Last night I went for a walk and like normal my mind opened up, letting out a stream of philosophical thought. My choice of music probably helped too, Snakes and Arrows by Rush. Anyway, I had a thought that is probably not to original, but to me it was, and it excited me. The whole concept of nothing can't exist because there is no such thing as nothing.
Philosophers say that nothingness is the absense of existence, but nothingness can't exist. Even in the beginning, like before there was anything, there was something. Whether you believe in God, or that the Big Bang made everything, how could it be if there was nothing? There has always had to be something or this wouldn't have come about. Maybe my argument is flawed because of my lack of knowledge on the subject...which is entirely possible. But there are absenses in the universe, but that isn't nothing, it's something, but the lack of it, not the total nonexistence.
If there was truly nothing, then we wouldn't, no, couldn't exist because there has to be something because something can't come out of nothing or nothingness. This whole thought makes my head hurt because then how did the Big Bang or God come about? Because they can't if there is truly a beginning, so where does our beginning lie? Not in God and not in the Big Bang, but in something deeper, more complex, something that I don't think we can ever understand or comprehend.
Please comment, I'd like to discuss this...it helps me grow in my knowledge of things.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
If this question really bothers you, you might be on to the biggest quest of your life. But, probably not. Anyhow:
You're absolutely right--nothingness can't exist. It's simply impossible. Let me reaffirm that with this example:
Nothingness is made of... nothing. It cannot be moved, right? Nothing can move through, over or under it, either, because of its nature--nothingness is nothingness on all levels. So, nothingness is nothing, and it can't be moved, nor can anything move through it, by definition. So, would something bump into nothingness? That's doubtful, since there's nothing to obstruct it--would it pass into nothingness, and simply disappear? The laws of physics say that this isn't possible--so this can't be right (or else we need to rewrite the laws of physics).
Since nothingness can't move--it must stay in one place. If a patch of nothingness exists--then things are slowly falling into it, wherever it may be (which we've already deemed impossible). We can't take away nothingness, or add nothingness--that doesn't make sense!
I, personally, have never seen a Christian's argument against "Where did God come from?" that was actually remotely plausible. Mine is, if God exists, God always existed, forever. God was never created--God simply was, and always will be. I wrote a deal on it in my blog, Dancing on God's Grave.
Anyhow, as for the Big Bang, they say that there was a huge explosion. Out of what? Dunno. Some people have said that scientists are getting closer to finding ways to figure it out, but until I see some real proof, I call bogus. It assumes that the universe was in a state of extreme heat and density, which caused it to explode--what about the outside of it? Well, it couldn't have been nothing--or the universe would explode into nothing (or just never exist, not even potentially, period). That'd be redundant and stupid. So, really, nothingness can't exist--yet, there's no real explanation for the Big Bang, either.
Where the hell did all that stuff come from, and how did it become so dense? Why didn't it just float around willy-nilly? Law of entropy states that everything eventually descends into chaos. Since nothing can't exist, ever--potentially, the universe could not have been created--period. It would have had to always exist--and that assumes that, barring all supernatural shmuck aside, the natural laws of physics would always have worked. It's easy to say that we're pretty early in the universe's state of decomposition, since if we weren't, we probably wouldn't even be alive right now. But, the universe couldn't have been CREATED...
So, what could have made the universe condense into a state of extreme density and heat? Well, there's always the Big Crunch theory--that all the universe will eventually collapse into black holes, and instead of expanding, will shrink into itself, pulling all matter into itself. Maybe that's what causes the Big'Splosion--maybe the universe works in cycles. It seems the most plausible thing to me for what little we know right now.
Still, outside of those black holes, once all matter is gone? Well, there's Emptiness, which is another topic entirely...
