jamesjilhaneycorner

[jamesjilhaneycorner]

God is Nothing; Nothing is God

Literally me whenever I think about god and his philosophical implications.

As an atheist, it is only natural that I base my beliefs on scientific and empirical evidence. After all, "One is what one does", right?

The presence of widely accepted scientific theories such as the big bang , does not support the traditional concept of a theological god. If anything, it disproves it. Despite that, I am not here to argue the existence of god against the scientific bases of these theories, as I believe am neither competent enough to explore and explain this type of argument.

I am here, however, to argue the existence of god as being (the essence of) nothingness.

Whereas majority of atheists would flat out deny the existence of a higher power, I do not follow this line of thinking.

While I agree that the idea of an all-powerful being that cares for tiny specks of spacetime dust that are humans is nothing but a humanized distillation of celestial forces unknown to us, I do think it is quite possible to have a higher power.

Despite the chances of that being slim, it is not impossible - at least not the way something can be in essence a triangle without having 3 sides - for something to exist that is outside our plane of understanding. Our understanding of what is around us is limited to what we can perceive after all.

And if we did not have the ability to smell, we would not be aware that the presence of scents existed.

That being said, in this argument, I will follow the concept of the "omni-god" as imagined by St Thomas Aquinas and expanded upon by St Anselm. To reiterate, this defines god as someone/something that is:

Omniscient (all-knowing);

Omnipotent (all-powerful);

Omnipresent (existing everywhere); and

Omnibenevolent (possessing perfect goodness)

Now, as what has been discussed in both the module, and from what I have researched, there are a lot of issues that come up with these predicates. An example of which would be the rock parable, wherein the problem challenges god's omnipotence by having him create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it; either way god contradicts his omnipresence.

However, I think that this line of thinking puts what something, which we define as above and beyond our limited human understanding, into ironically enough, a very human line of thinking. Of course if we base an entity like god on our understanding as humans, what we get is a walking contradiction.

I argue that in order for us to fully understand the concept of god, we must go outside of our understanding of logic and truths.

If god is god, then he should not follow the rules of anything else but himself's.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, "What is something that breaks the laws of logic and physics as how we understand them?"

Nothing.

Or rather the essence of nothingness.

How could we have missed it? It has been right under our nose this whole time.

God is nothing and nothing is god.

Only nothing can break the laws of physics.

Only nothing can be omnipotent and can do something that it is incapable of doing.

Only nothing can be at the past, present and future all at once, at the same time.

What do our consciousness become after we die? Nothing.

Truly, it is difficult for one to understand this concept. Much like how it would be almost impossible to create a new color or perceive something that we simply are not equipped to sense or understand.

But it is the only justification of a god that I can support and see as logical as an atheist.

If a god does exist, then he is beyond our comprehension and understanding; beyond the tiny little speck of knowledge that we have in the dark sea of the universe's context. Such is the only acceptable way that god can exist.