No, its nothing at all like that. "God" has not even been defined. It is a meaningless word.

"Nothing" has been defined.

".... but the definition for nothing while objective does not give us the capability to discern its non/existence."


I guess I don't understand your thinking about what 'nothing' is then.

(thats really funny, since nothing is nothing.)

And you seem to be talking about a vacuum. (I don't consider a 'vacuum' to be 'nothing.' as it is an enclosed area or system.

I am talking about a state of existence, not a vacuum with no "things" inside of it as we define "things."

My reasoning is extremely simple. It does not require trying to create a vacuum to see if nothing can remain as nothing. It simply states that if Something exists, nothing cannot.

Something and nothing cannot both occur.

You always try to put everything inside of a laboratory experiment to observe it. Even 'nothing in a vacuum. I actually find that funny.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger argues that the history of Western philosophy rests on a mistake. Philosophers have always approached metaphysical questions in terms of this or that particular thing or being, but not Being itself, Being as such, whatever it is that enables individual things with properties to exist int he first place.

A part of Heidegger's efforts to explore the nature of Being in this sense is a consideration of nothing. It leads to what might well be the first question of metaphysics, perhaps even the only true philosophical question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

In order to answer this question, we need to have some conception of nothing itself. noting is not any particular thing, or kind of thing, but it is not exactly an absence, either. In reflecting carefully on nothing, Heidegger argues, we experience dread, and this experience is our best clue to understanding the true nature of nothing.

This feeling of dread has a lot to do with the inevitable nothingness that awaits us in death. In seeing nothing in this way, as our limit, or boundary, we can come to see nothing not as the opposite of Being, but as that which shapes and gives definition to Being as such.

Accoring to Martin Heidegger, underlying everything is nothingness - nada, nil, nothing at all.

How does that make you feel?

This is the typical kind of semantic mumbo jumbo I expect from philosophers. Heidegger is attempting to treat nothing as though it is a thing.

Nothing is a word that literally mean no thing. It represents a condition not a thing in and of itself.

If we could find a closed area of space that did not contain a thing then that area could be said to 'contain' nothing. Again not to imply that nothing is a thing, but rather that it is simply a condition that desribes the state of a particular area or 'space' in question.

We used to believe that in an area where a complete vacuum exists no thing would exist, and therefore a complete vacuum could be said to contain, 'nothing' (a condition).

What we have found is that the fabric of spacetime cannot be drained entirely of all things. It is simply impossible to create a condition within spacetime where no thing exist.

Even our theories of a "Big Bang" (and we have several different theories of how a Big Bang might have gotten started), all presume quantum effects to have preexisted. Quantum effects can hardly be called no thing.

Jeanniebean seems to be happy by looking around and saying, "Things exist, therefore there can be no question about it."

Well that's obvious. But it still boggles the mind how that condition could have ever 'come to be'.

Of course, we could take time out of the equation and just say that it's always been like this. But let's face it, the concept of eternity isn't exactly an easy thing to grasp either. Even in the concept of a primordial and ever-changing now.

It still begs the question of how the 'now' came to be?

How could anything have ever come into being in the first place?

It ABSOLUTELY DEFIES LOGIC.

Yet, here we are!

Thus we have absolute proof that the universe is indeed ILLOGICAL.

Therefore to try to figure the universe out by using logic is a futile quest. Even though it appears that we've made some progress we really haven't. All we've succeeded in doing is describing what's unfolding at this current point in 'time' (and that may even included the lifespan of the entire universe). Compare the entire lifespan of the universe with 'eternity' and it's but a blink of an eye.

Even if we figured out this universe in every possible detail we would still know NOTHING. Now there a NOTHING that actually does exist!

MY HERO!!!

And batman too!

I don't think the universe is illogical in the slightest. I think it is very logical.

"Something" exists simply because NOTHING cannot EXIST. It has to be one or the other.

Maybe the dream of life is nothing more than God's desire to die and that's why it's such a dog-eat-dog world. God just keeps dreaming about dying.

Smiless...

I am glad to see your interest in philosophy...

Heidegger's On The Way To Language is very interesting, and has actually given my thoughts another facet of understanding on the 'nature' of language...

Exactly right.

Imagine never ever dieing. Imagine if that was the only thing you could not do. You would invent a world that knows death and you would wipe the memory of immortality from all the manifestations in that world and instill the fear of death into them, then you would incarnate into that world and play the game of life and death.

Now, you have everything and now you can experience death.

Yes, but it wouldn't be real death if you keep waking up from the dream.

All you'd be doing is infinitely dreaming about dying.

Like I say, God needs a shrink to get past this obsecession with death.

Or maybe this particular universe just happens to be a nightmare. After all, if God has infinitely many dreams maybe they aren't all this depressing.

Or, maybe as this dream progresses we will learn how to transfer our conscious awareness into indestructible bodies. This has already been the stuff of sci-fi dreams for many.

In fact, a String Theorist once suggested that it might be possible to escape the 'death' of this entire universe by being transported though the use of some sort of gravity waves to a neighboring universe that is much younger.

So who knows how this dream will end, or if it will ever end?.

Does "god" ever wake up? Or is god the eternal dreamer? Is the ability to dream the entire essence of God? Is that all God can do? Is that the totality of God's essence? God is but a dreamer?

What would it mean to be a dreamer when the totality of your existence is nothing other than the dream itself?

A dream having a dream? That's not illogical to you?

Yes, but it wouldn't be real death if you keep waking up from the dream.

Where do you think Martin Heidegger was going with his logic? I am sure such a man who is known to be a philosopher and have studied many possibilities on many of the hard questions we have asked for thousands of years must have some depth behind his statements.

What do you believe he was saying?

Fill - awful - see...

Where do you think Martin Heidegger was going with his logic?

NOWHERE.

LOL just kidding.

According to Martin Heidegger, underlying everything is nothingness - nada, nil, nothing at all.

This is where he was going:

He traces his existence backward until it inevitably reaches the void. The void is a place or state of consciousness where the only thing that be can perceived is the perceiver itself and the darkness of "no-thing." This is the dark womb of this universe where everything begins and still begins. He has gone NO FURTHER than this place.

Is there anywhere else to go?

Yes.

But the void is where the soul becomes lost and panics because there is where it sees a sample of non-existence and solitude and where time is lost and there is no proof or acknowledgment of the existence of self or anything.

It looks like Solitary for infinity.

But it is just another layer of consciousness. Only the bold can get to the other side of that dark place, most go back to their former state.

Its really too bad everyone feels the need to have beautiful theories that explain nothing, and disregard the ugly demonstrable theories that explain most if not all phenomena.

Its really too bad everyone feels the need to have beautiful theories that explain nothing, and disregard the ugly demonstrable theories that explain most if not all phenomena.