Is God a 'thing'?

@Greg phil,

Greg;64769 wrote:

Well I'm working on a Thomist argument like this:
God is the Final Cause of all things: God is the reason why something rather than nothing exists (i guess that is my definition of God)
If God were a thing then He'd be the cause/reason of himself which is self-contrary
Thus God is not a thing.

Of course most believers DO see God as a 'thing'; which is the point of this thread --- whether or not God is a 'thing' and then
IF God is a thing, then what caused God to exist? OR
IF God is not a thing, then does the statment 'God exists' mean anything? and if yes then how still can we know of or talk about God?

In the beginning "God" was an awareness and no thing existed. This awareness idealized then THOUGHT things into being. These things (the physical universe) materialized out of seeming no-thingness. Therefore things are EFFECTS of "God's" ideas and thinking them into seeming reality (being). Which is to say everything is from God's thinking, came out of God's thinking and ARE God's thinking. Therefore every seeming thing that is is God being that God is awareness/idea/thought from non-Beginning to non-End within and of seeming Time and Space.

1 Reply

@dalesvp,

dalesvp wrote:

In the beginning "God" was an awareness and no thing existed. This awareness idealized then THOUGHT things into being. These things (the physical universe) materialized out of seeming no-thingness. Therefore things are EFFECTS of "God's" ideas and thinking them into seeming reality (being). Which is to say everything is from God's thinking, came out of God's thinking and ARE God's thinking. Therefore every seeming thing that is is God being that God is awareness/idea/thought from non-Beginning to non-End within and of seeming Time and Space.

Take your statment: "In the beginning "God" was an awareness and no thing existed." --
I presume you mean 'the begining' in the metaphysical sense rather than in the sense of linear time.
Also this statement would imply that God was NOT a thing since you say there was nothing, and God so God could not be a thing and fit that statement validly yes?

So your argument is that God is not a thing?

1 Reply

@Greg phil,

Greg;64876 wrote:

Take your statment: "In the beginning "God" was an awareness and no thing existed." --
I presume you mean 'the begining' in the metaphysical sense rather than in the sense of linear time.
Also this statement would imply that God was NOT a thing since you say there was nothing, and God so God could not be a thing and fit that statement validly yes?

So your argument is that God is not a thing?

No. To take either side of this argument would have the same success as taking either side of the moronic question "Was the physical universe created or evolved?" because the question poses the only two answers allowable. Why only these two answers?

I'm proposing something new. In a prior posting I defined a "thing" as something physical that can be measured and/or held in the hand or in a test tube.

God as consciousness or awareness is not a "thing" as no sane person would say consciousness or awareness is a "thing" as defined above.

This no-thing created and evolved* all seeming "things" which are not things either. They only appear to be things. All so-called solid matter is no-thing more than motion and was rendered from no-thingness into seeming thingness by giving it motion. Stop the motion and seeming things become non-things again.

Time and Space are consequently constructs of "thingness" and therefore are illusional as well.

1 Reply

@Greg phil,

I'd say that since everyone conjures this <whatever it is> however they like, we can decide whether or not he/she/it is a thing or not.

Pretty flexible eh?

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;64883 wrote:

I'd say that since everyone conjures this <whatever it is> however they like, we can decide whether or not he/she/it is a thing or not.

Pretty flexible eh?

God is in the Mind of the Beholder....

1 Reply

@dalesvp,

I think its impossible to behold god.I think we can only see his reflection, his foot steps.We are either unable to conceive of him or he is an illusion.I believe there are enough footprints to believe he has walked on the sands of time.

1 Reply

@xris,

Greg wrote:

The point is is that 'God' is meant to be meaninful to Believers, but how is that possible is no human language or thoughts can grasp even one shadow or element of God (since God is Simple and has no parts)?

I think it would be a mistake to equate 'able to be expressed in language' with 'thoughts'.

God's ineffability does not mean that humans cannot experience God, only that the experience of God is only expressible in figurative language.

0 Replies

@Greg phil,

Hmm; interesting thoughts

0 Replies

@dalesvp,

dalesvp;64882 wrote:

I defined a "thing" as something physical that can be measured and/or held in the hand or in a test tube.

[SIZE="3"]Why must physicalness or sensory accessibility necessarily be part of a thing? A thing is that which has discrete traits that can be defined separate from other aspects of reality. So, for example, if, as some say, God is infinite and all-encompassing, then nothing is separate from God and God is not a thing.

But if, for example, God somehow emerged from a more basic reality, then God is a discrete entity within a larger environment and therefore is a thing.

In either case, I don't see why we should limit a thing to being physical or available to the senses.[/SIZE]

0 Replies

@Greg phil,

If God isn't a thing, would that make him/her/it no-thing (which is to say "nothing")?

If so, I'm with you all!

0 Replies

Is God a 'thing'?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know