Is God Nothingness?

[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!)

Imho loads of reasons, but the common denominators are inward looking and lack of relevance. Here is Joseph Ratzinger laying it down:

As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. philvaz.com/apologetics/p81.htm

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.

The bars here are chock full of philosophers, so that doesn’t seem to be the answer.

I’m not sure what your and yppop’s hypothesis says, but it needs to make a testable prediction or people won’t see it as science.

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.

That doesn’t seem to be the issue for most people, it’s more that they just lose interest in organized religion. In a busy life, going to church (any denomination) has to compete.

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

I’d go one step further than Señor Ratzinger - unless a church (any denomination) can radiate the encouragement and enthusiasm of the good news, it’s stopped doing God’s work and deserves the fruits. :blackeye:

 

[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?

If the minus sign bothers you, rewrite it without one:

1.67262158 × 10[SUP]-27[/SUP] =
1.67262158 / 10[SUP]27[/SUP] =
0.000…0000167262158 kg

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

Yes, if the kinetic energy was scaled up to your size. Though that much energy might vaporize you instantly.

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.

It doesn’t give an example, it says what motion is. The word “observer” just means the guy or thing doing the measuring, whether by sight, sound, radar, …

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

Space is a property of the universe, what’s more to be said, why the “merely”?

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]!

If you want to know what a fish is, do you want to know what a fish is to a chef? a marine biologist? an artist? …

I’d guess all space in the observable universe (inside and outside atoms ) is composed of quantum vacuum, but I’m no expert. Even if it is, we can imagine other kinds of space such as completely empty space. So the answer to what IS space, for any kind of space, for space in general, is exactly what it says on the can - a property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions.

 

[inocente]

Nuclei are not dense. Nuclei consist of proton and neutrons, each of which is a dimensionless point particle.

Wrong . Protons, neutrons and nuclei all occupy space. See my post #148 to you.

*The neutron has a positively charged core of radius ≈ 0.3 fm surrounded by a compensating negative charge of radius between 0.3 fm and 2 fm. The proton has an approximately exponentially decaying positive charge distribution with a mean square radius of about 0.8 fm.

The nuclear radius (R) is considered to be one of the basic things that any model must predict. For stable nuclei (not halo nuclei or other unstable distorted nuclei) the nuclear radius is roughly proportional to the cube root of the mass number (A) of the nucleus, and particularly in nuclei containing many nucleons, as they arrange in more spherical configurations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus*

1 fm (femtometer) = 1.0 x 10[sup]−15[/sup] = 1.0 / 10[sup]15[/sup] = 0.0000 0000 0000 001 meter

 

[yppop]

Wrong . Protons, neutrons and nuclei all occupy space. See my post #148 to you.

*The neutron has a positively charged core of radius ≈ 0.3 fm surrounded by a compensating negative charge of radius between 0.3 fm and 2 fm. The proton has an approximately exponentially decaying positive charge distribution with a mean square radius of about 0.8 fm.

The nuclear radius (R) is considered to be one of the basic things that any model must predict. For stable nuclei (not halo nuclei or other unstable distorted nuclei) the nuclear radius is roughly proportional to the cube root of the mass number (A) of the nucleus, and particularly in nuclei containing many nucleons, as they arrange in more spherical configurations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus*

1 fm (femtometer) = 1.0 x 10[sup]−15[/sup] = 1.0 / 10[sup]15[/sup] = 0.0000 0000 0000 001 meter

Hi Baptist Guy
Nice physics lesson, but let’s get back to philosophy. When JD wrote that the proton is a point particle what, I believe he meant was that we cannot measure its “material” dimension, As you well know (I think), the radius you are quoting is the effective “charge” radius. The material part of the proton, the part associated with spatial dimensions, takes up an infinitely smaller amount of space. Materially speaking, the proton is composed of three quarks and quarks are considered to be “point particles”. The mass of the proton is much greater than the rest mass of its constituents, the bulk of the mass of the proton is made up by the energy of the gluons. What we are talking about here is the special relativity equivalence of mass and energy. Philosophically however, energy does not take up space, which is the primary characteristic of matter. The implication is that the proton is essentially empty space, but not the “physical” space we usually are referring to.

