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

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...

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.

Well, if God created EVERYTHING and the opposite of everything would be nothing, then it is logical to assume the God is nothing.

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

wow... unexpected but interesting answers. I'd have expected more "everythings"... but I guess this is a science forum.

All of the above

And everything in between

And all the empty spaces

Because no thing's as it seems

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.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Absum!

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?

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

Originally Posted by sculptor

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.

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.

Yeah, this thread is very old, plus, the OP seems to have been a signature spammer. I'm closing it and deleting his signature.