticking with philosophy, to eliminate the paradoxical nature of the word “nothing”, I propose that “nothing” does not mean the same as “nothingness”. I do this because I need a word - “nothingness” - that acts for that which is space-like but is not the space that gives dimensionality to the universe. In other words, I am claiming that at the ground of reality (JD has referred to this as the implicate level and I will also), there are two modalities of space: one is the space that defines the universe and science describes as the basis for matter and energy. The other modality is space that permeates matter as JD has been pointing out within (and without) the electron shell. I will argue that this second modality is the spiritual component of reality which I have chosen to label as “infinite nothingness”. Nothingness is not “nothing” as I define them.

When I think about “nothing” I cannot imagine it without the imagining space and dimensionality, for example, tqualey nicely expresses the situation in post 116 where he/she writes, “… when we looked to the sky we w(o)uld see nothing but emptyness - because everything has been removed”. What we do see (or imagine) in this emptiness is spatial dimensionality and spatial dimensionality is pure existence. We cannot “see” “nothing”, the thing that is devoid of everything including dimensionality. This implies that the “nothing”, that respondents finding fault with the statement “God is Nothingness”, are objecting to is the “nothing” that has no dimensionality and thus no existence. With this and within the context of my definition I heartily agree because this “nothing” does not exist so could not be God who does exist. On the other hand, I feel entitled - contingent on further explanation - in using the word “nothingness” to describe the infinite, space-like, dimesionality that existed before the creation of the universe, dimensionality that is devoid of matter, energy, time, and the space that defines the dimensionality of the universe.

I cannot imagine a dimensionless entity (a single point) for which there is no exterior. Any image of an exterior to a single point would have to have dimensionality. And the image would not be of “nothing” as I defined it. Such an image would neccessarily be of “nothingness” as I define it. The “nothing” that refers to a dimensionless point without anything exterior to it, is as meaningless as imagining a squared circle or an effect without a cause. It can’t be done.

Okay, you guys that get emotional about “God is Nothingness” can respond with your proclamations: blasphemous, senseless, swill, stupidity, and any other derogatory word you may want to use, but please recognize the paucity of rationality that such responses represent. And while I’m at it consider this from the encyclical Fides et Ratio.

1. In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature’s reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20). This is to concede to human reason a capacity which seems almost to surpass its natural limitations. Not only is it not restricted to sensory knowledge, from the moment that it can reflect critically upon the data of the senses, but, by discoursing on the data provided by the senses, reason can reach the cause which lies at the origin of all perceptible reality. In philosophical terms, we could say that this important Pauline text affirms the human capacity for metaphysical enquiry.

If anyone finds that I am violating the spirit of this excerpt, please let me know how.

I will, in my next post if I make one, a more unemotional approach to his business of nothingness being the spiritual component of reality. It is an argument based on the mathematically acceptable description of space and its two modalities. It is an argument designed to counter the arguments of the materialists not other theists.

Anyone want to go along for the ride? I think JD will, perhaps Qoeleth?.
Yppop

Yppop:

I’ve put my quarter in the machine.

God bless emphatically,
jd

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Yppop,

Just to keep everything simple, I’m a guy - named Tom

I gues when we consider No Thing within the context of God - we indeed believe that God is not a Thing - in fact, the very essence of No Thing. Is this what you have in mind?

When, however the question comes as, “Is God Nothingness?” I believe we have crossed a line and have moved into nihilism. I realize that some do not think the posters were identifying nihilism as their belief system - but, what is being addressed is not the spiritual (non-material) nature of God - but what appears to me to be a denial of existence. That is the problem that I have been having with those who champion that God Is Nothingness.

God bless

Hi,
This discussion has developed a good number of respondents on both sides of the issue, namely, “God is not nothing” or “God is Nothingness”. I think it’s time for some definitions. I have bifurcated the “nothing” concept into diametrically opposite meanings. Leaving theology aside for a moment and sticking with philosophy, to eliminate the paradoxical nature of the word “nothing”, I propose that “nothing” does not mean the same as “nothingness”. I do this because I need a word - “nothingness” - that acts for that which is space-like but is not the space that gives dimensionality to the universe. In other words, I am claiming that at the ground of reality (JD has referred to this as the implicate level and I will also), there are two modalities of space: one is the space that defines the universe and science describes as the basis for matter and energy. The other modality is space that permeates matter as JD has been pointing out within (and without) the electron shell. I will argue that this second modality is the spiritual component of reality which I have chosen to label as “infinite nothingness”. Nothingness is not “nothing” as I define them.

