God and Nothing seems to be equivalent

[Cyperium]

Doesn't it?

I've more or less researched the concept of nothing because something just isn't right about it. I have a couple of arguments, which each can be countered on it's own. What can be known of nothing is pretty much what can be known about God if you look through those arguments.

1) particles exist from nothing, due to the uncertainty principle. As not all variables of a particle can be known, it can't be known to be fundamentally nothing either. As such particles must spontaniously come to exist from nothing. That's not the interesting part though, the interesting part (from the view of nothing) is that they come about at all parts of the universe, which tells us that nothing has no special place, and thus a particle that starts to exist from nothing can start to exist at any place in the universe with no regard to space at all. This tells us that nothing has infinite scope. Probably also infinite scope in time.

2) We were nothing before we were born and nothing after we die, the nothing we were before is the same nothing as the one after we die, as there is no fundamental place that nothing is relative to, and no fundamental time that nothing is relative to this tells us that what happened before when we were nothing will happen again when we are nothing.

3) ... will come later as I have to quit now. Those two arguments are enough for now though. It can be easily seen with just a little bit of imagination that there is a equivalence to the concept of God and the concept of nothing. Which makes it kind of ironic to say that God doesn't exist.

3)

 

[Aqueous Id]

Doesn't it?

...the interesting part (from the view of nothing) is that they come about at all parts of the universe, which tells us that nothing has no special place, and thus a particle that starts to exist from nothing can start to exist at any place in the universe with no regard to space at all. This tells us that nothing has infinite scope. Probably also infinite scope in time.

I'm reminded of the adage that God is a sphere of infinite radius, whose center is everywhere.

It also occurred to me that if God is Nothing, then the God Is Dead revival was wrong, since Nothing can't die, which means God lives on as the theists have been claiming for the past 40 years.

Which why I accept the proposal that God is Nothing.

 

[Enmos]

I'm reminded of the adage that God is a sphere of infinite radius, whose center is everywhere.

It also occurred to me that if God is Nothing, then the God Is Dead revival was wrong, since Nothing can't die, which means God lives on as the theists have been claiming for the past 40 years.

Which why I accept the proposal that God is Nothing.

Nothing can't live either.

In fact, nothing cannot even exist. That's why there is something.

 

[Enmos]

1) particles exist from nothing, due to the uncertainty principle. As not all variables of a particle can be known, it can't be known to be fundamentally nothing either. As such particles must spontaniously come to exist from nothing. That's not the interesting part though, the interesting part (from the view of nothing) is that they come about at all parts of the universe, which tells us that nothing has no special place, and thus a particle that starts to exist from nothing can start to exist at any place in the universe with no regard to space at all. This tells us that nothing has infinite scope. Probably also infinite scope in time.

There has always been something and, consequentially, nothing never existed.

2) We were nothing before we were born and nothing after we die, the nothing we were before is the same nothing as the one after we die, as there is no fundamental place that nothing is relative to, and no fundamental time that nothing is relative to this tells us that what happened before when we were nothing will happen again when we are nothing.

We were never nothing. We simply did not exist. On the other hand, the matter we were 'built' from did exist.
Something cannot have the properties of nothing because nothing doesn't have any properties.

3) ... will come later as I have to quit now. Those two arguments are enough for now though. It can be easily seen with just a little bit of imagination that there is a equivalence to the concept of God and the concept of nothing. Which makes it kind of ironic to say that God doesn't exist.

If anything could be called god, imo, it is the undefined t=0.

 

[Cyperium]

There has always been something and, consequentially, nothing never existed.

Yes, I agree, but we do see particles that starts to exist, something that is commonly called the "quantum foam" which happens everywhere in the universe. That it happens everywhere in the universe is a indication that nothing is everywhere in respect to the universe (or existence) and not at a special place. How else could we explain that the particles starts to exist anywhere and not in any special place?

We were never nothing. We simply did not exist. On the other hand, the matter we were 'built' from did exist.

To be nothing is to not exist. I'm not talking about the matter that makes us up, of course it has always existed in some form (at least from the beginning - if there is one - to now), I'm talking about our existence as ourselves, which has as much right to be called a 'existence' as the matter that formed to create us.

Something cannot have the properties of nothing because nothing doesn't have any properties.

Nothing doesn't have any properties and this makes it behave like it is everywhere when particles are spontaniously formed - from nothing.

If anything could be called god, imo, it is the undefined t=0.

