Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Spectrum]

Wayne

God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.


Spectrum wrote;
The above is bad logic.
You simply assert God exists without proving your claim/premise.
Thus whatever follow from that [God created this or that] has no grounds thus baseless and is not deductive.

I have no issue if you acknowledge you have no proofs for your assertion 'God exists' but nevertheless need such a belief for personal psychological reasons, i.e. to deal with an existential crisis.

Ok, Try this on for size; First I said nothing about anything being created by God.

The subject of my post is the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process, a substance that has no mass, exists as the Ether, the Great Void.

God being a metaphor for the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that had no mass, the Nothingness that can not be experience.

Try this one; God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.

Try this one;

(God ) The Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience. Existed as a Priori Reality.

It depend on how you use the term "Nothingness."

If you use 'nothingness' in the sense of the Buddhist's emptiness, then I can agree with that.
But it do not appear to be the case.

Your 'nothingness' is merely a replacement term for 'the first cause' or God.
Not sure if you are aware, you are actually reifying that 'nothingness' and it becomes a reified 'something' or a 'thing.'

• reify= to convert into or regard as a concrete thing:
  to reify a concept.

Note subject + predicate.
In your case 'nothingness' is a predicate for a subject.
That subject [whatever it is] is still a thing.

From the the philosophical perspective [Kant] is there no such thing as thing-in-itself.

Like Hume claiming Induction [Sun certain to rise tomorrow] has a psychological basis, it is the same psychological drive that compel you to believe there must be 'something' as a ground for reality.
In this case you assert it is 'nothingness.'

Note the "nothingness" in a drawer is still empirical air thus something.

Your 'nothingness' driven by psychology is thus still 'perceived' as 'something'.
Unlike empirical air which can be proven to exist, your 'something' is non-empirical and cannot be proven to be exists as real within an empirical-rational reality at all.

[Wayne92587]

Spectrum

It depends on how you use the term "Nothingness."

Wayne wrote;
“Nothingness” is a great Void, exists as priori Reality, that can not be experienced because it does not exist as materiality, as an objective Reality.

What is the Buddhist’s concept of Emptiness, if not a Great Void, a state of Nothingness?

My nothingness is not a replacement term for God, the Reality of First Cause.

God is a metaphor for Nothingness.
Nothingness is not a a replacement term for God, is not a replacement term, metaphor, for the Reality of First Cause.

The Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, is not a priori Reality, is not Nothingness.

A Singularity of One-1 is not priori knowledge, is an objective Reality, is a Term used to experience and to speak of the First Singularity of Substance that can be spoken of as being the First Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.

The Reality of First cause attaining a numerical value of One-1, is referred to as the First, the beginning, is defined as being the First because it exists as the beginning, the First in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.

A Singularity attains a relative, a Numerical values of One-1 by being a Random Singularity of Zero-0 that has been, transfigured, converted, reborn a Singularity of One-1.

All Singularities having numerical value are defined as having angular motion, velocity of speed and direction, as being in motion.

A Singularity of One-1 being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time.

Spertrum wrote;
Note the "nothingness" in a drawer is still empirical air thus something.

Your 'nothingness' driven by psychology is thus still 'perceived' as 'something'.
Unlike empirical air which can be proven to exist, your 'something' is non-empirical and cannot be proven to be, exists as reality within an empirical-rational reality at all.

Wayne wrote;
The point is, “Priori Knowledge” is the knowledge of something that has no substance, that is immaterial, that can not be experienced, that Man can not understand.

Air is not my first choice, as a term, as a metaphor, used to speak of nothingness. My First Choice is Woman, something that is Immaterial, that has no substance, a Creation born out of thin air, something not born of the dust of the ground, a creation such as Eve, Woman, the Great Femininity..

[Dark Matter]

The premise of this thread, God is an impossibility, is absurd for a philosophy forum because there is no freedom of thought without doubt. There is no difference between that claim and the truth-claims of those who flew airplanes into buildings.