When I think about “nothing” I cannot imagine it without the imagining space and dimensionality, for example, tqualey nicely expresses the situation in post 116 where he/she writes, “… when we looked to the sky we w(o)uld see nothing but emptyness - because everything has been removed”. What we do see (or imagine) in this emptiness is spatial dimensionality and spatial dimensionality is pure existence. We cannot “see” “nothing”, the thing that is devoid of everything including dimensionality. This implies that the “nothing”, that respondents finding fault with the statement “God is Nothingness”, are objecting to is the “nothing” that has no dimensionality and thus no existence. With this and within the context of my definition I heartily agree because this “nothing” does not exist so could not be God who does exist. On the other hand, I feel entitled - contingent on further explanation - in using the word “nothingness” to describe the infinite, space-like, dimesionality that existed before the creation of the universe, dimensionality that is devoid of matter, energy, time, and the space that defines the dimensionality of the universe.

I cannot imagine a dimensionless entity (a single point) for which there is no exterior. Any image of an exterior to a single point would have to have dimensionality. And the image would not be of “nothing” as I defined it. Such an image would neccessarily be of “nothingness” as I define it. The “nothing” that refers to a dimensionless point without anything exterior to it, is as meaningless as imagining a squared circle or an effect without a cause. It can’t be done.

Okay, you guys that get emotional about “God is Nothingness” can respond with your proclamations: blasphemous, senseless, swill, stupidity, and any other derogatory word you may want to use, but please recognize the paucity of rationality that such responses represent. And while I’m at it consider this from the encyclical Fides et Ratio.

1. In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature’s reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20). This is to concede to human reason a capacity which seems almost to surpass its natural limitations. Not only is it not restricted to sensory knowledge, from the moment that it can reflect critically upon the data of the senses, but, by discoursing on the data provided by the senses, reason can reach the cause which lies at the origin of all perceptible reality. In philosophical terms, we could say that this important Pauline text affirms the human capacity for metaphysical enquiry.

If anyone finds that I am violating the spirit of this excerpt, please let me know how.

I will, in my next post if I make one, a more unemotional approach to his business of nothingness being the spiritual component of reality. It is an argument based on the mathematically acceptable description of space and its two modalities. It is an argument designed to counter the arguments of the materialists not other theists.

Anyone want to go along for the ride? I think JD will, perhaps Qoeleth?.
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

And yet you treat it as an object that resides between distinct objects.

Linux:

Yes, because space has two modalities, I believe. Modality one is that it is discrete and is thus, perhaps, non-existent distension. Modality two is that it is God as He is manifest in the physical. Consider how Christ becomes the flesh and blood of the ciborium and the cup. Is it truly “magic,” or does it happen because of some kind of physical connectivity with the physical. I believe in the true presence. I believe in “transubstantiation,” NOT “transignification.”

You recognise its existence, otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of it as that which actually divides distinct objects.

Yes, I recognize it as discrete space, but I know it as continuous space. Realize that there is no such thing as an actual infinity. But, since we do not know what God’s substance is, I have a perfect right to call it, “Infinite Nothingness.” God has no properties. Nothing, in this sense, has no properties either. How incredibly similar!

To equate space with God is basically saying that God is the finite distances between objects.

No. I am saying, and have said all along, that “objects,” per se, do not exist. Physics tells us that objects consist of not anything that possesses dimensionality. Why do you think they are furiously trying to find a “God particle,” the elusive Higgs boson? They need it to postulate “mass.”

That is not the Christian God, and your confidence in this idea is humorous at best.

Really, then how humorous must Physics be to you!

It reminds me of the pagans attempt to associate physical experiences with divine beings; it is the Gods that throw lightning bolts and boil volcanoes - that sort of nonsense. If there was literally nothingness between objects, as opposed to finite measurements of space, those objects would not be divided, and you would have instead a singularity. Pure distension? Prove it!! Space does strike against the senses. Space has dimension.

How is it delineated? Dimension from where to where? Or, is it actually infinite? And, interestingly enough, the universe started from one of those singularity thingys.

We can perceive its dimensions, we can measure it.

Only locally.

It is not me that needs to prove anything. It is you that needs to prove that space is not a thing. It is your claim that goes against self evident experience and science.

Well, you may just have to drop out of this conversation then, as it won’t be for you.

God bless anyway,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If you think God is space then you think God is physical.

Linux:

Thank you for a much more hospitable response and question.

I think God is the basis of physical, just as He is the basis of being. He is not “a being.” He is “Being” as it derives from Aquinas’ fourth proof. He is “Physical” in that all else that is physical participates in His Physicality, just as it participates in His Being. Neither form possesses “properties.”

(I hope you understand that that is why God is not merely “a being.”)

God bless,
jd

 

[JerryZ]

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).

Those theories of yours can be very problematic.

Semantically:

noth·ing·ness (nthng-ns)
n.

1. The condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence.
2. Empty space; a void.
3. Lack of consequence; insignificance.
4. Something inconsequential or insignificant.