I'm not saying that God is nothing, I'm saying that what we call nothing could be God. It is a perfect cover after all, and atheists can even get away with saying that God doesn't exist, as God resembles nothing so much that you could never tell the difference. That particles can start to exist is then a equivalence of Gods power to create (even though the particles only exist for a short while, unless one of them happen to be next to a black hole).


Argument 3: What comes from nothing is pure, it can be said to be the truth, as nothing has no diversity anything that comes from it is the truth, this is of course equivalent to God as well.

Argument 4: That something can come from nothing (can start to exist) at all are a sign of nothing's creating power, which is of course equivalent to Gods creating power.

I can probably come up with more arguments, but it's enough to see the consequences of nothing to see the resemblence to God. It is hidden, but still everywhere, etc. As such we have to treat it as if nothing actually existed, because that's what seperates nothing from God, that God would exist, and nothing simply doesn't. Subjective features of God are impossible to know though (such as awareness) and thus can't be seen in "nothing" either.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Nothing is easy to understand if you work it out properly.

0 doesn't exist on its own.

But +1 + -1 = 0 does exist.

Which simply means that all particles have an anti-particle. So two particles create 0.

Which solves the thread. No need for this thread to run for 10 years!

 

[Yazata]

God and Nothing seems to be equivalent

Doesn't it?

I don't believe that God exists, so in a literal sense I'd have to say yes.

What's interesting to me is that some very important thinkers from the history of multiple religious traditions would agree. In a way, at least.

For example, there's the idea found here and there in some of the early Upanishads, and worked up by Shankara in his Advaita philosophy, in which God is identified with the principle of subjectivity. Universal subjectivity on the cosmic scale is Brahman, ultimate reality and kind of a philosphical God, while subjectivity on the personal level is Atman, our transcendental self. The big salvational realization in this philosophy is to realize that these are one and the same.

But the thing is, if we are going to think about anything, even if it's 'Brahman' or 'Atman', we are making whatever we think about into an object of awareness. And an object of awareness isn't the same thing as the awareness that's aware of it. In other words, every time we try to think of our true selves we can only fail. Our true selves think but can never be thought. That's one of the motivations for some India's meditation practices and one reason why India has always had so much interest in ways of generating pure awareness without an object.

In the Western religious traditions, there's a widespread idea that God is so holy, so transcendent, that no human concept can truly capture him or any of his qualities. So elaborate theories of analogy and analogical language have appeared in philosophical theology in both Christianity and Islam.

When that idea is pressed, it leads towards an interesting kind of deeply religious and religious-inspired agnosticism. The idea arises that all of our concepts - including inevitably the concepts of our religious scriptures, doctrines and creeds - are Earthly, limited and finite concepts that fall short of the true divine glory of God. So the way to God becomes a 'negative' or 'apophatic' path in which the literal truth of every divine attibute is denied, but without denying the reality of God and in such a way that the sense of God's glorious transcendence is always being magnified. Eventually the religious mystic reaches a point where nothing in words can be said about God any longer, and nothing can be thought about God in concepts. The mystic thereupon ascends into a non-verbal and non-cognitive 'Cloud of Unknowing' (to use the title of a medieval English mystical text).

 

[Cyperium]

Nothing is easy to understand if you work it out properly.

0 doesn't exist on its own.

But +1 + -1 = 0 does exist.

Which simply means that all particles have an anti-particle. So two particles create 0.

Which solves the thread. No need for this thread to run for 10 years!

well +1 and -1 is created somehow from nothing, which is still some kind of act of creation even if the ultimate result is 0 when they meet. It also seem to occur at all places of the universe so it's still a tell-tale of where 'nothing' would exist were it to exist. Which is then everywhere (as seen when something do start to exist as negatives of each other).

I don't believe that God exists, so in a literal sense I'd have to say yes.

I didn't really mean in a literal sense like that, but your view will probably always be accepted by science as 'nothing' and 'God' can't be seperated by looking at how they behave.

What's interesting to me is that some very important thinkers from the history of multiple religious traditions would agree. In a way, at least.

For example, there's the idea found here and there in some of the early Upanishads, and worked up by Shankara in his Advaita philosophy, in which God is identified with the principle of subjectivity. Universal subjectivity on the cosmic scale is Brahman, ultimate reality and kind of a philosphical God, while subjectivity on the personal level is Atman, our transcendental self. The big salvational realization in this philosophy is to realize that these are one and the same.