-- Updated November 24th, 2017, 4:09 pm to add the following --

The Chinese have a saying: Paradox and Confusion are guardians of the truth. Why would they say that? Because what is true, especially what is Absolutely True, is not restricted to what’s intellectually comprehensible or logical. It is only restricted to being what it is. Since what’s true exists as its own nature and not that of our minds or our intellect, we may well be stopped by an apparent paradox, or be confused by what we encounter. To experience the truth, we must be willing to experience whatever is so, whether or not it fits within the bounds of our logic or our beliefs. The truth often lies in unexpected places. How can we approach the truth if we are not completely open?

...As an idea, “openness” remains stuck in the intellect. There, it might be entertained, approved of, or fantasized about—and sometimes conveniently rearranged whenever the reality gets a bit scary—but since it isn’t grounded in one’s experience, this conceptual-openness eventually reveals itself as hollow and pretentious. People who adopt only a belief in openness tend to become superficial. They may have a broadminded philosophical stance, but this openmindedness floats in the abstract world of beliefs. This is openness without groundedness.

...On the other hand, there is groundedness without openness. When people are grounded but not open, it shows up as being “closed-minded.” They have a position that works for them, and they don’t plan to budge from it. They cannot have breakthroughs or transform because they are unwilling to challenge their own opinions and unable to detect their own dishonesty. “This is the way it is. I know the way the world works.” They may be closed-minded, but they’re very grounded. That’s groundedness without openness.

...These two extremes are simply complementary dynamics that need balancing, especially in our investigation of what’s true. We can guard against being intellectually abstract or airy-fairy, and also avoid being closedminded or stuck. We can go for a real experience, and be open to whatever is true.

...An experience of openness has a quality of uncertainty to it. If we’re used to a frozen and predictable idea of openness, then by contrast the experience of openness will seem indeterminate, indefinable, and perhaps a bit scary. This is because experience is alive and exists only in the present. As an experience, openness is whatever it “is,” and we don’t know exactly what will arise.

To counteract the tendency to float in abstract worlds or to ignore what’s real in our experience, we need to be grounded—which is to be real, committed to something, clearly standing on authentic insights and effective distinctions. Maintaining the balance of grounded openness allows us to explore, to be creative, to make breakthroughs, and entertain radical possibilities without becoming pretentious, abstract, or lightweight.

The tendency to be open without being grounded,or to be grounded without being open, is present for all of us. Some people may engage more dramatically in one or the other, but each of us needs to remain sensitive and attentive to the dynamics involved. The tendencies will continue far past any clarity we achieve in this matter, and past any resolutions we might make about it. Like walking a tightrope, one can’t simply put a foot down and that’s the end of it. Balancing is a constant activity within any changing circumstance. Life and learning are always changing circumstances.

The issue of balancing groundedness with openness comes up in many aspects of life, and at every turn of our investigations. When the two are in balance, we find that we can attain our most genuine experience. Any growth or change is dictated by a conscious experience of what’s true, rather than by intellectual fabrications. Our growth is genuine, and our experience deepens. In this way, our investigations are empowered to become as real and as far-reaching as possible.

-- Peter Ralston, The Book of Not Knowing

[Spectrum]

It depends on how you use the term "Nothingness."

Wayne wrote;
“Nothingness” is a great Void, exists as priori Reality, that can not be experienced because it does not exist as materiality, as an objective Reality.

What is the Buddhist’s concept of Emptiness, if not a Great Void, a state of Nothingness?

When you used the term 'a Great Void' you have idealized and reify "that" [whatever "that" is which is a thing] which you label as 'a Great Void."
Living humans are always in a state, i.e. a psychological state, e.g. normal consciousness with various sub-states, dream state, state [re emptiness]. etc.

The Buddhist’s concept of Emptiness or nothingness, is NOT a Great Void.

My nothingness is not a replacement term for God, the Reality of First Cause.

God is a metaphor for Nothingness.
Nothingness is not a a replacement term for God, is not a replacement term, metaphor, for the Reality of First Cause.

The Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, is not a priori Reality, is not Nothingness.

