Is God Nothingness?

[zro_x]

Tom:

there is no such physical thing as an actual infinite, actual infinity. Only God is infinite.

A black hole has infinite density.

 

[zro_x]

Zro x:

“Matter?” What is “matter?”

anything that takes up space and has mass.

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.

motion is better defined as the change of position over time relative to a reference point. just as abstract space is best defined as a coordinate system with three axes. difining space and motion in these ways is not circular.

From the Oxford Dictionary on-line:
Origin:
Old English nān thing (see no, thing)

right. How does this refute what I said about nothing being described as the absence of everything? It’s two different ways of saying the same thing.

 

[yppop]

JD,
Love your post 120! I’ve been searching for a term to replace the very awkward, "guys that get emotional about “God is Nothingness”. Your post gave me the idea to call our friends “Puritans”. And I do not use it to disparage anyone; I accept that our “Puritans” are persons of pure faith and do not require an application of “the human capacity for metaphysical enquiry” (see post 116 for the excerpt from fides ex ratio) to satisfy their spirituality. Most of my very large family are Puritans and have expressed similar views about my ideas. Nevertheless, I happen to believe that the most profound manifestation of Sanctifying (or Habitual) grace is the gift of wonder; I have never stopped wondering. The result of many, many years of disciplined wondering I have come to the conclusion that God, or the substance of God, or the Mind of God, whichever, can best be expressed as “infinite nothingness”.

We can identify the two modalities of space mathematically as discrete space and continuous space as JD has already pointed out. I argue that discrete space is the substance from which the material component of reality is derived and continuous space is the spiritual component. It is generally accepted that the physical elements of reality are: space, matter, energy, and time. Physical space, which is the basis for the “mass” of electrons and quarks is discrete; the emptiness that forms the electron shell and provides the sensation of materiality is filled with the spiritual element of reality, best described as continuous space. The explanation for how the material arises out of the spiritual will have to await more background. But if that doesn’t cause you to wonder (be curious) you may not be utilizing the gift of sanctifying grace to your fullest.

It is 11+ pm and I am a bit tired and have to get up at 6am to clean our church, so I will wait until sometime tomorrow before I try to explain the very important mathematical distinction between discrete and continuous space. I leave you with this beautiful syllogism to contemplate:

At the heart of our universe, each soul exists for God, in our Lord,
But all reality, even material reality, around each one of us, exists for our souls,
Hence, all sensible reality, around each one of us, exists, through our souls, for God in our Lord.

• The Divine Milieu - pg 96

I wish you all the affections of God’s grace: awe, peace, and joy
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

anything that takes up space and has mass.

Zro x:

You are certain that matter takes up space and has mass? So, Physicists can discontinue their search for the Higgs boson? Allow me to ask you a couple of easy questions: (1) If an atom of matter has a nucleus that to our scale is about 4 inches in high, and its electron shell is 4 miles high, even if millions of them held hands (by electron sharing) where does its “mass” come from? (2) If God is Infinite (which we Catholics believe) how is He displaced?

motion is better defined as the change of position over time relative to a reference point.

Let’s inspect that statement: “change” means what? “Change” of place? “Change” of place over time? “Change” of place over time relative to a reference point? And, “motion,” what does it mean? “Movement” from one place, or position, to another? “Movement” from one place to another over time? “Movement” from one place to another over time relative to a reference point? Do you really not see that this definition is tautological? Circular? That you are saying nothing more than, “motion” is “movement.” How does that tell me what it means? Please, for all of our sakes, how does that tell me what motion is? All you are saying is that motion is motion. How does that help me understand?

Descartes defines it as, “the transference of one part of matter or one body from the vicinity of those bodies that are in immediate contact with it, and which we regard as in repose, into the vicinity of others.” - (Principles of Philosophy, XXV, translation cited, I, 266.) Yet even the word “transference” is what we are trying to define! But alas, at least he understood and tried to put a definition to “motion” that, hopefully, avoided circularity. He failed too, don’t worry!

just as abstract space is best defined as a coordinate system with three axes. difining space and motion in these ways is not circular.