JD and I argue that reality is composed of two kinds of space, discrete space that defines the dimensions of the universe and continuous space that permeates the gaps that are inherent in discrete space. It is continuous space that fills the emptiness within all atoms and provides a spiritual component to reality. That statement requires a more extended argument than has been given here.

Yppop

 

[yppop]

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

Tom,
Do me a favor and reread the first paragraph of my post 143 and contemplate the meaning of sanctifying grace, the gift of God that is most manifest as “wonder” and decide if you are wonderer or you are “puritan” a word I decided to use to describe (non-pejoratively) those that found fault with the statement “God is Nothingness”? I am a wonderer, can’t help it, for example, I have been wondering where all the chickens are that supply the eggs on a daily basis for the millions of people living in New York City. Is this a bad thing? I don’t think so because I am 79 years old and need to keep my mind busy to ward off the diminishing effects of aging. That aside, let me assure you that wondering about the nature of God and How He relates to what I perceive reality to be is in the spirit of fides ex ratio (see post 140). As far as progress is concerned, I guarantee that in my own mind I have made tremendous progress in satisfying the wonder I’ve had about the presence of God in my life. I have constructed an extensive thesis in that regard that, at least in my own mind, explains in a comprehensive and coherent way many of the age-old questions such as the mind/body problem, why the speed of light is constant; the nature of the mind, and many more. I could very well be completely wrong in what I have arrived at, but it has satisfied my own need to wonder.

So don’t give up; if there is anything that you don’t understand ask questions. That should be the approach in any philosophical discussion. On the other hand, I plan to be involved only as long as i perceive an interest in discussing the OP, namely, God is Nothingness and what it means.

No one ever reaches their limit of understanding, there is always more to learn. Yesterday I learned the meaning of the word “preprandial”.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Imho loads of reasons, but the common denominators are inward looking and lack of relevance.

Inocente:

Other words saying what I said.

The bars here are chock full of philosophers, so that doesn’t seem to be the answer.

That’s not philosophy. I’ve consumed alcohol and know it’s not conducive to rational philosophy!

I’m not sure what your and yppop’s hypothesis says, but it needs to make a testable prediction or people won’t see it as science.

Sort of like theology and theological philosophy are testable? I thought I gave you a link to Yppop’s thesis, but, anyway, here it is again. Pay particular attention to Yppop’s posts.

That doesn’t seem to be the issue for most people, it’s more that they just lose interest in organized religion. In a busy life, going to church (any denomination) has to compete.

To some extent. But, the reality is, scientism, in all of its flavors, has done a better job of proselytizing than the churches have. Besides, young people like to proliferate. Anything that puts regulation on their never ending search for a new proliferation partner - sometimes erroneously called a ‘soul-mate’ - needs to relegated to the trash heap, as far as they’re concerned.

I’d go one step further than Señor Ratzinger - unless a church (any denomination) can radiate the encouragement and enthusiasm of the good news, it’s stopped doing God’s work and deserves the fruits. :blackeye:

Sorry. But that flies in the face of what God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit point blank said to Peter. Religion should not have to be Christmas wrapped or utterly mysterious.

(Strange, last night while searching around in folders on my desktop, I came across Pope Benedict’s thing on the need to get back to philosophy. But, do you think I can find it now! Well, when I do, I’ll send you the link.)

God bless,
jd

 

[catholictiger]

If god is nothing meanin he doesn’t have existence where do we get our existence from

 

[JDaniel]

If the minus sign bothers you, rewrite it without one:

1.67262158 × 10[SUP]-27[/SUP] =
1.67262158 / 10[SUP]27[/SUP] =
0.000…0000167262158 kg

I rest my case, your honor.

It doesn’t give an example, it says what motion is.

Inocente:
“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.”
IS NOT A DEFINITION! It is a generalizing tautology and is clearly circular. To make it plainer, “Motion” is not a valid definition of motion, and, likewise, “change” is not a valid definition of change. “Motion” is whatever that thing is between the start of a motion and its termination.

Space is a property of the universe, what’s more to be said, why the “merely”?

