Page 5 of 10

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:03 pm
by rongreen5
I do not see "nothing" and "nothingness" as figures of speech. My thesis, as set out in my book, is that there is difference between them. In fact, it is the differentiation between Nothing and Nothingness that is essential in understanding the difference between Western monotheistic religions and Eastern faiths. It is not a matter of perceiving "nothing" differently, but of having different "nothings". The former need the first miracle: the universe created from Nothing (the absence of everything), while the latter move towards Nothingness (the absence of something/s). This can be seen reflected in the difference between Western ideas and philosophy and that of the East: the aim of self-fulfuiment vs. the urge towards the opposite (self-"emptyment").

Asking where Nothing (the absence of everything) is, is a non-question. Nothing simply isn't. Nothingness (the absence of something) exists. Absences can be tangible. But not the absence of everything, since that would include ourselves as well.

Ronald Green
"Nothing matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:07 pm
by tat tvam asi
Still, above you've still offered both terms as mere figure of speech as I see the issue. The western creation of the universe from nothingness, once again, is a creation of the universe from a self existent eternal God. It isn't really a creation from "nothing" unless of course YHWH Elohim is in fact considered "nothing" in the mythology. But YHWH isn't considered "nothing", but rather "something" which is eternal and omnipresent. The creation of the universe from "nothing" is simply a figure of speech and doesn't even make any sense with respect to the creation accounts (Genesis I & II) of Judeo-Christianity. I wonder if you've considered this previously before the discussion?

Also, to turn to the east and the transcendent doctrines of backing yourself all the way out to "nothingness", once again we're very clearly dealing with a mere figure of speech. We're talking about trying to back out of thinking about matter, space, and time altogether. This is like asking in science "what came before the Big Bang?" Obviously something had to exist in order to then expand out into everything now. It's like the celestial waters and the floating egg myths. There is "something" which then gives rise to something else and so on, and so on. A literal void, or a literal "Nothingness" is a concept. It's a thought of the mind. It's "something" as opposed to being "nothing" or "nothingness". To suggest otherwise is very difficult. I was caught up in considering the idea of nothing = something many years ago and concluded that the assertion is entirely false.

....something = something else = something else = something else....

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:34 pm
by rongreen5
Monotheistic religions do not consider that the universe was created from God, but that an existing God created the universe from nothing. It had to be from nothing, since if it were from something, then one would have to ask where that something came from. Creation from nothing is essential, as far as monotheistic religions are concerned.

I cannot agree that Nothing (the absence of everything) is something. If it were something, then it wouldn't be Nothing.

You seem to be mixing up language with the concept. The fact that we have to use words to describe Nothing, does not make the concept a "figure of speech". All it means is that we can't find any way to discuss it other than using language. The fact is that Nothing is impossible to grasp, since it is the absence of everything , including ourselves. We cannot imagine a universe in which we are not present, which is why we cannot grasp the concept of Nothing (the absence of everything). We can, though, grasp the concept of Nothingness (the absence of something/s), since we would be around to understand that things are absent. That is the Nothingnessof Eastern faiths.

I suggest you read my recently-published book: "Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)., in which I set out these thoughts.

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:51 pm
by tat tvam asi
rongreen5 wrote:Monotheistic religions do not consider that the universe was created from God, but that an existing God created the universe from nothing. It had to be from nothing, since if it were from something, then one would have to ask where that something came from. Creation from nothing is essential, as far as monotheistic religions are concerned.
I'm stepping ahead of you with my assertions and perhaps that's where the problem lies.

For an existing God to speak "let there be..." the God has created soemthing out of itself. Many don't venture that deep into it, which is where the confusion about the creation of the universe from "nothing" arises in the first place:
http://www.yhwh.com/wrongwithiwillbe.htm
The ancient notion that "God is the Potter, we are the clay" begs to have one question answered: Where did God get the clay from? The totality of the evidence, from nature, science and the Scriptures, is that God made the clay out of Himself!

The best illustration I can give is that of human imagination. As we think of something, say a green horse, we are focusing our imagination, through our brain cells, into the shape of a green horse. We are the same.....still human, still sitting in our room, and yet, a tiny part of us is now shaped into a green horse image.

The Scripture is clear that God said.....and there was. The universe is made out of His Will, just as we will our minds to imagine a green horse. In that way, then, God wills Himself to be whatever He wants.......The result is the stars, the sun, the moon, earth, rivers, you and me.