But this definition of “space” tells us that it is purely mathematical in character. As abstract, it has zero physical characteristics. You have only told me that space is something that starts over here, goes over to there, and then up to there. Are you serious? And that represents an adequate definition of “space” to you? Oh, my!

How does this refute what I said about nothing being described as the absence of everything?

It doesn’t. That is a perfectly fine definition - completely non-circular. However, it doesn’t tell me, or you, how it exists, how it manifests its being. Yours is a definition from a via negativa. Do you know what that means? That means it is a definition that tells me what it isn’t! Now, tell me what it is. “Infinity” is one of those very rare things that we can only define by a via negativa. But not “space.” Space insists on positive properties as it often has things in it, things that displace it.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

Forget your current predilection with that definition. Open your mind to a definition that equates God as God of the Gaps.

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence. Nonetheless, in current usage, it refers to a specific form of the argument from ignorance fallacy. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[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.)

When a lost soul walks in, they want to know how Christ can help them and that they are not alone, and that’s not hard to explain. No one even had to explain it to me, I could just see it in how they live their lives. But if they’d told me God is S-points and nothingness I’d still be lost.

Here’s a meaningful non-theoretical approach (Pentecostal). Like it or not, there’s a lot of them there and with over ten million hits they must be doing something right.

Hillsong - Worthy Is The Lamb - youtube.com/watch?v=AR4CCLnmf1Q

 

[Qoeleth]

When a lost soul walks in, they want to know how Christ can help them and that they are not alone, and that’s not hard to explain. No one even had to explain it to me, I could just see it in how they live their lives. But if they’d told me God is S-points and nothingness I’d still be lost.

Here’s a meaningful non-theoretical approach (Pentecostal). Like it or not, there’s a lot of them there and with over ten million hits they must be doing something right.

Hillsong - Worthy Is The Lamb - youtube.com/watch?v=AR4CCLnmf1Q

I agree, for most people, the Nothingness image probably leaves them a bit emotionally untouched. But then, probably Pseudo-Dioysius and Eckhart might also leave them untouched. Whereas other people might feel Hillsong is like listening to cheesy stadium pop (no offence, I think they’re OK at times).

 

[inocente]

You are certain that matter takes up space and has mass?

Yes. For instance a proton’s radius is about 0.85 fm.

A proton is made of three quarks, binding gluons, and the space around them. Its rest mass is 80 times more than the rest masses of its constituent particles. The extra mass comes from the kinetic energy of the constituents as they jiggle, and they couldn’t jiggle without space. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_the_proton

motion is better defined as the change of position over time relative to a reference point. just as abstract space is best defined as a coordinate system with three axes. difining space and motion in these ways is not circular.
JDaniel;10092108:

And, “motion,” what does it mean? “Movement” from one place, or position, to another? “Movement” from one place to another over time? “Movement” from one place to another over time relative to a reference point? Do you really not see that this definition is tautological? Circular?

Zro x gave a standard definition:

Motion A change in the position of a body or system with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference. Only relative motion can be measured, absolute motion is meaningless. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

But this definition of “space” tells us that it is purely mathematical in character. As abstract, it has zero physical characteristics. You have only told me that space is something that starts over here, goes over to there, and then up to there. Are you serious? And that represents an adequate definition of “space” to you? Oh, my!

Space A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions. In Newtonian physics space, time and matter are treated as three quite separate entities. In Einsteinian physics, space and time are combined into a four-dimensional continuum and in the theory of general relativity matter is regarded as having an effect on space, causing it to curve. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

 

[JDaniel]

A black hole has infinite density.

Zro x:

You’re the best, man!

Question: Exactly how did we test for, or measure, it? Did we send a rocket ship into one? (A “postulation” is the acquiescence to a notion, or proposal, without value or truth judgment, for the sole sake of continuing past that point of an argument, just to see where the proponent is intending to lead us. There is no outside exigency that is a proper referent. And, there are lots and lots of postulations out there!)

So, we can’t see inside one, but, we’ve seen one’s edge. And, somehow, we were able to ferret down into one and determine that it is “infinite?” Think: what does it mean to be “infinite?” It definitely is not an eight on its side, and it is definitely not a bracketed thingy, with a one and some zeroes and commas inside it. So, it’s not a “set” either. “Unbounded” means, everything, everywhere and every-when.