Actually there is a 'concept' [idea] of "that which is that" which is slightly different from the idea of a God or the First Cause. The default of the brain/mind is it must always cling to 'something' no matter how much one "washed away" from the mind. Ultimately one end up with 'this which is that" or "that which is that" without any specific label.

Since you interpret this "that which is that" as "nothingness" it would not be related to the "theism" of the OP, i.e. God is an Impossibility.
Even then this "that" is still a reified thing which is impossible within empirical rational reality. The basis for this reified thing is still psychological.

Air is not my first choice, as a term, as a metaphor, used to speak of nothingness. My First Choice is Woman, something that is Immaterial, that has no substance, a Creation born out of thin air, something not born of the dust of the ground, a creation such as Eve, Woman, the Great Femininity..

If not air, a better analogy could be 'space.'
If you use 'woman' that would be more problematic because you have taken it as a Creation which logically must have a creator, thus leading to First Cause to avoid infinite regression.

The Buddhist concept of 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' [sunyata] is a psychological state where one's mind is not attached to any concept or whatever but yet engaged within reality on a spontaneous basis.

The point is whether it is the Buddhist concept of nothingness or your idea [not concept] of nothingness, or God [first cause] the basis is still within human psychology and the human self.

The problem with the idealized 'God' is it is illusory and theism carry a negative baggage, i.e. in general theism is associated and directly caused terrible terrors, violence and the full range of evils committed by SOME evil prone theists inspired by immutable evil laden elements and backed by an overall support of all theists. This is why we need to critique theism [in general] heavily and give particular attention to its psychological basis.

Buddhism & others recognized the weakness of the above ideology of theism and thus turned away from theism and recognized, whatever the problem, it is firstly from the psychological self and thus their focus from the psychological angle within and away from the illusion from without.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

I suggest you raised the valid counter-argument in that threat and I will address them. For me there are no outstanding points I have not address and dismiss.

Here are my reasons for why I think your argument is invalid:

As has been explained to you countless times, the term “absolute perfection” is a nonsense term. No matter the context you apply it in; epistemically, ontologically, metaphysically etc, because it implies that there's an “absolute, absolute”. The term “absolute perfection”, I think, is only used in language to add emphasise to how good something is - philosophically it has no meaning.

It is only "your" opinion “absolute perfection” is a nonsense term.
Note I am a very intensive researcher in this area, so I am very well versed with such a term.

The term “absolute perfection” is a very common term used within the theological community, e.g.

4. He Is Absolutely Perfect
God is absolute perfection. There is nothing lacking in His character or nature. He does not need anything or anyone to exist. He is complete within Himself. He is, therefore, the perfect, eternal spirit.
http://web.ccbce.com/multimedia/BLB/faq/nbi/280.html

In scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.
Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect: 'I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14). His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

Yes the term is used to add emphasis but only valid for God.

Now you have to admit your knowledge in this area is very lacking.

Perfection is used to describe an absolute state and is only relative to something that is not perfect or that is short of a perfect ideal. If we accept this, it is clear that what you're arguing is that perfection cannot exist empirically, which is patently false. Therefore, your P1: “Absolute perfection is an impossibility” is false.

Where did I argue perfection cannot exist empirically.
I presented there are relative perfection and absolute perfection.
One can have a perfect game of 300 points in ten-pin bowling or 100% perfect score in an objective test, 10/10 scores in sports, etc.

Your P2: “God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect” is also false,
(a) because there's no necessity for God to be perfect and
(b) because there's no evidence that God is perfect.
Scriptures may claim that God is perfect, but we cannot refer to them as an evidential basis. Now your conclusion: “Therefore God is an impossibility.” is invalid because the premises are false.

What's that about???

As distinct from empirical perfection, I have argued no matter how one define God, ultimately the idea of God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God. There is no other way.

No theists would agree their God to be inferior and be kicked in the ass by another more superior God. Given the above knowledge and possibility, every theist will gravitate to the ultimate God [than which no greater exists] whose ass cannot be kicked by another other superior God.

Ultimately there is no other choice for any theist [when cornered on the issue] but to claim their God is an absolute perfect being.