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
But even for God to just be, God has to have something start it because according to Newtons law everything has an action and reaction. I'm starting to think that the universe does work in cycles. I am also starting to think that our energy...soul, if you will, works in cycles also. Not like reincarnation, but it is reused because if the soul went heaven, then the universe would be losing energy, but since it can't and God can't screw with it's own laws, then our souls are constantly being reused.
Ah, yes, this Newtonian view of the universe is quickly becoming inaccurate and outdated, however. Timelessness and infinity are very hard concepts to grasp at first, indeed. Most people don't ever even fully "realize" what it means (I certainly haven't).
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
Yes, I had forgotten that Einstein's view of the universe is overcoming Newtons, but still he runs into the same problem to prove a God. But either way you slice it, the parts i wrote about our souls is based off the laws of thermodynamics. I have yet to even look into the concepts of timelessness and infinity...another task and another learning experience, how I love it.
Well, yes, that's the thing--with a time-oriented, location-oriented system (which is somewhat preposterous on a grand scale since we don't even know where the center of the universe is exactly), God is a logical no-no. He simply can't have been created out of nothing, unless something made HIM--which is the same problem, all over again. He would have to have existed since the beginning of time--oh wait, no, since never and forever. He'd have to have existed... always. Never created, no beginning or end of time, or perhaps, no time at all--and that's the only way it would make sense.
Which, of course, doesn't really make that much sense to the contemporary logician. By the way, if you decide to look into timelessness and infinity... I wish you plenty of luck.
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
But still you can't exist since never and forever in a philosophical sense. Because God can't exist in no point at time, it's completely illogical. Plus once you start treading the ground of no time at all, you fall into the realm of that God is outside of time, but still God has to adhere to the rules it put into effect, because then it completely throws off everything if God doesn't follow its rules.
The reason I say its is because I don't believe that if there is a God that it is he or she, but it just is (deistic ideals).
And thanks, I'll move on to infinity and timlessness soon since even though I suck at the mathmatical side, the philosophical and physics side, I'm better at.
Oho, you grasp the concept perfectly. It is completely illogical--to what our logic is now. Myself, I don't look at the mathematical side--I don't know the maths. I just do the philosophy.
'Sides--if God is truly omnipotent, God don't need to adhere to no laws he makez or none o' that hizzy.
*aghem* I don't actually believe God is a he, either--I don't even believe God is really a separate entity. I just call him a he because of social conditioning and simplicity's sake--and it feels oddly disrespectful to call God an "it". But, eh, whatever--maybe I'm just a bit too hoodooish. I believe God to be a super-intelligent... intelligence, merged as one with emptiness and infinity in a "field" of source, out of which all creation arises, in the form of scientifically verifiable evidence. Perhaps this God made the cycling universe at some point--and then along came man, and man made time. Besides--if certain human beings exist in non-linear time (don't ask me how--I don't get it either!), then why would God need to?
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
But God can't be omnipotent because:
1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency
2) If beings have some active tendency, then they have some power to resist God
3) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power
From the non-linear time comment, something tells me you've read Slaughterhouse Five. However there if God was what you think it is, then we would have found it as our science has progressed. Then the question becomes, why did God create all this. And then how can human beings exist in non-linear time?
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Take a closer look at newton's law. It doesn't rule out the first law of thermodynamics which states that something can't come out of nothing. Actions and reactions apply to that which was already in existence, not that which was created out of nothing. I don't know if you get this, but I will try explaining in another blog.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I think I said third law, not first law. The third law rules it out. What you just said says that actions and reactions appy to that which was already existence, basically saying God was never in existence, therefore God doesn't exist, but thanks for clearing that up.
But even for God to just be, God has to have something start it because according to Newtons law everything has an action and reaction. I'm starting to think that the universe does work in cycles. I am also starting to think that our energy...soul, if you will, works in cycles also. Not like reincarnation, but it is reused because if the soul went heaven, then the universe would be losing energy, but since it can't and God can't screw with it's own laws, then our souls are constantly being reused.
Interesting.
I love the idea that the universe and souls all work in cycles, but i have my own theory for the whole part of souls working in cycles. Not like reincarnation, but similar. i believe that our lives and souls are made of past lives and souls, and our instincts and morals are subconscious memories of previous, before our life. but our consciousness does not expand itself enough to prove this; unless we discover a way to tap into one's subconscious.
The existence of nothingness is in itself a contradiction, because nothingness is all that existence isn't. There are quite a few philosophers who talked about the subject. Spinoza indirectly made this argument when discussing the nature of God (he had a pantheistic/acosmic view of God).
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
But still even with that argument, God can't exist. Because even if everything is God and God is everything, how did everything become God and God everything? It can't be, it must have something to start it rolling or becoming what it is, right?
No, not necessarily. You're assuming that cause and effect is a linear pattern; however, there are several philosophies (and even religions/cultures: Aztec, Navajo, Apache, Maya, et al.) which believe that time is circular. This doesn't necessarily mean that everything happens over and over again, but rather that there isn't a necessary beginning.
The argument for God however, has nothing to do with whether or not time is linear because the idea of God is that he (it) is an infinite being and thus would not be bound by ideas of time and space.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
The idea that time is circular seems to make more sense to me. Because if time circles itself, then it doesn't repeat the things that happen, but once our universe wears out, it collapes and restarts itself.
But i don't know, the idea of God still puts it out of human understanding, and then why must everything be out of our linear logic, how come humans can't look at everything from a non-linear standpoint. To me that makes the existence of God possible, but in a deistic sense, not the sense that other religions describe God as.
Neil Pert is an amazing lyracist.
Cold Fire from Counterparts is on of my favorites by them that never got to be a big hit.
"Nature abhors a vacuum"
is the common idiom for your comcept, but this is actualy from ancient Greece.
"the 5th century Greek philosopher Parmenides. In his only known work, a poem conventionally titled 'On Nature', Parmenides uses verbal reasoning to postulate that a void, essentially what is now known as a vacuum, in nature could not occur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_thermodynamics
Yes, he is an amazing lyricist and drummer.
The problem with "Nature abhors a vacum" is that Einstein's Theory of Relativity and quantum-mechanics says a vacuum can exist.
(I'm posting this here because the columns are getting too narrow and this is a wall-o-text now.)
Y'know what, I like you. You make sense.
However, where we're not meeting is probably on the conception of God. Of course, you're right on all three counts--however, this also gets deep into free will and such. God most likely is omnipotent--except that he does not see fit to act upon the world at large (hence, our world sucks). It might help you if you read some mystical mishmash summarized, such as summaries of the philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen. Maybe, if you're feeling really daring, you can look up The Freedom of Choice, a free e-book, which pretty much describes "God" as this (paraphrased, and I completely withdraw my opinions from this discussion during this):
God is (and it states this as a fact) a supreme intelligence that originated out of nothing because of necessity (it also states that you would need several years, to a lifetime to understand how this works, but I feel that "nothing" does not mean nothing quite in the sense we mean but is open to interpretation). It says that for something to exist, something needed to have imagined it before it existed. This is sound reasoning... or completely unsound reasoning, depending on your views. It says that it would take something extremely intelligent to design life and the universe. It also says that anything that was extremely intelligent would not design life for no reason at all--it would have to have a purpose, or else this being would never design it. That is probably the most sensible thing to our train of thought here. It invites you to imagine a void of NOTHINGNESS (which, in fact, I believe is not so much nothingness as it is emptiness--I refer you to mystical texts), and based on the logic that nothingness is one and singular, and cannot be two, or else you would be distinguishing something and thus it becomes something, nothing is a singular process.
In summary, it says that a Great Intelligence pretty much grew and grew in "intellect" out of nothing, based on an intent to think, and grew as a result, and (to my own interpretation) eventually manifested a physical world. For what? Dunno--I'm too tired to read through this thing. If you want to read it, go ahead--but I feel that the person writing this is not working on pure logic, but on intuition if anything, so be careful.
However, my belief is that "God" would be a pool of emptiness that could also be equated to quantum field theory (I think)--it's only describable as something that is the Unmanifest, the Ultimate, the Absolute, and pretty much the absolute Potential. Anything can rise out of it. Ohh, capitals, right? That would be what transcends time and space and probably a lot of other stuff, too. After all, time is manmade, space is manmade--they're all concepts. Besides, it's not necessarily true that you are subject to your own rules which you create.
I'd recommend you be very careful with your skepticism (as in, avoid falling off either side of the tight-rope) if you decide to read The Freedom of Choice. But if you just want to make yourself plain crazy? Try out the Thiaoobua Prophecy. I'm off to bed for the night--I'll read in the morning if you leave a response.
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
Free will is something that I happen to believe in strongly. I'll have to look up what you've told me about before I can go deeper into this, lol. But either way, something has to create that imagination...I read something a while back that is a process to disprove those ideas, but its been forever, i don't think I can find it, lol.
Just from reading some of the other comments, I've had a couple of thoughts.
Our minds cannot comprehend anything infinite. We need a finite frame of refrence. It's hard for the mind to grasp the concept of forever. It's even hard for us to understand a lifetime. We need something finite like a day or a week or a year. That's why we find it hard to grasp the concept that either (a) God always was and always will be or (b) the Big Bang came from absolutely nothing. I know my mind cannot get itself around these things.
Still, nothing can't come from something, laws of nature and physics say that. God can be argued to have been created by early humans because they were having the same question I have. I don't see how it's hard for people to understand a lifetime...
So, if God was created by man were did man come from? It's a circular argument that gets nowhere despite whatever theory you throw in there.
As to the lifetime thing, when we're young it's hard for us to understand that we don't have all the time in the world. Turning 50 seems a long ways off even though it really isn't.
Man came from evolution which came from the Big Bang. I don't see God in that theory. I'm starting to believe more and more in evolution, but the Big Bang I'm still holding out on. So it's not circular theory at all. I understand I don't have all the time in the world, I know a lot of people in their 40's who don't understand that, so it's not just "young" people.
But even then the Big Bang came from nothing. Evolution would hold more weight for me if the Big Bang actually came from something. Both arguments about God creating the world and evolution are circular. I just think that "intelligent design" makes more sense to me.
The Big Bang didn't come from nothing.
It came from a tiny pinpoint of matter; probably as the result of a previous implosion.
Then where did that come from? How did that implosion start? Can nothing ever implode on itself?
Can I also point out that no theory of the universe's origins can ever be proved?
Obviously.
So the Big Bang could fit into your beliefs as well.
That's the beauty of science; it's always evolving and can be changed, while religion refuses to update with the times.
Yes, it could and a lot of people believe in evolution and a god. I just personally believe that a God makes more sense. Maybe one day, I'll be convinced that evolution is the more logical of the choices, but right now "intelligent design" makes the most sense to me.
Yes the Big Bang came from something, but that doesn't mean it came from God. If you look at what Katie (Engkatemarie) and Mike (Embryowassup) have said, those theories they have put forth make more sense than the idea of a God creating everything. I've seen that Intelligent design makes more sense to people when they either don't want or refuse to accept science whatsoever. I'm not ruling out a God, I'm just saying the more I compare the more illogical a God seems.
Okay, I love science, so it's not that I'm unaccepting of science. I'm just tired of a theory being passed off as truth in our society. It can't be proved but most schools don't teach alternative views of how the universe came to be. No theory of the earth's origins can be proved. And while to you a God seems illogical, to me it seems more logical than evolution. Maybe they work in unison. I think that maybe that is the most logical of the theories we have now, but I haven't been completely won over by this view.
