State of Nothingness

[futurtheologian]

Is there a such thing as a state of nothingness? If God is infinite, and as Bruno stated, the Universe is infinite, can there possibly exist somewhere a metaphysical state of nothingness? I don’t think any aspect of the human mind can exhibit such a phenomenon; even those in a state of coma or who are brain dead still exhibit basic bodily functions (and that is debatable, as in recent news articles). On to the body. Yes I know the whole “Matrix” theory and such which is being debated on another thread. But seriously, from the most rational system of thought and logic, could we really be nothing or achieve nothingness? If we were nothing, then why would we perceive something? Having nothing implies nothing; something cannot be derived from nothing (aka Aquinas somewhere in the ontological Five Proofs). So after that statement, yes true it is pure verbosity and a clever usage of word, semantics considered, would one consider nothingness? Why would any rational individual believe in nothingness if there is no origin? How can something exist without origin unless it is infinite or omnipotent. We are NOT infinite due to death; only God judges if we have eternal life. So what if death is just an image you say? Well I respond that it is not since we must live in a state of finitude; if we were infinite, we could do anything we want beyond the limitations of physical nature. Our minds can think of such outcomes yes, but can they think of an INFINITE number of methods to break the limits of nature as in gravity? Now I don’t believe in gravity as an absolute principle; just a human understanding of the infinity of God’s wisdom in Creation. Lets continue a bit (hopefully this is all making sense, since this is total stream of consciousness here).

Outside of the mind, can nothingness exist in nature? Can there be a piece of earth that is nothing? The air is a primary concern. I mean it is nothing in one sense, but so integral to our existence and it can be perceived. Is perception then the basis of negating the existence? If I follow such an assumption (Descartes here we go!), then what about space. Can we perceive some black hole as nothingness? But if the object itself exists (AKA Plato, divided line theory, theory of forms), and we perceive or acknowledge its existence either on a theoretical or real-life life through abstractions, can we totally negate the existence of nothingness? And a final thought, I guess which is impossible to answer since none of us posses the omnipotence of God. Would God ever want or intend to create nothingness if Creation is “good?” So in effect, this philosophical state of nothingness seems to be impossible. Prove me wrong (obviously this is not a proof in any respect…just some random musings and thoughts which have always bothered me). Phenomenology and Ontology, Sartre and Heidgger here we go.

Thanks!

 

[Soulewolf]

Any point that exists within the fabric of space time can not by definition be “nothing”.

Nothing can not be described as a lack of something because a lack of something is still something.

Nothing is, strictly speaking, nothing. No time, no space, no laws through which this nothing can be measured. it is simply nothing.

 

[JohnDamian]

Nothing does not exist.

Nothing cannot exist.

If something exists; it cannot be nothing.

Thus; existence if impossible for nothing. Nothing cannot exist; nor will it ever exist.

If all somethings were to cease to exist; we would have nothing; but this nothingness itself has no existence other than as a negation of something; ie - it is nothing but a phantasm (pun intended).

Thus; we cannot in any real sense have a state of nothing; because that implies there is a thing to have a state of; and that thing by definition must exist; as nothing cannot exist; we cannot have a state of nothingness. Thus; whilst we may have nothing; it cannot be predicated as a state, property, condition or any other form of a thing in itself; either physical or metaphysical.

 

[VeritasSeeker]

Nothing cannot have a state. No-thing is strictly the absence of anything. Nothing is not a sea of fluctuating energy or some quantum vacuum. It is Nothing. And ex nihilo nihil fit(from nothing nothing comes) is an axiom which is often used in discourses over the cosmological arguments. You cannot predicate something of nothing. Nothing has no properties. Nothing is nothing, period.

Having said this Christians do say that God created the universe ex nihilo(out of nothing) , however that nothing has a different denotation, it was not the total absence of anything(otherwise their wouldn’t have been a God to create) , but an absence of all matter.

  Side note

If God is infinite, and as Bruno stated, the Universe is infinite, can there possibly exist somewhere a metaphysical state of nothingness?