To postulate that something is “infinite” is to make an abstraction through a mental construct, wherein it will always remain.

There are essentially three orders of abstractions: physical, mathematical and metaphysical. Physical abstraction is a first order abstraction whereby the intellect, operating upon the data presented to it by the various senses and dematerializing such data in order to make things intelligible, leaves aside what is called individual sensible matter but retains, in abstracted form, what is termed common or universal sensible matter. Mathematical abstraction begins from a framework of immateriality, whereby the mathematician in his strictly scientific character is said to leave aside all sensible matter and to retain in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. Metaphysical abstraction begins from a framework of relinquishing from its considerations any reference to matter at all. (General Science of Nature, ibid)

God bless,
jd

 

[Linux]

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

God bless anyway,
jd

I ask for proof that space is not real and you tell that this discusion is not for me? Really?

Your right. I only enjoy debates where people actually defend their assertions.

 

[JDaniel]

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence. Nonetheless, in current usage, it refers to a specific form of the argument from ignorance fallacy. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Inocente:

Yes, yes, yes. But I can use it how I want to. Literally, God may be thought of as actually “God of the Gaps.” Why? Because, as the singularity’s point particles spread out into their lattice (often depicted by WMAP), it was empty space in the in-between. Yppop refers to those areas inside of each lattice as a “gap.” I liked that. So, I commandeered it. So, sue me!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

When a lost soul walks in, they want to know how Christ can help them and that they are not alone, and that’s not hard to explain. No one even had to explain it to me, I could just see it in how they live their lives. But if they’d told me God is S-points and nothingness I’d still be lost.

Inocente:

So, tell me: why are we losing the faithful? Why is church attendance down to 23% of Catholic so-called adherents? Why is England quickly becoming a huge red-light district? If it’s as easy as you say, then this continual falling away shouldn’t be occurring. (It’s not funny, but it is said that the fastest growing and largest Church in the world, is now, the “Once-Catholic” church. And the numbers for the balance of Christianity are worse!)

Here’s a meaningful non-theoretical approach (Pentecostal). Like it or not, there’s a lot of them there and with over ten million hits they must be doing something right.

I’ll take a look-see. but, apparently they’re not signing up New devotees. Thay are taking many away from other Protestant sects, but, not all of them. Most of them are just falling away too. (There is a non-Catholic Center, in the US, that keeps very good track of the real numbers.)

Hillsong - Worthy Is The Lamb - youtube.com/watch?v=AR4CCLnmf1Q

Look: I don’t disagree with you. But, the fact is that science is attracting the once-churched away in larger numbers. The Dawkinses and Krausses, of the world, are getting more attention, and enjoying more influence than they deserve - by any stretch. With these concepts - from Physics - they can be defeated. People aren’t completely stupid. They are simply not hearing any substantial counter-message. Our beloved Pope is encouraging the faithful to engage in Philosophy. He’d like to see a resurgence of Philosophy. At the beginning of Scholasticism, it was seen as disreputable, no differently than God proved by Physics will be seen as disreputable for a while.

Really look at the counter-arguments. Really look at them. They are unable to counter that God exists and can be validly understood through His connexion to the physical. It can make them almost completely impotent.

Unless . . . you have a better, new idea!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes. For instance a proton’s radius is about 0.85 fm.

Inocente:

Let’s tell it like it really is: proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10[SUP]-27[/SUP] kilograms. Now, is that a minus sign I see in front of the 27?

A proton is made of three quarks, binding gluons, and the space around them. Its rest mass is 80 times more than the rest masses of its constituent particles.

All of which are dimensionless and have those pesky minus signs.

The extra mass comes from the kinetic energy of the constituents as they jiggle, and they couldn’t jiggle without space.

Thus, when a thousand pound boulder falls on me, I should be able to jiggle my way out from under it!

Motion A change in the position of a body or system with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference. Only relative motion can be measured, absolute motion is meaningless. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

I know. It’s a standard definition. But it is meaningless to me. It has given me an example of a motion, but has not, in any sense of the word, defined it. I know that when something goes from point A to point B, there was motion there someplace. But, were I sight-less, I’d be completely dumbfounded.