"(b) because there's no evidence that God is perfect. "
This is very convoluted.
There will never be any empirical evidence available to prove God is empirically perfect because God in the first place can never be empirically possible.
As I had argued the idea of God is a transcendental illusion thus impossible within the empirical-rational reality.
The only validity for consideration of the idea of God [illusory and impossible] is within mental thoughts and no where else.

How this mental thought of God emerge into human consciousness is due to psychological and existential factors. I have given evidences for clues on such a point.
In addition, non-theistic Eastern spiritualities had addressed the same psychological and existential factors psychologically since thousands of years ago!

So it is most likely [evidence above] the idea of God is psychological and must be addressed psychologically to deal with the theists' predicament and dilemma plus to resolve the very malignant evils and violence manifesting from theism by SOME evil prone believers being influenced by the evil laden elements in SOME holy books directly from God.

[Wayne92587]

The Reality of First Cause is a Creation, an Affect, the cause of a system of Chaos, as in the Butterfly Effect, that made manifest Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Physical sense of the Word.

The Reality of First Cause being the First, the beginning, of a series of events that has become known to be the Law of Cause and Effect.

Our concern in understanding Creation is not the beginning, it is the Before, that which existed before the Beginning of the Creation; What existed before the Creation of the Reality of First Cause?

The Abolute Perfection of Nothingness; I prefer to leave out the word Absolute; the word perfection does not need a qualifier, perfection is perfection, 100 percent perfect.

Something that is relatively perfect, is not perfect.

Our understanding of Religion, Myth, Symbols, Ancient Knowledge, hidden, secret, sacred, forbidden knowledge, Sacred Geometry, leaves a lot to be desired, is an Abomination.

Language is just so much Babble, is pure nonsense, when it comes to explaining the before, the (Absolute) Perfection of Nothingness.

Nothingness is a substance that does exist, however Nothingness is a substance that has no mass.

[Wayne92587]

God is liken to Nothingness; The description of God being a mere reflection of Nothingness.

You are correct; Nothingness is something that does not exist, as an objective Reality that can be experienced however according to Heisenberg"s Uncertainty Principle, the existence or nonexistence of both God and Nothingness are Uncertain in their own right.

Something that is Infinite, is Immeasurable.

I agree that a something must be able to be experienced to be a Reality, however it is not necessary for such experienced to be a personal experience.

Given enough reliable testimony as to the experience of a Reality, a personal experience is not necessary, however the knowledge of said Reality is converted into a Subjective Reality, that has substance; does exist.

A Reality must only have the potential of being experienced.

The term }Subjective;" Reality is an abomination.

When you speak of Hidden, Secret, Sacred, Forbidden, knowledge; such as the Knowledge of God; results in an Abomination; BS, Horse Pucky, Hog Wash, a Lie.

[Wayne92587]

I lost half this thought before it was posted.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

I'd like to take this discussion up with you again as I've been following your arguments on the other site you kindly provided a link to. I also posted a comment which you didn't respond to here.

You've argued that there's an epistemic difference between "absolute perfection" and "perfection", as though absolute perfection describes something else, but I don't think that you're right. You've referenced theistic notions of God, but theists reify God, such that they add the emphasis of "absolute" to perfection (unnecessarily IMO) - they've not, in your reference, made a specific distinction between "absolute perfection" and "perfection" as you have or claimed that there is a difference, so perhaps thinking that theist's use of the term "absolute perfection" strengthens your position is presumptuous?

If perfection can be described as the ideal state of something, where there are no flaws - as good as it is possible to be, then what is absolute perfection?

[Wayne92587]

The only Reality to be perfect is a Omniscient State or Condition of Nothingness; A Fully Random Omniscient State of Quantum Singularity,
filled with an unspoken of quantity, number, of Omnipresent Infinity Finite Indivisible transcendental Singularities of Zero-0 having no relative, numerical value, having a numeral value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing

I agree with Spectrum’s and Fanman’s objection to the existence of God; God does not exist, in the material sense of the word, is a Spiritual reality, is an immateriality, God can not exist; it is impossible for God to exist according to our understanding, Knowledge of Reality.