I do not know whether you meant to say this or not but in any case, just because God is infinite does not mean that the universe must be infinite as well. In fact, the big bang theory and the absurdity of an actual infinite in reality disproves the notion that the universe is infinite. (Not to mention Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Veritas

*Nothing is nothing, period. *

It isn’t even nothing. Nothing is not even a noun since it does not signify a person, place, or thing! At best, “nothing” is just a word that signifies what cannot be signified.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is there a such thing as a state of nothingness?!

(The bold lettering is to give emphasis. It is not an attempt to degrade.)

A “state” gives reference to a thing. Nothing is no-thing. Which means that “nothing” cannot be described as a thing, and thus neither can it be described as being real or as having an action; because that which is a real action, ontologically speaking, is a thing. Nothing is the absence of a possible or impossible reality in reference to that which is already real. People often confuse the word nothing as describing an ontological state because we use the word in reference to real things. For example, there is an empty room, there is “nothing” in the room. But this should not be confused as to mean that “nothing” is an actual presence in the room, like how a cup or a ball might be present. It is not a state of reality. In the case of the empty room, the word “nothing” only describes the difference between a room that is empty and a room that has things in it. We understand the room as being empty, or having nothing in them, in reference to rooms that has things in them.

If you understand something to be objective or as having a state, then it is a thing. Objective reality describes the difference between a thing and a “no-thing”. When we look at the universe, our experience tells us that it has at least some kind of objective ontological reality as opposed to not having any reality at all. When a man, women, or an apple, decomposes into formless atoms, what we understood to be an apple, man, or women, is no longer real. Men, women, and apples, were not always in reality. They were nothing. This however does not mean that men women and apples existed in a different state which we call nothing. In so far as an apple is an apple and a man is a man and a women is a women, they did not exist in objective reality. They were “no-thing”; in other words they were not “things”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Veritas

*Nothing is nothing, period. *

It isn’t even nothing. Nothing is not even a noun since it does not signify a person, place, or thing! At best, “nothing” is just a word that signifies what cannot be signified.

Yes; it is a symbol signifying that which is not.

I am unhappy that so many people have been fooled in to thinking otherwise.

 

[Tuno]

To the human mind, the ALLNESS of God appears as nothingness, as emptiness, as the all-containing SPACE. Therefore we have a word for it. God is not a thing. Neither is God a thought. All thoughts constitute contents. Where do they come from, and where do they go? And who/what is watching them?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God is not a thing.

That depends on what you intend to mean by the word “thing”. God is a thing insofar as this implies that God is being, God has a reality. Insofar as being real is concerned, God can be spoken of as a thing. Also, God is perhaps like nothingness in so far as we cannot quantify God or sense God via a material essence, but God is not nothing in Gods reality.

 

[Tuno]

That depends on what you intend to mean by the word “thing”. God is a thing insofar as this implies that God is being, God has a reality. Insofar as being real is concerned, God can be spoken of as a thing. Also, God is perhaps like nothingness in so far as we cannot quantify God or sense God via a material essence, but God is not nothing in Gods reality.

That is tending towards silliness. Being is more accurately a “state.” Calling that a “thing” leads one toward objectification, and God cannot be objectified. To do so supports the contents value of thoughts in regarding such questions. Also I said that God appears as nothing to the human mind, and being BEing, is not a “thing,” as an object. This is simply a matter of the lesser not containing the Greater. Regarding God as object makes one look like the cartoon where “God” is looking at a chart of the human brain which has an arrow to a part inside and is captioned “You are here.”

 

[In_Spiration]

To the human mind, the ALLNESS of God appears as nothingness, as emptiness, as the all-containing SPACE. Therefore we have a word for it. God is not a thing. Neither is God a thought. All thoughts constitute contents. Where do they come from, and where do they go? And who/what is watching them?

I’m taking you to mean that God is not an ens in the sense of being just one more thing among other (contingent) things, having the same mode of existence as they. Agreed; the best we can do is speak somewhat metaphorically or analogically and “point at” Him, so that we’re at least looking in the right direction, so to speak. God is “Subsistent Being Itself,” for example, though even that fails due to the natural limitation of the human mind – or any mind that isn’t God Himself – and any concepts it forms. Our intellects work conceptually and analytically and will never be able to grasp or logically express Divine Simplicity.

