Nothing

[pjnlsn]

A fool says to himself, I will take what is God's and make dross of it.

The relationships which take place in your head still don't translate into God existing at all.

Apart from, broadly, there being no proof.

 

[variant]

What is nothing? It's clearly both what it specifies (the negation of something), but also, well, something, given that it refers to something we have a concept for. A negation of something is still something, just a different type of something -- not a *physical* something, but a what? A metaphorical something? An abstract something?

Or something.

It is a meaningless term built out of the logical consequence of the extension of the term of lack into the idea of existing.

 

[Gottservant]

The fact that nothing could just as easily hold something, is one of the reasons we are all here today.

 

[juvenissun]

He probably means, how is "God' distinguishable from nothing, in terms of likelihoods of claims, based on empirical evidence or two things which are directly equivalent.

Nothing does not creates, God creates. That is the difference.

 

[pjnlsn]

Nothing does not creates, God creates. That is the difference.

He probably means, how is "God' distinguishable from nothing, in terms of likelihoods of claims, based on empirical evidence or two things which are directly equivalent.

Not what the words mean.

 

[twinc]

He probably means, how is "God' distinguishable from nothing, in terms of likelihoods of claims, based on empirical evidence or two things which are directly equivalent.

Not what the words mean.

God is no thing which must be something and not nothing for only nothing is nothing except in a big small silent bang - twinc

 

[Received]

It is a meaningless term built out of the logical consequence of the extension of the term of lack into the idea of existing.

I wouldn't quite call it meaningless.

I think it's meaningful only when juxtaposed (spatially, comparatively, figuratively) with something. Take a deep valley: two cliffs (somethings) divided by nothing (figuratively).

But this nothing is made "something" by comparison or relation to two somethings. So maybe it's right to say that there's nothingness by comparison.

But not nothingness "in itself". That's where the term become meaningless, or something to that effect.

 

[variant]

I wouldn't quite call it meaningless.

I think it's meaningful only when juxtaposed (spatially, comparatively, figuratively) with something. Take a deep valley: two cliffs (somethings) divided by nothing (figuratively).

But this nothing is made "something" by comparison or relation to two somethings. So maybe it's right to say that there's nothingness by comparison.

But not nothingness "in itself". That's where the term become meaningless, or something to that effect.

Well I mean meaningless as in lacking a positive explanatory utility.

You might be able to find a home for the concept but I can't see how it's not always going to be confusing and troubled.

I think non or lack work fine for the purpose you propose and lack the confusion that nothing represents.

 

[Davian]

As useful as this answer:

"Knowledge meditates on unparalleled facts"

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra

Do you have anything of substance?

Substance dictates the appetite, it does not rule the mind.

"God exists as precious happiness"

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra

Just because you have not found Wisdom, that speaks to you, does not mean, your life is not governed by relationships that it describes.

So that would be a "No", then?

You should more clearly delineate which lines are yours and which came from that random nonsense generator.