The problem being, that language is made up of metaphors, symbols and Numbers.

I believe that Numbers, singularities, having relative, a numerical value of One-1 and Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a a numerical value of Zero-0; 0/1; Zero-0 being used as a holding place, was simply left blank.

Various groupings of Zero-0 (holding places, blanks spots) and singularities of 0ne-1, making up Man’s first language.

The mathematical Nature of Reality; the Universe, to be understood as being born of a Transcendent Singularity having no relative Numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

The Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word, being born of a transcendental Singularity. (0/1).

The Reality of First Cause, a Singularity of One-1 being a Creation, an Affect, not being born of ordinary, natural means, cause and effect,

The creation of Eve, as in Adam and Eve, Eve as an Affect, was born the Reality of First Cause, Original Sin.

[Wayne92587]

I pushed the button by accident before my final audit.

[jerlands]

God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.

This whole concept of creation springing from nothingness doesn't sit right with me. Do you think possibly creation sprang from inactive fullness? That all elements existed but were brought into being through the act of "God?" There's this Cosmological theory going around called the Big Bounce, that creation as we know it is actually this huge wave of expansion and contraction repeating itself.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

With a 'perfect God' it could mean relative perfection.
With an absolutely perfect God, it is unconditional perfection which only God [a being than which no greater exists] is capable of.

For something to be perfect, it should be descriptively relative to something that is not perfect, so that we're are able to make the distinction. We cannot describe something as being "perfect", unless we're aware of the flaws that the thing being described as perfect can possess or why it cannot be improved upon. So if we describe God as being perfect, it is because it doesn't possess any flaws or any of the flaws associated with something which it is comparable to, and also because it cannot improve any further, such as God having all of the omni's – which by definition would make it perfect.

I have stated why I think your use of the term “absolute perfection” is not right, and the term “unconditional perfection” doesn't have any meaning. If we look at the word “unconditional” it means: “Not subject to any conditions”. So what your effectively arguing is that God's perfection is not subject to any conditions, which just doesn't make any sense – since perfection itself describes a relative, conditional circumstance - conditional upon the qualities that make it perfect. Its like you're arguing: “God must be an absolutely perfect God to be the perfect God” its a truism – which is redundant. So in my view, your distinction between “absolute perfection” and “relative perfection” is not valid because they both describe exactly the same state. I think that to argue otherwise, is to invent your own personal definitions of the word (which you have done to suit your views). Perfection is not analogous to a “square-circle” and perfection can intersubjectively exist.

God has to be absolutely perfect where no greater perfection can exists.

An absolute describes the most extreme state that something can achieve, but absolutes are relative to the scale of measurement. Perfection is an absolute. Therefore the in using the term “absolute perfection” for more than emphasis, you're claiming that there's an “absolute, absolute”, and not only that, you're also claiming that there's an absolute that is not relative to anything – which isn't correct.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

With a 'perfect God' it could mean relative perfection.
With an absolutely perfect God, it is unconditional perfection which only God [a being than which no greater exists] is capable of.

For something to be perfect, it should be descriptively relative to something that is not perfect, so that we're are able to make the distinction. We cannot describe something as being "perfect", unless we're aware of the flaws that the thing being described as perfect can possess or why it cannot be improved upon. So if we describe God as being perfect, it is because it doesn't possess any flaws or any of the flaws associated with something which it is comparable to, and also because it cannot improve any further, such as God having all of the omni's – which by definition would make it perfect.

I have stated why I think your use of the term “absolute perfection” is not right, and the term “unconditional perfection” doesn't have any meaning. If we look at the word “unconditional” it means: “Not subject to any conditions”. So what your effectively arguing is that God's perfection is not subject to any conditions, which just doesn't make any sense – since perfection itself describes a relative, conditional circumstance - conditional upon the qualities that make it perfect. Its like you're arguing: “God must be an absolutely perfect God to be the perfect God” its a truism – which is redundant. So in my view, your distinction between “absolute perfection” and “relative perfection” is not valid because they both describe exactly the same state. I think that to argue otherwise, is to invent your own personal definitions of the word (which you have done to suit your views). Perfection is not analogous to a “square-circle” and perfection can intersubjectively exist.