So, “space” is like the red of an apple, or musicalness of a man? I think not. A property is that which is predicated of a subject by means of a principle. Among accidental properties, “red” is predicated of an apple, and, “musicalness” is predicated of a man. What is the subject that “space” is predicative of? The universe? If it is, then what is the principle by which it is predicated?

Democritus and Leucippus argued that “space” was a plenum. But, they insisted that voids, or vacant spaces (within the plenum) were required or motion could not take place. Their problem was in their presupposition that the matter of mobile beings was a substance with real solidity and mass. But, it’s not. Scientists think reality is a hologram and The Holographic Universe

If you want to know what a fish is, do you want to know what a fish is to a chef? a marine biologist? an artist? …

Good. A fish is something to cook! Now I know what a fish is!

I’d guess all space in the observable universe (inside and outside atoms ) is composed of quantum vacuum, but I’m no expert. Even if it is, we can imagine other kinds of space such as completely empty space. So the answer to what IS space, for any kind of space, for space in general, is exactly what it says on the can - a property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions.

And, thus, we are stuck with a description that not only begs the question, but leaves us looking through a glass darkly.

What do we expect when we cause a vacuum in a bell jar that has, inside it, a tiny, sealed balloon? What do we expect when an astronaut tears a hole in his spacesuit? Doesn’t the term “quantum vacuum” seem like a paltry representation of reality to you? Unless it means, “not really a vacuum at all.”

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

Hi Baptist Guy
Nice physics lesson, but let’s get back to philosophy. When JD wrote that the proton is a point particle what, I believe he meant was that we cannot measure its “material” dimension, As you well know (I think), the radius you are quoting is the effective “charge” radius. The material part of the proton, the part associated with spatial dimensions, takes up an infinitely smaller amount of space. Materially speaking, the proton is composed of three quarks and quarks are considered to be “point particles”. The mass of the proton is much greater than the rest mass of its constituents, the bulk of the mass of the proton is made up by the energy of the gluons. What we are talking about here is the special relativity equivalence of mass and energy. Philosophically however, energy does not take up space, which is the primary characteristic of matter. The implication is that the proton is essentially empty space, but not the “physical” space we usually are referring to.

JD and I argue that reality is composed of two kinds of space, discrete space that defines the dimensions of the universe and continuous space that permeates the gaps that are inherent in discrete space. It is continuous space that fills the emptiness within all atoms and provides a spiritual component to reality. That statement requires a more extended argument than has been given here.

Thanks for that summary. As you say, it’s not science.

It would be wrong to dismiss the argument without seeing it in full in one place, and don’t jump down my throat here, but for what it’s worth my impression so far is that it miscomprehends what is known, conflates it with what is (currently) unknown, and mixes in some mysticism.

We both know a poster who believes God is made of a physical substance (not space) and self-published a book on his theory. I was one of those he asked to critique the draft, and my major issue, beyond the errors in the science, beyond it being “out there”, was that it didn’t actually explain anything or fire the imagination in any way, there was nothing compelling, it was eminently put-downable.

Could well be wrong but it feels like déja vu.

 

[inocente]

That’s not philosophy. I’ve consumed alcohol and know it’s not conducive to rational philosophy!

Did you forget bars here serve café con leche and agua con gas?

Sort of like theology and theological philosophy are testable?
I though you were implying that the yppop-jd argument is science (“With these concepts - from Physics - they can be defeated”, post #152).

I thought I gave you a link to Yppop’s thesis, but, anyway, here

it is again. Pay particular attention to Yppop’s posts.
Thanks, you gave the link before but I found it impossible to understand the theory as it’s spread over a lot of posts.

To some extent. But, the reality is, scientism, in all of its flavors, has done a better job of proselytizing than the churches have. Besides, young people like to proliferate. Anything that puts regulation on their never ending search for a new proliferation partner - sometimes erroneously called a ‘soul-mate’ - needs to relegated to the trash heap, as far as they’re concerned.

I disagree that it’s about proselytizing, it’s about results. Science and technology produce lots of “miracles” while churches seem to have done everything they can to distance themselves from them.

