"Nothingess" argument. Is this proof valid?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

Nothing, according to the philosophers, is a state of absolute nonexistence.

? Surely a "state refers to something.

No matter, no energy, no spirit - nothing. Creation from nothing as a proof of God (or gods, or great spirits, or any creative entity one chooses) is hard to support, since if God exists, the philosophers' nothing does not obtain.

"nothing" is a word which presupposes the absence of something. It certainly presupposes at least one mind which understands what the word signifies.

What I find myself wondering is why it is invariably supposed, by philosophers and religious believers in particular, that nothing - a condition of absolute nonexistence - is somehow a necessary precursor to the existence of the universe, of the earth, of plants, of animals - basically everything that we might perceive as extant.

"nothing" is not a condition of anything. It is a negation which has no effect on reality.

Why is nothing considered to be a genuine contender for an alternative to the diversity of extant forms now present in the universe? Is it even possible for a state of nothingness to obtain?

No!

To that question, I've not yet seen a satisfactory answer. Maybe something - be it ever so simple - has always existed.

As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing.

If it is possible for a personal, creative, perceptive god to exist eternally, it is surely possible for much simpler conditions to exist eternally.

There is nothing simpler than One Being.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Godmachine

How do you know god and nothing are not the same thing? The more you think about it, the more you might find that "nothing" fits all the criteria to match the definition of a "god".

A gratuitous assertion!

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Godmachine

Nothingness, I think is best defined as the essence or quality of nothing (which would have to be something).

Nothingness has no "essence" - whatever that may be.

"Nothingness is the quality of nothing" is a reification which doesn't correspond to reality.

"nothingness" is nonsense! It is merely a mythical mental construct which implies that "nothing" is a state whereas it is the absolute absence of everything and everyone.

As I pointed out in another post, "nothing" is a word which presupposes the absence of something. It certainly presupposes at least one mind which understands what the word signifies!

[empther]

From the first post in this thread

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Well, this is exciting. I can't wait to hear it.

If the statement "Nothing is a God" is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, "Something is (a) God", i.e. that God exists.

This is not a proof of God. "Something" may not be God.

The best proof of God is that there cannot be only things that exist in time because there cannot be an infinite past.
There has to be an eternal being who started it all.

[Godmachine]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

A gratuitous assertion!

I asserted nothing (no pun intended)

[Godmachine]

Originally Posted by empther

The best proof of God is that there cannot be only things that exist in time because there cannot be an infinite past.

If this is true how is it proof of a god?

Originally Posted by empther

There has to be an eternal being who started it all.

Why?

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

I think the problem is that you are using the word 'nothing' in two different ways and treating them both as if they are the same.

I think this is actually an example of an equivocation fallacy called "reification"

Definition:

"To reify is to treat as a thing. To describe philosophers as reifying is usually to charge that they are misled by verbal form into thinking simply because some noun has a use, there must be something to which it refers. Thus Platonists are charged with reifying numbers or universals, and people are supposed to have improperly reified great varieties of things, including sets, infinite collections, finite things, sensations, physical objects, the future, the past, the possible, or the will of the people. The charge is itself not entirely transparent, and the fault these philosophies commit may more helpfully be put as treating things of one type as if they were things of another. See also ontology, realism/anti-realism."

[tgrath]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

But, isn't that latter what I am doing? Let's call Nothing(ness) '0' for now:

0 does not equal God
Therefore God does not equal 0
Therefore God = some non-zero (non-nothing) entity
Therefore God exists

This seems to be logical, is it not?

The problem is that you could substitute any word at all for God, in that statement.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Godmachine

I asserted nothing (no pun intended)

If "The more you think about it, the more you might find that "nothing" fits all the criteria to match the definition of a 'god'" is nothing then it means nothing.

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

It's not that the word nothing can't mean what is meant by nothingness, it's that this particular vocal sound can also mean something different when used in a different context. For each step of your argument you need to examine which meaning you are usin to come to your conclusion.

1. Nothing is x is a false statement. Nothing = non-existence
2. Nothing is God being false means that God is something, ie exists.
In order to show that something else is meant by nothing in this case let me rephrase the sentence. There is no thing whih is God in this case nothing does not mean the idea of nothingness, rather in this context it is used to deny that any of the things which exist are God. In other words, in one case nothing is referring to nonexistence and in the other it refers to existing things and negates something (God) of them.