Note firstly the ideas of 'absolute perfection' or 'absolutely absolute' are not my personal claims and beliefs.

These terms 'absolute perfection' or 'absolutely absolute' are claimed or implied by theists or rather the more advanced theologians, e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
I have given evidences/references where advanced theologians has introduced these terms and the likes.

The point is the initial drive of theism is a psychological issue and with crude reason drive theists to invent the idea of a God to soothes those psychological angst. The initial concepts of God were mostly anthropomorphic, but throughout history such flimsy [silly] anthropomorphic concepts has been question by rational people and even other theists.

When questioned, each group will correct their errors and shortfalls and come up with new concepts to cover for the underlying psychological issues.
But as each new anthropomorphic or empirical concepts are raised to justify the existence of God, they are continually attacked/challenged by rational & critical thinkers and other theists as well.

This continual attack pushes the concept of God to the idea [not concept] of an ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect God or the absolutely Absolute which no other theists can challenge but exposes its back to the philosophical rationality.


It is philosophical rational and critical thinking that prove the idea of God - by more advanced theist - as an absolutely perfect or absolutely-absolute is an impossibility.

When I have stripped all the clothing of the various concepts and ideas of God, what is left naked is the psychological basis why God was conjured in the first place.

Point is I am not speculating, there are scientific proofs of the various experiences of God and there are non-theistic religions that deal with the inherent psychological issue using the psychological approach.

God has to be absolutely perfect where no greater perfection can exists.

An absolute describes the most extreme state that something can achieve, but absolutes are relative to the scale of measurement. Perfection is an absolute. Therefore in using the term “absolute perfection” for more than emphasis, you're claiming that there's an “absolute, absolute”, and not only that, you're also claiming that there's an absolute that is not relative to anything – which isn't correct.

Note my explanation above. I am not claiming those terms as a belief.
I gave reasons above how those terms are from the more advanced theologians.

Note this;

In philosophy, the concept of the Absolute is closely related to that of God in monotheism, albeit not necessarily referring to a personal deity. The term was not in use in ancient or medieval philosophy, but closely related to the description of God as "Pure Actuality" (Actus Purus) in scholasticism. It was introduced in modern philosophy, notably by Hegel, for "the sum of all being, actual and potential".[1] The term has since also been adopted in perennial philosophy,

In scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.

So the term 'absolutely perfect' absolute perfection, Absolute [absolutely absolute] is not my invention but introduced by the more advanced theologians. I know this because I had read very widely on this subject and was very alert to these terms.

If you reflect on them philosophically, they are actually meaningless and are impossible to be real, i.e. within an empirical rational reality. The only real reason these ideas of God which are illusory and impossible is because they are raised primarily to soothe the inherent psychological angst.

[Wayne92587]

Spectrum wrote; If you reflect on them philosophically, they are actually meaningless and are impossible to be real, i.e. within an empirical rational reality.

Wayne wrote;

True, The point being is that Perfection existed as the State or Condition of the totality of Every thing that "WAS"
prior to the beginning of the Creative Process.

According to the Theory of the Big Bang Realty existed as a single point to the beginning of
creation.

Creation was not instantaneous; even God took seven days.

Perfection to date still makes up a a great part of what is, the Greatest part the known Universe, appears to be unseen, to be Dark Matter, No/thing, Infinite, to not be measurable. ...

There is more to the Universe than that which is measurable, the majority of everything being Infinite.

Language is just so much Babble.

How do we talk about any/thing and not use words that make reference to Empirical Reality.

We can not !

We must speak not of the priori knowledge of Reality, but of proprietary Knowledge, theoretical knowledge, knowledge that we must “own”; our own personal subjective knowledge of a Reality that not even we can not experience.

I have never been able to explain so as you could understand my position on the existence of or non-existence of God.

I am an atheist that believes in Gog, a god of sorts.

It is Uncertain.

I have said numerous times that I am n atheist that believes in God.

If you think about it you will understand, I can not do it for you.