Not sure what the “proliferation partner” bit is about, kids morality has a lot to do with those who raised them.

Sorry. But that flies in the face of what God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit point blank said to Peter. Religion should not have to be Christmas wrapped or utterly mysterious.

Fine, you and the empty pews are agreed on what religion should not have to do.

(Strange, last night while searching around in folders on my desktop, I came across Pope Benedict’s thing on the need to get back to philosophy. But, do you think I can find it now! Well, when I do, I’ll send you the link.)

Thanks, I like his writing.

 

[JDaniel]

If god is nothing meanin he doesn’t have existence where do we get our existence from

CT:

Let me repeat, as it seems you are new to the discussion: no one (save for the detractors, and, of course, atheists) is saying that God does not have existence. It is our contention that God is Everything. Look: He is not displacable, i.e., He cannot be displaced. Why? Because He is Infinite (something else atheists won’t like). Yet, we have our being through Him, that is, through a participation in His Being. Without Him, we have no being.

That -]being/-] said, how do we have “participation” in His Being, and, what is more, how is He the Principle of all (other) being? We have two options: (1) we can treat it as too mysterious a mystery and ignore it, or (2) we can try to understand it by His revelation to us. Remember, “revelation” is not just the interactions of those people, God, the Holy spirit, and Jesus, that we find written about in the Books of the Bible. “In the beginning, God created . . .” And, “God is within all things.” Are we supposed to hear those words then stick our heads in the sand?

No longer can the anti-theist say “God does not exist,” or any of the other corollaries that flow from it. We are the things that don’t exist - except in the Mind of God. If God causes everything (except “sin”) then He causes Everything by Divine Thought and Divine Will. All of this should make one very, very humble.

What we are postulating is that God is like nothing. He has no properties and no being. Only that which is finite and imperfect has properties and being. The closest things that we know of that manifest these criteria are space and God - and there can’t be two Gods. Another poster provided a physics definition of “space.” He called it a “quantum vacuum.” But, it can’t be merely a quantum vacuum. That entails a lot that would have to be, and has been, hypothesized about.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Did you forget bars here serve café con leche and agua con gas?

Inocente:

Yes, and cerveza con limon and sangria!

Thanks, you gave the link before but I found it impossible to understand the theory as it’s spread over a lot of posts.

Yeah, it’s not “self-published!”

I disagree that it’s about proselytizing, it’s about results.

What do you think Dawkins and Krauss do? (To name just two.)

Science and technology produce lots of “miracles” while churches seem to have done everything they can to distance themselves from them.

If it’s a valid miracle, my Church won’t. Read a little bit on Saint John Newman.

Not sure what the “proliferation partner” bit is about

Sex.

Fine, you and the empty pews are agreed on what religion should not have to do.

And if you have THE answer, go try it out.

Thanks, I like his writing.

Me too!

God bless,
jd

 

[catholictiger]

CT:

Let me repeat, as it seems you are new to the discussion: no one (save for the detractors, and, of course, atheists) is saying that God does not have existence. It is our contention that God is Everything. Look: He is not displacable, i.e., He cannot be displaced. Why? Because He is Infinite (something else atheists won’t like). Yet, we have our being through Him, that is, through a participation in His Being. Without Him, we have no being.

That -]being/-] said, how do we have “participation” in His Being, and, what is more, how is He the Principle of all (other) being? We have two options: (1) we can treat it as too mysterious a mystery and ignore it, or (2) we can try to understand it by His revelation to us. Remember, “revelation” is not just the interactions of those people, God, the Holy spirit, and Jesus, that we find written about in the Books of the Bible. “In the beginning, God created . . .” And, “God is within all things.” Are we supposed to hear those words then stick our heads in the sand?

No longer can the anti-theist say “God does not exist,” or any of the other corollaries that flow from it. We are the things that don’t exist - except in the Mind of God. If God causes everything (except “sin”) then He causes Everything by Divine Thought and Divine Will. All of this should make one very, very humble.

What we are postulating is that God is like nothing. He has no properties and no being. Only that which is finite and imperfect has properties and being. The closest things that we know of that manifest these criteria are space and God - and there can’t be two Gods. Another poster provided a physics definition of “space.” He called it a “quantum vacuum.” But, it can’t be merely a quantum vacuum. That entails a lot that would have to be, and has been, hypothesized about.