As "cosmic" or far-out as that might seem, it is also the best explanation as to what the Scripture means when it says (Acts 17:28) that "In God we live, move, and exist"(!)
A God that is omnipresent is necessarily the totality of mere existence. There is no place where this God is not present, whether that be a place of something or nothing if you will, and, in the greater view of things, nothing doesn't actually refer to complete and total nothing when all is said and done. The deeper you look into the claim the more you began to realize that the reference is always to "something", granted that "something" may be a reference to the unknown, but just because "something" is unknown at the present time doesn't make it literally "nothing."
I cannot agree that Nothing (the absence of everything) is something. If it were something, then it wouldn't be Nothing.
That's the very point I'm making here. Whatever you tell me is "nothing", will always turn out to be "something" after all...
You seem to be mixing up language with the concept. The fact that we have to use words to describe Nothing, does not make the concept a "figure of speech". All it means is that we can't find any way to discuss it other than using language. The fact is that Nothing is impossible to grasp, since it is the absence of everything , including ourselves. We cannot imagine a universe in which we are not present, which is why we cannot grasp the concept of Nothing (the absence of everything). We can, though, grasp the concept of Nothingness (the absence of something/s), since we would be around to understand that things are absent. That is the Nothingnessof Eastern faiths.

I suggest you read my recently-published book: "Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)., in which I set out these thoughts.
It sounds to me that your passing along ideas from the east and west that I've long since taken issue with and questioned greatly. I can imagine a universe without us, for starts. It's called imagining the standard model cosmology. :lol: I mean come on, you weren't serious were you? Maybe you were.

In anycase, the universe didn't have "us" for quite some time, obviously. We can grasp a universe without us quite well as a matter of fact. It was around long before we were born and will be around long after we die. We can also grasp a universe where there is only space and not matter. Just a black abyss with no visual point of reference to judge distance and location. No big deal so far. We can even imagine that the BB was nothing more than a black hole from elsewhere in the realm of existence which then burst out of a white hole causing all of the material universe to burst fourth from what would appear to be "nothing", but in reality was merely "something" going from one place to another. That's just modern theoretical physics and cosmology. We can imagine all sorts of "things", none of which ever trace back to any literal "nothing."

Something becomes something else over and over again:


Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:42 pm
by Robert Tulip
So, God was something before anything and turned nothing into everything. Kazaam! I'd like to see that.

It reminds me of this story, for which the moral is that no one is hopeless.

Everyone wanted someone to do something that no one was doing but anyone could do. However anyone would need help from someone, and everyone left it to no one. Everyone blamed someone because anyone could do better than no one.

I have long been convinced of my non-existence. My mother has a copper art on a bookcase in her bedroom that I made when I was twelve with a lion and flowers and the words No one sleeps here.

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:10 pm
by tat tvam asi
rongreen5 wrote:Monotheistic religions do not consider that the universe was created from God, but that an existing God created the universe from nothing. It had to be from nothing, since if it were from something, then one would have to ask where that something came from. Creation from nothing is essential, as far as monotheistic religions are concerned.
Robert Tulip wrote:So, God was something before anything and turned nothing into everything. Kazaam! I'd like to see that.
LMAO!!!

:lol:

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:15 pm
by Avid Reader
Robert Tulip wrote:Everyone wanted someone to do something that no one was doing but anyone could do. However anyone would need help from someone, and everyone left it to no one. Everyone blamed someone because anyone could do better than no one.
Love this!

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:45 pm
by rongreen5
Tat, however much you would have liked to see God create the world from nothing, you would not have been able to, since you were not part of nothing. If you had been around, there would not have been nothing from which God supposedly created the universe.

As for your interpretation of God creating the world from nothing, I'm afraid it doesn't work, since you would still have to account for God being around in the first place. If you wish to surmise an eternal God, that is fine. Belief is belief, and I don't argue with belief.

I think you missed the point about not being able to imagine a world without you. If you are not around, you can't see the world. You cannot, therefore, imagine a world where you aren't in existence, because in order to do that you need to be in existence. When you state that you can imagine the world without you, it is YOU that is doing the imagining. If you take yourself away, i.e. do not exist, you simply aren't around. In other words, you cannot know what it is like to be dead, just as you can't tell me what you remember a year before you were born.

As for grasping a world in which there is only space, that is not Nothing. It is not Nothing, since you are around to grasp it. When you disappear, there will be Nothing - but you won't be around to grasp it. That is the difference between Nothing and Nothingness, as I explained previously.

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:48 pm
by Interbane
You cannot, therefore, imagine a world where you aren't in existence, because in order to do that you need to be in existence.
Your existence does not need to be within the world you imagine.
In other words, you cannot know what it is like to be dead, just as you can't tell me what you remember a year before you were born.
You can know what it's like to be dead. It depends on the connotation of "know" you're working with. Experiential knowledge is impossible, as you point out.

Re: IS NOTHING SACRED?

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:06 am
by rongreen5
"You can know what it's like to be dead. It depends on the connotation of "know" you're working with. Experiential knowledge is impossible, as you point out."

Interbane, if you think you know what it's like to be dead, then you are using "know" in a way that makes sense only to you. If you change language to make it mean what you want it to mean (as Alice says), then we cannot have a discussion about anything. The sentence "Green ideas sleep furiously" will mean something to you, but not to speakers of Eglish.

Ronald Green
"Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books