Everythingness, Nothingness... and the theists' god.?

Question

Note: god with lower-case 'g'. The concept doesn't deserve higher.

Now to the point. Putting most of my strange beliefs aside for a moment, I know all aspects of existence of which I'm aware are cyclic, so its not absurd to believe that those I cannot directly experience should be as well. There are no beginnings or ends, as all things loop back on themselves and undergo constant transition (lets leave the third law of thermodynamics out of this for the moment).

Perhaps the strangest of all these is the whole of existence itself. Because it is all things and there is nothing that it is not... it cannot be defined / described. Definition requires comparison to an alternative, and there can be no valid alternative or contrary to everythingness. The concept of nothingness is just the 'lack' of things, rather than an opposite of any.

Hence... if the theists' "god" is omnipresent, omnipotent, etc... If he is everything, then he lacks any definition and is entirely redundant. ^_^

Lets try this then...
Black and white. The extremes of brightness if you will. Simple enough concepts. Both are needed in variable amounts to make shades of grey.
Imagine that there were no such thing as "black" at all. Everything would be what we call white, but since it would be everything, "white" would mean the same as "everything" and would be a superfluous term. The concept of "white" wouldn't exist as a descriptor, because there would be nothing that was not white.

So... I could invent any number of concepts on the spot that have no opposite... and hence since they have no opposite there could be no way to describe them since there would be nothing that they were not (and hence nothing they especially could be said to be)... The terms would be fundamentally meaningless and serve no purpose whatsoever. As it so happens, there are already some of those around in regular use.... and the "god" invoked by most theists tends toward being that way: Fundamentally meaningless.

Additional note to people of very little intelligence:

If you wish to call my reasoning / logic faulty, then by all means justify your judgement... because even slightly faulty reason would be better than no reason at all, and I have no need to believe that my reason is anything other than perfectly valid otherwise.

Take note here: I'm not dismissing your god's existence... merely any purpose or descriptor you might put to it. In other words: it doesn't make any difference whether it 'exists' or not. It is superfluous.

Oh... and I'm glad you noticed its not a 'question' persay... but an argument that I'm sure there are no shortage of people willing to oppose.

Note also that while there is a connection between the comments about cyclicity in opening and the following statements about the lack of definition to an independant and omniexclusive concept, the two do exist as independants and the latter is not invalidated if you find fault with the former.

[Personal Reply]:

Note to rabid....
Your comparison is invalid because no matter how big New York might be, it is not omnipresent. It has limits and it has an end. There are places that are NOT New York, hence it can be defined by its limitations. If you have any intention of defining god then you will have to impose limitations on him (i.e. claim what he is not to mark significantly what he 'is')... and that rather defies the concept of said 'entity'... does it not?

Answer 1

There you go being strange again ... ^_^

No matter how bizarre and illogical there is a place for everything in this world. There must be *some* level of truth to things that make no sense, if only because this universe likes toying with us.

It's definately a consipiracy >_>
<_<

Answer 2

In that case, so is your argument that is masquerading as a question.

The question you need to consider is what grounds this "cycle", as you put it? In what space does it arise? What makes recognition of the cyclical nature of things or the redundancy of god a significant realization?

You can't expect to have any ground to stand on when you have dismissed away the existence of any ground.

Addition:

In regards to black/white distinction and logic in general. Any logical argument that can be formed against any concept can itself be used against the practice of logic itself. If you say A gets its meaning from how it relates to B, then where does B get its meaning from, independent of A? Its ALL cyclical, even the practice of logic.

What grounds the practice of logic and reasoning? Would it be something logical, what would ground the logical reason behind the practice of logic? See where this is going?

All arguments are cyclical in nature and any worthy concept is fundamentally grounded in its own self-evidence. The value of logic does not need to be grounded in the fact that it is opposed to the illogical. Even if it were, what would ground that conclusion? Instead consider that the value of logic is self-evident.

Likewise, something that is omnipresent does not lack definition because it is also self-evident. What defines it is everything that arises. It is white and black. Again, in that it fails to compare against anything only prevents comparison. But do you have to compare an apple against an orange to know what an apple tastes like? No. You only need to taste both to compare one against the other.

To demonstrate this point, consider what the opposite of awareness is. And be careful not to include anything that might imply an awareness in your answer, because then the answer would fail to properly describe the opposite of awareness.

There is no opposite of awareness. You might try: "being unconscious is the opposite of awareness!" I reply, "what does THAT mean?" You say: "the opposite of being aware." I say: "I only know what its like to be aware."

If I knew what it was like to be unaware, wouldn't I be aware of my unawareness???

If there was an opposite to awareness, you wouldn't have access to it anyway because anything you have access to would indicate some level of awareness. But just because awareness has no KNOWABLE opposite, that does not make awareness any less substantial or meaningful. Does it?

Our own awareness is omni-present. If it were not, what would that even BE like? Anything you could possibly come up with will only further ground the omni-presence of awareness.

Thank-you-please-drive-through

Answer 3

Maybe you don't see God because there is nothing God is not.

It's like standing in the middle of Times Square and saying "show me New York". You're standing in God. Does that make God redundant? No. There are, you admit, things you cannot directly experience. God is those things too. And maybe there is more to God than anyone can ever understand.

--------------------------------------------------

You're right. I agree, it's a paradox. In one sense God exists, in another sense he does not. Many truths are paradoxical when viewed in a certain way. It's human nature to want everything (including God) to fit in the "logic box"...but some things do not. Logic has its limitations, like anything else.

Answer 4

With all that in mind, I have the feeling you might find peace in considering yourself as 'god' or your own god. The master of your own destiny as it were. Good Luck!
-Ciao

Answer 5

By what authority do you make your hypothesis that rule out a God, and how do you prove you hypothesis correct?

You have proven God is false by faulty reasoning and assumpsion.

well done geezer.

Answer 6

You are weird, and weirdly misinformed, go off with a Bible and READ IT, please, before you spout off about things that take too much faith to believe.

Answer 7

There are none so blind as those that cannot see.

Answer 8

where is the question?