Notices

View Poll Results: God is either everything, or God is nothing

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Everything

    4 44.44%
  • Nothing

    4 44.44%
  • In between

    1 11.11%
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: God is either everything, or God is nothing. Vote!

  1. #1 God is either everything, or God is nothing. Vote! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    God is either everything, or God is nothing. If you have to pick one, which would it be? It would be interesting to see how everyone votes...


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: God is either everything, or God is nothing. Vote! 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mike328
    God is either everything, or God is nothing. If you have to pick one, which would it be? It would be interesting to see how everyone votes...
    God is not nothing and God is not everything because God created things that were not Himself. Atheism or pantheism is not much of a choice. I frankly don't even see a great deal of difference between them so I am certainly NOT going to choose something in between.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore GrowlingDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At the gates of Sto-vo-kor
    Posts
    181
    Well, if God created EVERYTHING and the opposite of everything would be nothing, then it is logical to assume the God is nothing.
    Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.
     

  5. #4 God is everything or god is nothing 
    Forum Sophomore Vaedrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    155
    I wonder Growling Dog, if God created everything then this universal creation set must contain God as well - therefore did God also create himself?

    If so, then the opposite of everything may be nothing, but God must "logically" be something based on self creation.

    Maybe sort of a spiritual "big bang" occurred?

    I guess the idea that God created everything except himself could resolve this but I have to admit this single object universe is difficult to imagine. Objects usually have meaning in relation to each other. Just as a picture can be composed of a series of pixels, a pixel by itself has little meaning compared to a composite picture.

    So my "vote" is that, assuming a God, in the beginning phase prior to "creation" God would have been close to nothing, just as a pixel compared to a picture made of pixels is relatively insignificant. However (perhaps from loneliness) the phase after "creation" would have provided a contextual framework for his existence and provided some relevance or meaning.

    But would this suggest that "God is everything"? If someone paints a picture or sculptures a figure (for example), does that artist become "everything" to the creation?

    Christian philosophy claims that people have "free will" so I guess God is out of bounds in that regard. Therefore God is excluded from (at least) the topic of "free will" so cannot really be "everything".

    So my vote is that God (if existing) used to be either "nothing" or "relatively infinitesimal" but after "creation" expanded in scope but not to completeness.

    Anyway, an interesting question to interpret :P
    "The sky cannot speak of the ocean, the ocean cannot speak of the land, the land cannot speak of the stars, the stars cannot speak of the sky"
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    wow... unexpected but interesting answers. I'd have expected more "everythings"... but I guess this is a science forum.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    All of the above

    And everything in between

    And all the empty spaces

    Because no thing's as it seems
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Fozzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Somerset, England
    Posts
    15
    The question is meaningless. God cannot be nothing because that means the word itself does not exist, negating the argument.

    As for being everything, as someone suggested, he would have had to create himself, or, as some people believe, he always was, but this can't be measured scientifically...

    Silly question.
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by Fozzie
    The question is meaningless. God cannot be nothing because that means the word itself does not exist, negating the argument.

    As for being everything, as someone suggested, he would have had to create himself, or, as some people believe, he always was, but this can't be measured scientifically...

    Silly question.
    Well actually it isn't a silly question

    In fact it's a question that can lead to quite profound thoughts, ideas and questions.

    For example it has led you to question the origin of God if he/she is meant to be the creator, and this argument has puzzled theologists and atheists for centuries.

    Many religious and spiritual traditions talk of the nothingness quality of God as well as the all pervading quality.
    This leads to the dichotomous quality of God, which is another deep inquiry which is persistently explored by thinkers.

    This is the same idea that the symbol of yin and yang illustrates.

    For in order for there to be something, there must first be a nothing and in order for there to be a nothing there must also be a something. It explains the relativity of existence and the notion that contained within everything is it's opposite.

    I would have said that the in-between option was the silliest, because where and what exactly is in-between?
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
     

  10. #9 God is either something or nothing 
    Forum Sophomore Vaedrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    155
    I admit I am enjoying the diverse and well seated opinions on the subject. I agree the question is not silly. Few questions are :-D
    "The sky cannot speak of the ocean, the ocean cannot speak of the land, the land cannot speak of the stars, the stars cannot speak of the sky"
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fozzie
    The question is meaningless. God cannot be nothing because that means the word itself does not exist, negating the argument.

    As for being everything, as someone suggested, he would have had to create himself, or, as some people believe, he always was, but this can't be measured scientifically...

    Silly question.
    Well actually it isn't a silly question

    In fact it's a question that can lead to quite profound thoughts, ideas and questions.

    For example it has led you to question the origin of God if he/she is meant to be the creator, and this argument has puzzled theologists and atheists for centuries.

    Many religious and spiritual traditions talk of the nothingness quality of God as well as the all pervading quality.
    This leads to the dichotomous quality of God, which is another deep inquiry which is persistently explored by thinkers.

    This is the same idea that the symbol of yin and yang illustrates.

    For in order for there to be something, there must first be a nothing and in order for there to be a nothing there must also be a something. It explains the relativity of existence and the notion that contained within everything is it's opposite.

    I would have said that the in-between option was the silliest, because where and what exactly is in-between?
    This thread seems dead...Why? Are arguments over? Absum!s post is in my opinion "the winner" but there is a competition.
    Whats missing here, i think, is a closer inspection of the basic concepts, in particular "Nothing and everything". They are treated as universal but it is not necessarily so that there is a single domain, like our universe, they apply to.
    Im not sure you get my point so I state it more bluntly: Is Existence Relative?
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    If God is.
    Then everything is of god.
    Is being of god the same as being god?
    Am I, the sculptor, the sculpture I made? Is the sculpture by me of me(even though it bears no physical resemblance to me) and not me?
    Am I the me I was 10 minutes or 10 years ago? Is that me me?

    Is my hand motivated by my mind or does my hand motivate my mind(touching a naked body , or a well carved piece of wood, comes to mind)?
    Can the mind be seperate from the brain?
    Language is not reality. The map is not the terrain.
    If we cannot understand ourselves, how so, then can we understand our perceptions?
    yet alone
    god
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If God is.
    Then everything is of god.
    Is being of god the same as being god?
    Am I, the sculptor, the sculpture I made? Is the sculpture by me of me(even though it bears no physical resemblance to me) and not me?
    Am I the me I was 10 minutes or 10 years ago? Is that me me?

    Is my hand motivated by my mind or does my hand motivate my mind(touching a naked body , or a well carved piece of wood, comes to mind)?
    Can the mind be seperate from the brain?
    Language is not reality. The map is not the terrain.
    If we cannot understand ourselves, how so, then can we understand our perceptions?
    yet alone
    god
    I will copy your statements to The Poor Claim That God Does Not Exist

    And answer them there later.



     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    I find false dichotomies unrealistic and somewhat boring. Even the idea of god of everything seems to be a rather small % of religions--myths often define limited power and sphere's of influence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Yeah, this thread is very old, plus, the OP seems to have been a signature spammer. I'm closing it and deleting his signature.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •