The problem with ‘nothing’ in the riddle is that grammatically, it acts as a name. But semantically, it is nothing of the sort. And yet you treat it as a name of a particular entity. See a Philosophy of Language textbook for relevant explanations.”

The riddle is not a premise for my argument! The riddle merely provides a joking sort of introduction to the post. The joke revolves around the logical fallacy of reification. When I say, “Nothing is more satisfying than my penis”, the humor comes from the ambiguity created by the reification of the word “nothing”. It could mean “My penis is more satisfying than anything” or it could mean “Women prefer the complete absence of anything to the presence of my penis.” I freely admit to being illogical there, but in the context of a joke, that’s the whole point!

You’ll note that through the rest of the post I am careful to describe God in terms of “nothingness” or “the void” or “absence” and do not equivocate between other uses of “nothing”.

I like your last comment. I have always believed that the more someone talks, the less he knows. Guess I should shut up now, then.

You make some compelling arguments in the second half of your post, but the problem is that one of your foundational premises makes a philosophical mistake.

The problem with “nothing”in the riddle is that grammatically, it acts as a name. But semantically, it is nothing of the sort. And yet you treat it as a name of a particular entity. See a Philosophy of Language textbook for relevant explanations.

Your entire post, unfortunately, is relegated to a heap of misguided, impertinent arguments because your initial premise is faulty. You want to disprove God’s existence, criticize the attributes traditionally ascribed to him, and be taken at least somewhat seriously. In that case, you’ll have to stop expounding on your body parts, showcasing your philosophical ineptitude, and vomiting flaccid arguments all over the web.

SO, since everything is a concept, all concepts must exist to an extent, right? Or maybe nothing exists. But nothing is a concept too, ha!

Am I still wearing blinders with this idea? DO enlighten me.

And to Jenny, thank you for validating my delusional belief that my penis is amazing. In my infomercial, I will be sure to quote your approval.

Yes, this “nothing” is indeed something. And that something is the freaking CONCEPT of nothing, nothing more, nothing less. It does indeed ‘exist’, but only as a freaking concept in our freaking minds, not in the sense that I think you’re implying. That somehow just talking about something makes it a ‘concrete thing’ instead of just a ‘concept’. Don’t conflate the two. For example: I believe in the Flying Bacon Goddess. There. I just said ‘Flying Bacon Goddess’. Does that mean that a little girl in angel robes suddenly popped into existence flying around on a bacon rind? I. Think. Not. What it means that I just talked about a fictional concept called the ‘Flying Bacon Goddess’. That this fictional concept of a flying bacon goddess just came into existence. That is all.

I think this concept was mercilessly parodied in Terry Pratchett’s ‘Hogfather’ where an overload of psychic energy or something like that cause things that previously only existed as myths and stuff pop into existence the second someone mentions them.

The fact that you are talking about this “nothing” turns it into a something, wouldn’t you agree?

No, it doesn’t; that’s the fallacy of reification.

“…I worship nothing, in the sense that I do not worship, whereas the theologian worships nothing, too, but in the sense that they go through the motions of worship directed at nothing in particular, toward some unknowable, transcendant nothing.” The fact that you are talking about this “nothing” turns it into a something, wouldn’t you agree? It’s been a long time since I sat in a classroom, but I seem to recall a basic premise from Philosophy 101, in that simply thinking or speaking about something makes it exist. The something you are talking about is “nothing,” granted, but you have placed a tag on it, therefore making it no longer nothing, if you catch my drift, heh. Odd, I know. Or perhaps just archaic.

Let me leave you with a thought: can you know all without none, good without evil, joy without pain, success without failure etc etc.? Yin-yang hippie shit, I know, but possibly relevant.

So, Gas, since God is nothing, what is everything? And please don’t say it’s your penis.