God bless,
jd

but the fact that he has existence makes him not like nothing.

actually God is perfection he is pure existence which is the complete opposite end of the spectrum of nothing.

we participate in this being by the fact that we share in his existence. I have to go back and look at my philosophy books to explain why. But we in a sense share in God’s pure existence

i see what your getting at but to claim god is like nothing is for me pretty absurd. Because it would seem that nothing would mean have no existence, but God has the purest form of existence so he would be opposite of existence, aka he isn’t nothing.

I guess the best way to put it God IS (no that isn’t an incomplete sentence.)

 

[yppop]

Inocente, JD,

A couple of posts back, you were discussing the nature of space; I’d like to add my two cents for what it’s worth. I ascribe to the Dedekind-Cantor axiom of continuity (simpler than it sounds, but I use it to make it sound like I know what I am talking about, sometimes I don’t, but sometimes I do; I leave that to you to figure out). The axiom:

“To every real number corresponds a unique point of a directed straight line and conversely to every point on this straight line corresponds a unique real number”.

This axiom allows us to describe space using numbers, something Descartes discovered when he invented “Analytic Geometry”. Faith isn’t restricted to Religion; we typically believe what scientists and mathematicians tell us without putting a finger in their sides. Faith is called for to believe some of the mathematical concepts that follow:

1. Cantor showed that there are as many real numbers on every interval of the real number line however small as there on every other interval of the real line however large. This allowed him to do his analysis in the interval from 0 to 1 with the confidence that whatever it showed would apply to the entire real number line.
2. Descartes used three numbers to identify each point in 3-D space; Cantor showed that we could identify each point in 2-D or 3-D space with a single unique point on the real number line. This discovery allowed him to prove that there as many points on the line as there in an area or a volume. .
3. The real number line consists of rational and irrational numbers.
4. The rational numbers consist of the integers and the ratio of integers. Their decimal equivalent end in 0’s like 1/4 = .25000; are composed of a single numeral like 1/3 = .3333333333…, or repeat the same sequence of numerals like 4/7 = .5714285714285714…
   The rational numbers have 1 to 1 correspondence with the integers, hence are countable. Therefore there are “gaps” between them. They are infinite and form the first transfinite number Aleph-0
5. The irrational numbers are all the rest of the numbers. They are not countable, there are no gaps (even if the real numbers are removed - have faith). Hence they form a continuum. that ends in the secong transfinite number Aleph-1
6. Projecting the rational numbers to 3-D space defines discrete space; projecting the irrationals defines continuous space. Continuous space is infinitely divisible. Only God and continuous space can be infinite in extent and infinitely divisible. IMO that is why continuous space (infinite nothingness) cannot be the substance from which matter is derived. It is why I believe that our reality is based on a duality of space, both discrete and continuous. Incidently when I think of reality I always distinquish among four levels: objective, subjective, rational, and transcendent.

Given this description of space and converting numbers to the binary system allows the possibility of computing objective reality with a single bit stream. But only if the physical space that is the foundation of objective reality is discrete space. Consider this from as Paul Davies, the best of all the sience writers. (also a physicist):

"If the universe is a giant computer as Frank Tipler, the author of “The Physics of Immortality”, contends then space is surely discrete. A computer operates on bits of information, i.e.; it is digitized. For the universe to be computerized its elements—matter, energy, space, and time—must be digitized in order to allow isomorphic mapping. One objection to Tipler’s theory is that the theories of physics are not quite the same as computer programs because computers model digitally and physics models with continuity. (Paul Davies’ Mind of God pg124)

I address his last statement that implies the incompatibility of computer modeling with physics’ models by identifying two levels of reality: the explicate level that we experience and science describes and the implicate level where God operates. This separation is implied by F. David Peat a well-known physicist who wrote,

“The world of explicate structures and sequential processes in time, which has been studied by science over the last centuries, now turns out to be a manifestation of a deeper, enfolded order that constantly sustains them.” in his book Synchronicity, pg. 185

I include quotations from those with far more credibility than me to show that I am not that far out of the mainstream
Yppop

 

[Linux]

but the fact that he has existence makes him not like nothing.

actually God is perfection he is pure existence which is the complete opposite end of the spectrum of nothing.

we participate in this being by the fact that we share in his existence. I have to go back and look at my philosophy books to explain why. But we in a sense share in God’s pure existence

i see what your getting at but to claim god is like nothing is for me pretty absurd. Because it would seem that nothing would mean have no existence, but God has the purest form of existence so he would be opposite of existence, aka he isn’t nothing.