A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions.

So, space is merely a “property?” Like me being 6’ 1" tall? Or, being a male?

In Newtonian physics space, time and matter are treated as three quite separate entities. In Einsteinian physics, space and time are combined into a four-dimensional continuum and in the theory of general relativity matter is regarded as having an effect on space, causing it to curve. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

All well and good. But, what IS Space? If I want to know what a fish is, it will do me no good for you to tell me that it is something with fins and scales. If I want to know what “motion” is, it will do me no good for you to tell me that it is “movement.” If I want to know what a “man” is, it will do you no good to tell me that a man is something with two legs that can stand upright. x infinity[SUP]2[/SUP]!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I ask for proof that space is not real and you tell that this discusion is not for me? Really?

Linux:

Is that precisely what you said to me? Really?

Your right. I only enjoy debates where people actually defend their assertions.

Ooh! Boy, you got me there!

Come on, Linux. We are not at odds. But, I need you to think. I have dedicated myself to defending each and every one of my assertions. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else?

God bless, Linux,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Linux:

You said,

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.

And I have shown you that on many occasions throughout these fora. But, I’ll do it again, in case you missed it:

#1 - a “thing” has properties. What are the properties of “Space?” That it’s invisible? That it can be, somehow, moved out of the way? That it doesn’t take up space? That things can be in it? These are “properties” in only the most loose sense of that word.
#2 - a “thing” is not “being, in and of itself,” it merely possesses “being.” What “being-ness” does space possess?

God, for example, has zero properties. None. Therefore, He isn’t a being. He is regarded as complete Being. He is that in and from which the being-ness of all else has “being” by participation. I have the property of “being” only because of my participation in the Being-ness of God. Do you see the difference? Tell me if you don’t and I can provide a description from the teachings of the Catholic Church to lend weight to my assertion, if you’ll give me an hour. Also, take a good look at the fourth Proof from Aquinas - not the sometimes silly reiterations of it - but, the actual words.

Let me know.

God bless,
jd

 

[zro_x]

Zro x:

You are certain that matter takes up space and has mass? So, Physicists can discontinue their search for the Higgs boson? Allow me to ask you a couple of easy questions: (1) If an atom of matter has a nucleus that to our scale is about 4 inches in high, and its electron shell is 4 miles high, even if millions of them held hands (by electron sharing) where does its “mass” come from?

From the very dense nucleus.

(2) If God is Infinite (which we Catholics believe) how is He displaced?

As far as I know, he isn’t. What does that have to do with whether God is nothingness?

Let’s inspect that statement: “change” means what? “Change” of place? “Change” of place over time? “Change” of place over time relative to a reference point? And, “motion,” what does it mean? “Movement” from one place, or position, to another? “Movement” from one place to another over time? “Movement” from one place to another over time relative to a reference point? Do you really not see that this definition is tautological? Circular? That you are saying nothing more than, “motion” is “movement.” How does that tell me what it means? Please, for all of our sakes, how does that tell me what motion is? All you are saying is that motion is motion. How does that help me understand?

Candide West pointed out something very interesting on a different thread. He mentioned that all languages are closed tautological systems. By your logic, nothing we say could ever have any meaning.

But this definition of “space” tells us that it is purely mathematical in character. As abstract, it has zero physical characteristics. You have only told me that space is something that starts over here, goes over to there, and then up to there. Are you serious? And that represents an adequate definition of “space” to you? Oh, my!

That is the definition of abstract space. In my original post, I mentioned the definitions of both abstract and physical space, to show that nothingness is neither of these.

It doesn’t. That is a perfectly fine definition - completely non-circular. However, it doesn’t tell me, or you, how it exists, how it manifests its being. Yours is a definition from a via negativa. Do you know what that means? That means it is a definition that tells me what it isn’t! Now, tell me what it is. “Infinity” is one of those very rare things that we can only define by a via negativa. But not “space.” Space insists on positive properties as it often has things in it, things that displace it.