That is tending towards silliness. Being is more accurately a “state.” Calling that a “thing” leads one toward objectification, and God cannot be objectified. To do so supports the contents value of thoughts in regarding such questions. Also I said that God appears as nothing to the human mind, and being BEing, is not a “thing,” as an object. This is simply a matter of the lesser not containing the Greater. Regarding God as object makes one look like the cartoon where “God” is looking at a chart of the human brain which has an arrow to a part inside and is captioned “You are here.”

Re: the first part, I think you’re off-base; I’d argue that Being is more a substance and/or an act (Actus Essendi) than a state (such as a state of affairs, a.k.a. a fact). I’m not fully committed to such a view, though I now strongly lean toward it. Perhaps that’s how you mean “state,” though, except such a term seems like it would fall prey to your criticism re: objectification.

Is God, further according to your terms, “not real”? (That is, “real” as deriving from the Latin res, or “thing.”) I suspect we only are in disagreement on this matter if you’re advocating a solely Negative Theology. Are you?

 

[Tuno]

The test of Reality as distinct from manifestation or existence is that it does not change. Therefor God is Reality per se, the unchanging eternal"I." “AM” points to the aspect of “action,” the Word, Vibration, Creation “THAT” is the unity of BEing and AMing. “I AM” is the reflexive self knowledge known as the Son in manifestation. It is, if it is possible to say, more tetrahedral than simply triune.

God can be pointed to both by negative and positive, as symbolized perhaps by the Star of David’s two main components, ascending and descending, or within and without as Unity. God is not limited, describable, and doesn’t have attributes that can be meaningfully named except as educaitonal devices refering to qualiities embodied in that we are the image and likeness of God as Conscious aware beings. God is Love, Consciousness as distinct from awareness, and all the usual “omni’s” that are attributed to Deity, yet insufficient as the lesser cannot contain the greater. There is more, but that is a simplistic exposition, having meaning proportional to mystical experience and none except as a place holder if solely an intellection, as most would have it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That is tending towards silliness. Being is more accurately a “state.” Calling that a “thing” leads one toward objectification, and God cannot be objectified.

Again, that depends on what you mean by “object”. It would equally be silly to say that God doesn’t “objectively exist”; but of course we are using the word object here in a purely existential context, and not in the context of physical quantities or immediate sensory knowledge. Perhaps you are too stubborn to realize this? You do have an understanding of context don’t you? You know, how words can take on different contextual values depending on how you use them in regards to a subject of truth. For instance, a physical cause is not necessarily the same thing as an “existential cause”. But you are so concerned with calling me silly that perhaps you haven’t got the time to understand what an existential cause is.

Good luck:thumbsup:

 

[Tuno]

Again, that depends on what you mean by “object”. It would equally be silly to say that God doesn’t “objectively exist”; but of course we are using the word object here in a purely existential context, and not in the context of physical quantities or immediate sensory knowledge. Perhaps you are too stubborn to realize this? You do have an understanding of context don’t you? You know, how words can take on different contextual values depending on how you use them in regards to a subject of truth. For instance, a physical cause is not necessarily the same thing as an “existential cause”. But you are so concerned with calling me silly that perhaps you haven’t got the time to understand what an existential cause is.

Good luck:thumbsup:

An "object " (objectāre< to throw or put before, oppose) is relative to a a “subject.” God, thought about by intellect is an object of thought, or a thought object, i.e. a projection relative to mind. That is the “God” in the cartoon looking at a picture of a brain which has the directional arrow to a point inside which is labeled “You are here.” This is the exoteric God of religion, philosophy, atheism, and speculation, as it is a place holder symbol itself believed or, far far more rarely, experientially understood to have a referent, or not. This symbol is not the God of the experience of a genuine Mystic, though in exegesis may be labeled as “objective.” God, as Such, Cannot be either labeled or contained in thought, only pointed to. This is because normally we think and act immersed in the mode of subject/object awareness which clouds the other mode which is available to us by grace or due diligence.

When the term “God” is used by a genuine Mystic, it is informed by a radically different state of awareness and actually has an experiential referent which is Subject in a non-personal sense. The symbol “God” used by such a Mystic refers to Reality as distinct from a manipulable object of intellection as ordinarily used in debate.

And, my thin skinned one, I labeled part of one item you posted as “tending toward silliness.” Why do so many on here take the part, even miniscule part, for the whole? Having done so, would you mind explaining?