Then there is the mumbo jumbo of theology revolving around that word, which is in contradiction with the semantic definition. So either something IS or it is NOT.

Then your (+0 being equal to -0)
(Zero) 0 = Nothingness… There is no +0 nor -0

Again Abscence of something is the definition of 0 (zero).

Further even more troubling is this: “Nicholas of Cusa said that in God opposites are united”

:bigyikes: NOooooo! Good and Evil are NOT united in GOD. :tsktsk:

 

[JDaniel]

@JDaniel

physical space can simply be defined as the absense of matter.

Zro x:

“Matter?” What is “matter?”

Abstract space can be defined as a coordinate system with three axes.

Yes, and “motion” can be defined as “movement from here to there.” That is not a definition of “motion,” it is instead, an “example” of motion. It is what is considered “circular.” And so is that definition of “space.” Question: if “space” is a physicality, how is it purely mathematical? Are humans purely mathematical? Are stones purely mathematical?

Nothingness is defined as the absense of everything.

From the Oxford Dictionary on-line:
Origin:
Old English nān thing (see no, thing)
(Notice the comma. Interesting?)

God bless,
jd

 

[Qoeleth]

One’s imagination or lack thereof has zero theological significance.

I don’t “imagine” it at all. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and upon the heart of man has not come up that which God has prepared for those who love him.” If you see Buddha on the road, kill him. Etc.

Well argued. But, even endeavouring to develop an ‘imageless’ conception of God, one tends to arrive at an ‘imageless image’- which perhaps could be labelled ‘Nothingness’.

Perhaps we are saying the same thing in different words…

 

[Qoeleth]

Hi, Yppop,

Just to keep everything simple, I’m a guy - named Tom

I gues when we consider No Thing within the context of God - we indeed believe that God is not a Thing - in fact, the very essence of No Thing. Is this what you have in mind?

When, however the question comes as, “Is God Nothingness?” I believe we have crossed a line and have moved into nihilism. I realize that some do not think the posters were identifying nihilism as their belief system - but, what is being addressed is not the spiritual (non-material) nature of God - but what appears to me to be a denial of existence. That is the problem that I have been having with those who champion that God Is Nothingness.

God bless

No. The original post is refering to the no-thingness of God, and the consequent use of physical ‘Nothingness’ (I am aware that is a contradiction) as a valid ‘image’ of God- an ‘imageless image’, if you like.

We can contemplate the timelessness, the immutability, the infinity, indeed, the omnipotence, of the vast void of Nothingness and see something ‘like’ God. Perhaps more ‘like God’ than the traditional ‘concept of God’.

This is not theology for children, or those who are waivering in faith…

 

[JDaniel]

Hi, Yppop,

Just to keep everything simple, I’m a guy - named Tom

I gues when we consider No Thing within the context of God - we indeed believe that God is not a Thing - in fact, the very essence of No Thing. Is this what you have in mind?

When, however the question comes as, “Is God Nothingness?” I believe we have crossed a line and have moved into nihilism. I realize that some do not think the posters were identifying nihilism as their belief system - but, what is being addressed is not the spiritual (non-material) nature of God - but what appears to me to be a denial of existence. That is the problem that I have been having with those who champion that God Is Nothingness.

God bless

Tom:

Has it been Atheists that have been championing “God is (Infinite) Nothingness?” Or, has it been theists? I can answer this: It’s been theists! Now, why on earth would a theist want to provide Atheism with any ammo? Tom, there is no such physical thing as an actual infinite, actual infinity. Only God is infinite. And, in the sense that He is continuous Space, He is Infinite Continuous Space. That is my term for what others call “spirit.”

Remember, there is no-thing in the universe that can displace God. He is non-displacable. Suddenly, one can see that from all of this God is actually Everything. He permeates us and stones. He has this connexion with humans and things, and thus, He causes everything that happens to happen. We must stop thinking of Him as that kindly old man above the clouds that is not intimate with us. He not only hears what we say, He causes our mouths to move and our mouth muscles to form the words, and also our lungs to force air out of it, producing sound. What is there that God does not cause? Only sin. Our free souls cause that stuff.

God bless, Tom,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No. The original post is refering to the no-thingness of God, and the consequent use of physical ‘Nothingness’ (I am aware that is a contradiction) as a valid ‘image’ of God- an ‘imageless image’, if you like.

We can contemplate the timelessness, the immutability, the infinity, indeed, the omnipotence, of the vast void of Nothingness and see something ‘like’ God. Perhaps more ‘like God’ than the traditional ‘concept of God’.

This is not theology for children, or those who are waivering in faith…

Qoeleth:

Absolutely correct! (I’m sorry, I’m not all that sure you want to be on sides with me, or Yppop!)

God bless,
jd