I posted a blog about this, too. How the more science some people and I encounter, the more God makes sense. And how the more science other people encounter, the more evolution makes sense. It depends on how you look at the picture I guess.
I was making a generalization. I have no problem teaching alternative views, but there is more scientific evidence to back evolutions, we only have circumstantial evidence backing creation.
But evolution implies that DNA and cells, and the organs, tissues,etc., which they form, all came from nothing, from a biological point of view. A pool of muck is, from a biological point of view, nothing: no life exists. So how did evolution start, if it had to come from nothingness, in a sense?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
No it doesn't. In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
Now where does that say that everything came from nothing? Nowhere does it say that. Let's use a pool of muck. You claim it is nothing, but a pool of muck, has muck in it, which probably has bacteria and other little interesting creatures in it, it is made up of atoms, so a pool of muck really is something.
How did evolution start? I refer you to the blogs by Darwin's Beagle, he has written numerous blogs about this. Yes, I know I could provide evidence, but it is far inadequate compared to what DB puts forth.
In short, evolution is all about chance and defies some of the natural laws we have. Unless those laws are wrong, too.
Not necessarily. Evolutions isn't about chance but mutations and DNA characteristics, and a little chance. There is chance in everything, even in religions. Adam and Eve took a chance.
But what natural laws are you talking about?
According to evolution, molecules combined to form amino acids, luckily. They then combined to form a protein, and eventually, a cell was formed. This is all really by chance. I don't have a problem with things changing and mutating over time. I have a problem with how the afore mentioned "stuff" happened.
The natural laws, and this is an old argument but it makes sense to me, I was talking about really deal with the Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the second one. This law states that entropy in the universe is increasing. Our world is moving from order to disorder. In those early stages of evolution that I mentioned, things move from disorder to order. This is really probably a very simplified look at the law and the argument. There are other ones that I can't remember and I would like to do a lot more research before I would attempt to present those ones. And I'm really tired, so forgive me for not throwing myself into this at the moment.
Ok, so things moved from disorder to order in the beginning, when enthropy was small to nonexistent, so that is perfectly logical. Over time enthropy has sped up, and we've moved backward, which i can agree with. People nowadays seem to be getting stupider and stupider. Thats also why I believe that the circular time argument of meso-american cultures works with enthropy. Enthropy reaches it's max and the universe collapes in on itself, the pressure makes it explode, creating a new universe and everything starts all over again.
In a way what you say makes sense, but in a way something doesn't. I can't exactly point out what it is that doesn't feel right, but it's there. Maybe it's just because I don't want to believe it, but there's always been something in evolution that just feels phony to me. And a god may feel phony to you.
I think that there is some confusion here about the proper context in which to use the term "nothingness." The term "nothingness" is a philosophical rather than scientific term. In philosphy, it is often suggested that there is no such thing as "nothing" because it is imposible to rationally assign properties to a "thing" that "does not exist." In terms of science (and particularly physics), however, there is no technical use of the term "nothingness" in any usual sense of the word. The term "vacuum" in physics refers to a space which contains no matter, and the term "vacuum state" in quantum mechanics refers to a space with the lowest possible energy and absense of quantum particles.
The problem with discussing "god" and other similar concepts in this context is that our normal understanding of physics and natural laws only apply to events that occur within the boundaries of space-time. What happens "outside" of that could have completely different properties that our own existence.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
I understand the philosophical ideas of "nothingness". But how do we know that anything happens outside of the boundaries of space-time?
From the 'topic of the week' section.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1...
Testable results coming?
hmm, interesting. I'm gonna need to read that book.
Your arguement makes a lot of sense. Nothingness can't exist no matter what because something has to have made everything that is something today. Our brains cannot comprehend what nothing is. Just as they cannot understand how big the universe is or whats on the other side of a black hole. But nothingness can't exist, there is always something in having nothing.