I guess the best way to put it God IS (no that isn’t an incomplete sentence.)

“God is nothing physical”, is not the same as “God is nothing”

 

[Linux]

CT:

What we are postulating is that God is like nothing.
God bless,
jd

Correction: God is like nothing physical.

 

[catholictiger]

Correction: God is like nothing physical.

I think a better way to put this God is

Pure ACT meaning no potency

has no matter

has no essence

is pure existence

is form only (I think)

 

[JDaniel]

but the fact that he has existence makes him not like nothing.

CT:

Correction: God does not have existence. God is Existence. Remember, the Church, Aquinas and most theologians assert that God does not possess properties. Having existence is having the property of existence. Instead, God is Existence, as well as all of His other attributes, i…e., determinants. These words may require some looking up, and that is why so many who want to be faithful aren’t. They don’t know what it means to be something, instead of owning it.

actually God is perfection he is pure existence which is the complete opposite end of the spectrum of nothing.

No. That’s the point. See my above. Too many speculate, “If God is/has existence, why don’t we see him, why doesn’t he show himself to us?” They view him as nothing. Rather, they view him as a a nice, but worn out old mythology. What’s mythology? It’s nothing - not “nothingness,” but nothing. Mythology is a story from imagination. God is not imaginary; he is real.

we participate in this being by the fact that we share in his existence.

No. We share God as Being. He said, “I am that am.” IOW, he is He Who is in Being. To be in Being means to be in existence, obviously.

i see what your getting at but to claim god is like nothing is for me pretty absurd.

I don’t understand why. Every atheist tells us the there is no God, and we can’t seem to give them a reasonable reply. Fides et ratio. “Faith AND reason.” Not, “faith INSTEAD OF reason.”

Because it would seem that nothing would mean have no existence,

Physicists Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and so on don’t. To them there’s no such thing as “nothing,” including “space,” which is nothing more than particle soup.

but God has the purest form of existence so he would be opposite of existence, aka he isn’t nothing.

Tell that to an atheist. What do you think his response will be?

I guess the best way to put it God IS (no that isn’t an incomplete sentence.)

And I’m not denying that. If you can read philosophy (you said you have a philosophy book), you can surely understand this simple stuff. Stop over-thinking it. Stop letting yourself get wrapped around the axle. Get the whole picture then make your own decision. I am not asking you to change anything about what you believe. All I am doing is attempting to understand** how**. Sorry, burying my head in the sand and calling it a mystery, won’t do. And sorry, I don’t think God expects that of me.

God bless,
jd

 

[onenow1]

If you think about it, God is the opposite of nothing.

He is definitely AWSOME for sure !

 

[JDaniel]

Correction: God is like nothing physical.

Linux:

I’m sure you’re familiar with similes and metaphors. Similes use “like,” and “as.” When I say that God is “Nothingness” (remember, I don’t say he is ‘nothing’) it is precisely because he is like ‘nothing’. But, a simile does not relegate the subject of it to non-existent status. If I said that air is like nothing, that doesn’t instantly obliterate air. Thus, when I say the God is Nothingness, I am in effect say that he is like nothing. And he is. Otherwise, show him to me. Take me to him. Can I touch him? Can I smell him? Can I hear him speak?

Very view people on this earth, in all of history, have been fortunate enough to have been able to do any of those things. Notice, I didn’t say, “worthy enough.” There is nothing we can do to make ourselves worthy of Him. All we can do is pray, to let him know we are his unworthy children. Please remember us! We want to be with him. That’s the nature of the efficacy of grace.

God bless,
jd