A similar example would be if I said
1. All bats are animals
2. The instrument used by baseball Players is a bat
3. Therefore baseball players use animals in baseball to hit the ball.

The conclusion is patently false as a the word bat is used in a different way in the two parts of the argument. Similarly, the use of nothing to mean different things in your argument nullifies the argument.

Does this make it any clearer?

Yes, I understand the objection. It seems that there is a distinction between "nothing" and "no thing".

Can a distinction be sustained between (a) non-existence 'thing' and the absence of existent things?

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by Godmachine

How do you know god and nothing are not the same thing? The more you think about it, the more you might find that "nothing" fits all the criteria to match the definition of a "god".

This is actually an expression which appears from time to time among the more apophatic mystics.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

As I pointed out in another post, "nothing" is a word which presupposes the absence of something. It certainly presupposes at least one mind which understands what the word signifies!

Nothing "signifies nothing" in every sense of the phrase unless it is qualified, e.g. "There is nothing to eat" or "Nothing we have written makes sense"!

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

I think this is actually an example of an equivocation fallacy called "reification"

Definition:

"To reify is to treat as a thing. To describe philosophers as reifying is usually to charge that they are misled by verbal form into thinking simply because some noun has a use, there must be something to which it refers. Thus Platonists are charged with reifying numbers or universals, and people are supposed to have improperly reified great varieties of things, including sets, infinite collections, finite things, sensations, physical objects, the future, the past, the possible, or the will of the people. The charge is itself not entirely transparent, and the fault these philosophies commit may more helpfully be put as treating things of one type as if they were things of another. See also ontology, realism/anti-realism."

Thank you for this, it is very interesting. I think I see what you are saying, but I'm pretty sure the problem does not go all the way back to the ontological level. It is possible that there is also a problem on that level, but even before that on the level of concepts. I think what you posted here helped me to clarify what I am trying to say. Every word has a meaning, in arguing logically one must always use a word to mean the same thing within an argument or the conclusion will be wrong. In the OP's problem he used nothing to mean two different things. In the firsst case it refered to the concept of nothingness, which, of course, does not have an ontological existance, but which is really one concept. In the second case, the word nothing, because of the particular sentance it is in and the way english works, no longer refers to some one concept, nothingness, but instead works with other words in the sentance to express something. Does that make any sense?

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Yes, I understand the objection. It seems that there is a distinction between "nothing" and "no thing".

Can a distinction be sustained between (a) non-existence 'thing' and the absence of existent things?

you are lining up nothing with non-existence and 'no thing' with the absence of existent things I presume?

The problem is that the meaning of nothing in your second sentance does not line up directly with the concept of 'no thing'. In English the phrase 'nothing is' when nothing is not speaking of nothingness, simply means 'There is no thing that is'. Just because the word 'nothing' in the second sentance appears to be an independant noun, representing one concept, it is not in fact doing so, it is working with the verb 'to be' in such a way that the sentance takes on a different meaning. Read ThinkingSapiens response above to see if it helps to clarify this, only instead of ontological realities think of it with respect to concepts, and see if that helps.

[empther]

You can tell you're close to the truth when the A-team attacks you without giving any substantial arguments against you.

Godmachine's post 21

If this is true how is it proof of a god?

Why?

Everything we observe must be explained and only God can explain what we observe.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

If the statement "Nothing is a God" is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, "Something is (a) God", i.e. that God exists.

If this argument is valid (and sound), it would seem to establish also that everything (e.g. unicorns) exist, as Parmenides said "Everything exists".

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

Consider the sets X and Y. X is an empty set, representing nothing. Y is the set of gods. If no gods exist then X = Y, or in other words, both sets are empty. If at least one God existed, then X =/= Y and there exists an element not in X that is in Y.

So your statement is subtly wrong for this reason: When you say "nothing is God" it is not automatically false. If God is nothing (i.e. doesn't exist), then you are saying that "Nothing is nothing" which is actually true. We can expose the flaw in your logic this way:

1. Nothing is "an object which does not exist"
2. (1) is false because nothing cannot be anything
3. Not nothing (i.e. something) is "an object which does not exist"
4. "An object which does not exist" exists

We have therefore reached a logical contradiction.