Then space and nothingness still have two different definitions. Space can be displaced by matter. Nothingness can not.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

From the very dense nucleus.

Zro x:

Nuclei are not dense. Nuclei consist of proton and neutrons, each of which is a dimensionless point particle. It would be like going to a restaurant whose claim to fame is that it boasted of serving its food dishes on the thinnest plates known to man, These plates - like some steaks in some places - are so thin that they only have one side. Yet, none of the plate, if stacked up to transport to the kitchen touch one another. The same stuff that is found in the electron shell also exist in between the plates. Yep! There’s Space between the plates, too!

But, regardless of the nucleus, there would be so much space in the electron shells of each atom of the plate, that each plate would be squishier than foam rubber carpet. And, at that size, as a take-off on a now famous expression, “Where’s the mass?”

Candide West pointed out something very interesting on a different thread. He mentioned that all languages are closed tautological systems. By your logic, nothing we say could ever have any meaning.

I think you’ve got that backward. But, in any event, Candide is wrong.

That is the definition of abstract space. In my original post, I mentioned the definitions of both abstract and physical space, to show that nothingness is neither of these.

I can’t, on my life, understand how, but I must have missed that first post! Would you mind repeating the definition for me?

Then space and nothingness still have two different definitions. Space can be displaced by matter. Nothingness can not.

No. If matter is actually dimensionless, how can it displace anything? What we see is basically an illusion, for our benefit.

I have an idea: why don’t you tell me what you think God consists of and how He interacts with matter/energy!

God bless,
jd

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JDaniel,

Without a doubt, ‘a man has to know his limitations’ - and, I have found mine here.

I really can not continue to follow - just getting more and more lost. But, in all of the various posts I have read - there does not seem to be much interest in simply identifying - not that this is topic for the unwaivering in faith - but, rather, this is a topic with a desired destination (Understanding God’s Nature) that is impossible to reach. And, while poets like Robert Browning tell us that our reach must exceed our grasp - there comes a point when simply acknowledging a finite mind seeking the Infinite isn’t going to work.

You guys enjoy the thrill of profound discussion - but, don’t be disappointed when post #1,000 and no real progress has been made from this point.

God bless

Zro x:

Nuclei are not dense. Nuclei consist of proton and neutrons, each of which is a dimensionless point particle. It would be like going to a restaurant whose claim to fame is that it boasted of serving its food dishes on the thinnest plates known to man, These plates - like some steaks in some places - are so thin that they only have one side. Yet, none of the plate, if stacked up to transport to the kitchen touch one another. The same stuff that is found in the electron shell also exist in between the plates. Yep! There’s Space between the plates, too!

But, regardless of the nucleus, there would be so much space in the electron shells of each atom of the plate, that each plate would be squishier than foam rubber carpet. And, at that size, as a take-off on a now famous expression, “Where’s the mass?”

I think you’ve got that backward. But, in any event, Candide is wrong.

I can’t, on my life, understand how, but I must have missed that first post! Would you mind repeating the definition for me?

No. If matter is actually dimensionless, how can it displace anything? What we see is basically an illusion, for our benefit.

I have an idea: why don’t you tell me what you think God consists of and how He interacts with matter/energy!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hi, JDaniel,

Without a doubt, ‘a man has to know his limitations’ - and, I have found mine here.

Tom:

That’s too bad. I would prefer not to lose you. Especially since it’s not my thread. What can I do to make this better for you from my perspective?

I really can not continue to follow - just getting more and more lost. But, in all of the various posts I have read - there does not seem to be much interest in simply identifying - not that this is topic for the unwaivering in faith - but, rather, this is a topic with a desired destination (Understanding God’s Nature) that is impossible to reach.

 

[inocente]

I agree, for most people, the Nothingness image probably leaves them a bit emotionally untouched. But then, probably Pseudo-Dioysius and Eckhart might also leave them untouched. Whereas other people might feel Hillsong is like listening to cheesy stadium pop (no offence, I think they’re OK at times).

Bit too much arm waving for me, but it fills churches while theories don’t.

Pseudo-Dioysius and Eckhart. Were they a 1980s popular beat combo, or am I thinking of the Traveling Wilburys?