But the thing is, if we are going to think about anything, even if it's 'Brahman' or 'Atman', we are making whatever we think about into an object of awareness. And an object of awareness isn't the same thing as the awareness that's aware of it. In other words, every time we try to think of our true selves we can only fail. Our true selves think but can never be thought. That's one of the motivations for some India's meditation practices and one reason why India has always had so much interest in ways of generating pure awareness without an object.

In the Western religious traditions, there's a widespread idea that God is so holy, so transcendent, that no human concept can truly capture him or any of his qualities. So elaborate theories of analogy and analogical language have appeared in philosophical theology in both Christianity and Islam.

When that idea is pressed, it leads towards an interesting kind of deeply religious and religious-inspired agnosticism. The idea arises that all of our concepts - including inevitably the concepts of our religious scriptures, doctrines and creeds - are Earthly, limited and finite concepts that fall short of the true divine glory of God. So the way to God becomes a 'negative' or 'apophatic' path in which the literal truth of every divine attibute is denied, but without denying the reality of God and in such a way that the sense of God's glorious transcendence is always being magnified. Eventually the religious mystic reaches a point where nothing in words can be said about God any longer, and nothing can be thought about God in concepts. The mystic thereupon ascends into a non-verbal and non-cognitive 'Cloud of Unknowing' (to use the title of a medieval English mystical text).

We can't fathom God of course, should he exist. But we can see some of the consequences that seem to be consistent with the commonly known aspects of such a God and that seem to be also consistent with what we commonly call 'nothing'.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doesn't it?

I've more or less researched the concept of nothing because something just isn't right about it. I have a couple of arguments, which each can be countered on it's own. What can be known of nothing is pretty much what can be known about God if you look through those arguments.

1) particles exist from nothing, due to the uncertainty principle. As not all variables of a particle can be known, it can't be known to be fundamentally nothing either. As such particles must spontaniously come to exist from nothing. That's not the interesting part though, the interesting part (from the view of nothing) is that they come about at all parts of the universe, which tells us that nothing has no special place, and thus a particle that starts to exist from nothing can start to exist at any place in the universe with no regard to space at all. This tells us that nothing has infinite scope. Probably also infinite scope in time.

2) We were nothing before we were born and nothing after we die, the nothing we were before is the same nothing as the one after we die, as there is no fundamental place that nothing is relative to, and no fundamental time that nothing is relative to this tells us that what happened before when we were nothing will happen again when we are nothing.

3) ... will come later as I have to quit now. Those two arguments are enough for now though. It can be easily seen with just a little bit of imagination that there is a equivalence to the concept of God and the concept of nothing. Which makes it kind of ironic to say that God doesn't exist.

3)

Define ''Nothing''?


jan.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

well +1 and -1 is created somehow from nothing, which is still some kind of act of creation even if the ultimate result is 0 when they meet. It also seem to occur at all places of the universe so it's still a tell-tale of where 'nothing' would exist were it to exist. Which is then everywhere (as seen when something do start to exist as negatives of each other).

I didn't really mean in a literal sense like that, but your view will probably always be accepted by science as 'nothing' and 'God' can't be seperated by looking at how they behave.

We can't fathom God of course, should he exist. But we can see some of the consequences that seem to be consistent with the commonly known aspects of such a God and that seem to be also consistent with what we commonly call 'nothing'.

The two particles can appear together as nothing. You can't create a universe from nothing, you need two particles. So that easily eliminates 0 as ever existing. I don't see why people don't get this?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Nothing can't live either.

Nothing lives in me, between the particles. I carry it around all day. Lots of it.

In fact, nothing cannot even exist. That's why there is something.

Some would argue that space is the absence of something, therefore nothing. Do you say that space does not exist?

 

[Arioch]

Actually Jan asks a decent question for once. Which kind of "nothing" are we dealing with here. Are we talking about the philosophical concept of nothing(which is about as convoluted a concept as you can get)? Or are we talking about scientific nothingness which is actually definable and can exist in reality(but only as something ala QED)?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Actually Jan asks a decent question for once. Which kind of "nothing" are we dealing with here. Are we talking about the philosophical concept of nothing(which is about as convoluted a concept as you can get)? Or are we talking about scientific nothingness which is actually definable and can exist in reality(but only as something ala QED)?

Well he said "particles exist from nothing..." so it is the medium from which particles can exist.