I never got the concept of nothingness. I am convinced there is always something. Whenever I think about nothingness, I picture a color black. Sometimes it's white. I'd hear nothing and see nothing. Then again, my sense perception can be fooling me. What you cannot see, hear, touch, or feel does not mean it does not exist.
Maybe that's why I am looking forward to the end of the world. Perhaps then I will learn more about nothingness and experience it. But if the Earth is dead, I'm sure other planets will still be alive. Thus, nothingness will not have a chance to occur. Suddenly, the word "nothing" begins to sound meaningless to me...
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Right, and the reason you see black or white is because that's the only thing that is in our reality that we can compare nothingness too. But you couldn't see or hear nothing, because there has to be still something there.
I agree with truelife90 that when I think of nothing, I think of the color Black. Also, I think that even though I've never been out of space, I think our universe is just a Black background that's full of stars because there's nothing at the top, bottom, left, and right of our universe.
Read my blog!
There's nothing at the top, bottom, left and right of the universe because it is constantly expanding, so there is something there or it wouldn't be expanding.
But then that gets into what is the universe expanding into, and that's another topic that I'll get into in another blog.
The closest thing to nothingness would be a black hole.
Which would be, essentially, a total vacuum which consumes and pulls all matter into a pinpoint (implosion).
In fact, it's possible that a black hole was the original cause of the Big Bang, and when black holes consume so much that the matter within them can no longer be compressed, then the Big Bang is the result.
This really doesn't include the wormhole discussion though.
Hmmmmmmm....
Interesting thoughts.
Right, since a black hole is a vacuum and a vacuum is the closest thing to nothingness that we can experience or "see". But you're right it doesn't include the wormhole discussion...which is a long and interesting one at that. As is the what is the universe expanding into question.
A black hole is as far from a vaccum as you can get.
In a black hole matter is super compressed and massive to the point that the gravity creates an escape velocity that exceeds the speed of light.
You yourself are mostly empty space occupied by fast moving charged particles (electrons) that repel each other giving an illusion of solidity.
So there is nothig that is less like nothingness.
Sorry, I meant to say almost like.
A black hole has size. The sphere from which light cannot escape is called the event horison. The size is determined by the mass.
Black holes have been observed both by the bending of light, and the effect on stellar motion. Worm holes are entirely theoretical.
That's why I said, "closest thing to nothingness".
The reason that God can exist is that He (yes I believe in a He) is that he is outside of time. He doesn't need to have a beginning because beginnings and endings are only applicable in a linear model: time. But yes, I do agree with you that nothingness is impossible.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Why do you believe he is a he? The Bible never gives a gender to God.
God is outside of time, ok, but God has to have a substance because even outside of a linear model, everything has substance. However God doesn't have substance. So God can't exist if it isn't made of something. And so you say that God is everywhere, yet God can't be around evil, well then God isn't here because there is evil, even if God cleansed you, you still commit evil, so God cannot be around you. Totally destroying revealed religions arguments and backing a Deistic God, if any.
Time is a human construct, so God is outside a human construct. I find it more likey however for there not to be a beginning and end, but an endless wheel of time that your meso-american cultures believed in. So you're saying that time is linear so that makes a beginning and end, if time is not linear then there is not beginning and end, so then there doesn't have to be a God, because God only works in a linear construct, not a non linear construct.
Lastly, if time is a human construct, then God has to be in our human construct, it can't be out of it because then, it can't have to personal relationship that revealed religions claim that have with it. Something must be in our human construct to be personal, at least to me that seems logical.
If God doesn't need a beginning, then the universe doesn't need a beginning so the universe doesn't need something to control is because it never began or ended, so God is obsolete.
Why do you believe he is a he? The Bible never gives a gender to God.
Uh, yeah it does. The bible refers to God as the Heavenly Father. Jesus refers to God as His Father, and reguarly refers to God as He (His will, etc)
now, as to an ACTUAL gender for God... God wouldn't have a gender. Gender is needed for reproduction (and not even then, as some creatures can reproduce asexually)
Just because WE have a gender does not mean that God has a gender.