 

[Arioch]

Ah, so we're talking about scientific nothingness then.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

the future pulled the past into existence. Whats to come was the medium . It is a goal oriented universe. Chain of events that lead to the prescribed path .

The future pulls the past and the past pushes the future . A give take push pull . What do you all call that ? Entropy? Is that right ? I am going to google that and see what that means .

Shooting from the hip , blam

Spew A yeah Hot to cold . That whole thing about differential is coming up again . Wow ! The heat guys were right . The same way moisture moves you bag of waters . Perspire that bags

 

[Crunchy Cat]

1) particles exist from nothing, due to the uncertainty principle. As not all variables of a particle can be known, it can't be known to be fundamentally nothing either. As such particles must spontaniously come to exist from nothing. That's not the interesting part though, the interesting part (from the view of nothing) is that they come about at all parts of the universe, which tells us that nothing has no special place, and thus a particle that starts to exist from nothing can start to exist at any place in the universe with no regard to space at all. This tells us that nothing has infinite scope. Probably also infinite scope in time.

You are talking about virtual particles. They don't "exist from nothing". They are spawned by the fields that permeate space-time (ex. EM fields).

2) We were nothing before we were born and nothing after we die, the nothing we were before is the same nothing as the one after we die, as there is no fundamental place that nothing is relative to, and no fundamental time that nothing is relative to this tells us that what happened before when we were nothing will happen again when we are nothing.

We were matter/energy in different configurations before we were born. Same thing after.

3) ... will come later as I have to quit now. Those two arguments are enough for now though. It can be easily seen with just a little bit of imagination that there is a equivalence to the concept of God and the concept of nothing. Which makes it kind of ironic to say that God doesn't exist.

3)

Nothing is the a complete absence of everything / anything. It doesn't objectively exist (it is only a concept in your mind). 'God' is also a concept in your mind that has no objective counterpart so in that respect 'God' and 'Nothing' share non-existence.

 

[Cyperium]

You are talking about virtual particles. They don't "exist from nothing". They are spawned by the fields that permeate space-time (ex. EM fields).

If they were given energy by the EM fields then they wouldn't need to annihilate in order to conserve energy as it would be a transformation rather than something coming to existence. All articles I've read talks about the particles being allowed to briefly exist.

What does it mean to be 'spawned' anyway, it seems like you use that word to describe that it was created using existing energy of the EM fields when it's really just a rewording of "coming to existence" if you ask me.


I should also say that "virtual" does not mean that the particles doesn't actually exist just because they can't be observed, it is possible to boost the particles apart in order for them to avoid annihilation and thus be real particles (as quoted below).


Quote from Wikipedia:
``In order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus many physical processes lead to pair creation. The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later.

Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become real particles.´´




Virtual particle - Wikipedia

We were matter/energy in different configurations before we were born. Same thing after.

Our consciousness wasn't. You can take the letters of a word and randomize it but it's only when they make up the word that it is the word. Are you saying that you would exist without your mind?

Nothing is the a complete absence of everything / anything. It doesn't objectively exist (it is only a concept in your mind). 'God' is also a concept in your mind that has no objective counterpart so in that respect 'God' and 'Nothing' share non-existence.

The latter part can't be proven or disproven so why make a claim about it?

 

[Cyperium]

Actually Jan asks a decent question for once. Which kind of "nothing" are we dealing with here. Are we talking about the philosophical concept of nothing(which is about as convoluted a concept as you can get)? Or are we talking about scientific nothingness which is actually definable and can exist in reality(but only as something ala QED)?

So how is nothing defined in Quantum electrodynamics? Why use 'nothing' when it's actually something?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

So how is nothing defined in Quantum electrodynamics? Why use 'nothing' when it's actually something?

Well you used the word nothing to define God, and a dead person, so the word nothing is used when something is out of our lowest measurement.

 

[Cyperium]

Define ''Nothing''?


jan.

That which doesn't exist. How God and Nothing are equivalent is in the way they relate to things that do exist though. I would rather use the phrase "that which can't be known" to define 'nothing' though, but that's not the common way to perceive nothing as far as I can tell.

I should also say that I don't mean it as "emptiness" as in a container which still has room, I don't mean it as space, I mean it as complete non-existence, hence it doesn't exist as a container even. I don't mean nothing as in the scientific concept of vacuum, which is where the particles goes in and out of existence and which always has different fields present. I mean the particle when it is not in existence.