For the patriarchal societies, it would be a he.
Of course the Bible refers to God in masculine terms.
It was written by men.
Dare you tell me that's because God favors men?
lol... no, God doesn't favor men.
In fact, I believe that there is a balance between men and women in the bible.
Though written by the hand of men, and focusing around mostly males through scripture, two of the most notable figures in the bible (apart from Jesus, of course) would be Mary and Esher.
However, there is another balance in the Bible. Both men AND women were punished for sin. The commands given in the NT for how husbands are to act with their wives is much more sacrificial and demanding than that of how the wife is to act with her husband.
many people like to try to paint christianity as, among other things, sexist... It really isn't true.
My bad, I forgot those verses. Could it be that since the revealed religions all are patriarchal societies, then that is why God is referred to as He?
That is the nature of such a society.
God, however, does not have a need for a gender. Having a "male" shows a need for a "female" (and vice versa)
As God does not have any others, there would be no gender.
That we REFER to a gender does not mean there is one.
Perception, despite the neo-cliche, is not reality.
Does that statement mean:
1. there exists no thing that is ambiguous?
2. “nothing” is an ambiguous term?
You can probably tell from the context that #2 is intended, but it’s not always that obvious. It is important to distinguish the absence of anything from something in which nothing exists. How about this statement:
NOTHING EXISTS.
Does that mean:
1. no thing exists?
2. “nothing” is a term denoting a concept that exists?
In context or out of context, #1 is absurd; #2 is obviously correct. This shows the difference between a term and the concept labeled by the term. Does that mean the term exists, but the concept doesn’t? No. The concept also exists. If it didn’t we couldn’t identify it as a concept. Does that mean the concept exists, but the thing represented by the concept doesn’t? No. The thing also exists. If it didn’t we couldn’t identify it as a thing. See what’s going on here? The null set exists. It just doesn’t have anything in it.
This is why the Indians took so long to figure out that zero is a legitimate integer. It’s also why Aristotle could formulate a perfectly consistent logic system without a null set. Thanks to George Boole and his Boolean logic we have the null set, without which our computers couldn’t operate.
From: http://sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/nothingambiguous.html
I'm not talking about null set, I'm talking about nothing, nothing can't exist. The closest thing to nothing you can get is zero or a black hole which is a vacuum. The concept of nothing doesn't exist. Absense is a better word, but nothing was what has been used, but absense is a better word to describe something not being there, it's absent, but not nonexistent. Nothing means nonexistent, and nothing can't exist.
The point is: it's irrelevant what word you use - nothing, absence, null set - doesn't matter. As soon as you refer to it, it is something referred to. But if you'd rather chase your tail, go ahead.
And your point that it is something referred to?
You are saying that those who believe nothing cannot possibly be right. Well, what is there to really believe in? Is God or the Big Bang theory true? Neither have physically been proven to be true. I like how you put it as the lack thereof of something. That is indeed something, but nothing at the same time. How did the world begin? Is it our right to find out? Are scientists on the wrong track looking for answers in the midst of things?
No, I'm saying that nothing can't exist. You can believe in whatever you want, but just because you believe it doesn't make it right. Who knows if either are true, but I've already given ways that a Big Bang like thing is more plausiable than God. There can't be nothing and something at the same time, that's a contradiction. There can be absense of something, but that doesn't make it nothing. Human are superstitious, questioning creatures, so it is our nature to try to find it out...well it was, humans seem to be getting stupider, imho. So are you saying you think that it isn't our right to find out and that scientists are on the wrong track because they are looking for answers? If so, would you rather us just believe that some being who can do whatever it wants, yet can't, made everything? That is not rational.
Oh yeah, I thought I'd just... you know, steal some views, eheh.
This is the response. Click!
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
Steal away...any and all view put forth on this blog and in comments on the blog. Great blog btw.