Game Of The God Of Nothing

So I was considering a strange position today. I was forced once more to consider the words of Jesus/The Law which say:

John 10:34-36 (quote from Psalm 82:6)

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"

It felt like I was being forced to consider what I might be a god "of." I have said before that I think this is a reference to one's own pocket realm, but this answer seemed insufficient for the question posed today. It was as if the question was "These words were said here, within Creation, so what would you be the god of here, if you had to choose?" I feel the term to be disrespectful, and I cannot seem to shake that sense despite this biblical reference, and so my default response was nonsense, as is typical for me, but I think, in this instinct, I may have stumbled upon a critical piece of the puzzle: The god of nothing.

This claim can be seen in a couple of ways, both of which can be said by saying "I am the god of nothing." It could be that nothing is one's domain, or that nothing is one's domain. The logical absurdity of the position is counterpointed by its equivalently logical soundness. If one were the god of nothing, how could anyone else go about proving or disproving this claim? Given God is the God of all Creation, but nothing was not "created" perse, would even God have a leg to stand on in such a challenge? It would be, and would continue to be despite any logical attacks aimed at diminishing the claim, a domain claimed that was still outside of God's domain. These two domains would perpetually be mutually exclusive realms claimed, to some degree.

I admit that this is nonsense, and in fact this position is not a natural concept for anyone to come to; consider, for example, how long after mathematics was established that it took for mankind to come up with the mathematical concept of zero. I believe there is a beauty in this nonsense though, and that in this unnaturalness God actually intended and suggested through verses such as this that nothing is a, possibly the, solution sought. Regarding how this idea has been suggested, in Genesis 2:17 God says "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Even today there is much debate about what happens when one dies, and this debate includes the possibility that nothing happens. Just before God said this, it can be presumed that death did not exist, not even conceptually, and that God made up the possibility of dying by speaking these words (which is pretty normal, given that nearly all of Creation was "made up" by God speaking words). I have also heard it said that death did not truly enter the equation until Adam and Eve ate of the tree. So what was death between the statement made and the action taken? I would argue that there is a material difference between death and nothing, but given that later Jesus said in Mark 12:27 "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” death appears to be a realm that God did not enter, and certainly is not God of. Soon after this, Jesus enters the realm of death, which in part feels like a scouting mission, but did Jesus enter as a god there or as a denizen? In Mark 3:27 Jesus says "In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house." If the strong man is seen as death in this instance, then it would clarify that Jesus was entering not as the god of death, but as another entering into death's domain. So there is precedent for The Son of God entering the domain of another, but not as the god of that domain.

In a state of potentially compulsive omniscience, one must wonder what domain would remain for any other to hold as being unknown from God, if even death can be undone, or at least illuminated, in this way. It feels like, from the warning about the tree to the entering of Jesus unto death, a seed was being planted in the minds of the reader, one of the inverse to everything that is, that which is not part of Creation. This seed, as mentioned, is not a natural thought for man, but seems to be a necessary concept for man to come to an understanding of, from God's perspective. Even in the beginning with God and the void, the concept of nothing is indirectly presented (although even the void feels like it may have had some form or force to it, and that with form or force it would be distinctly different from nothing). So what if all this, this life, were a training season for one to make such a claim soundly? What purpose would such a claim even have?

I was thinking through this question and I must admit the idea blooms for me (as if from nothing). I am picturing those defending the position of God, saying that such a position is blasphemy, and then having a battle of semantics, as each side delves into the tangible details and logic underlying the nature of God and Creation. In this argument I feel that knowledge into faith could be gained on all sides, if the one making the claim were delicate enough with the approach. I am picturing a similar thing being done with scientists, constantly drilling into that which they claim to be nothing or unknowable, but presenting a counterpoint that instead shapes their assumptions and concepts, and leads to further advancement. In each of these contests, the claim of being the god of nothing remains, because it must remain, although hopefully that domain would be diminished within whatever field was being discussed. That's one aspect of this god of nothing idea that I really like- one is secretly (perhaps not so secretly anymore) in the business of giving away as much of their perceived domain as possible, for they never actually lose anything (after all, they have claimed nothing), but others gain something in the process. Not only that, but since a god can enter into the domain of another as "not a god" even the fact that they appear to be a normal person would not be a meaningful attack on the claim. I could see a Christian making this claim, simply stating in response to their origin that they were in their realm and were then invited (or compelled) into this one by being formed from the dust; life was breathed into them by God. This isn't actually changing how God indicated that Creation occurred either, you've literally added nothing. You also can't expect any sign to be given as proof from this individual, because the nature of nothing is inherently signless; if there were a sign then that would be something (I'm getting strong Neverending Story vibes from this btw). 

Consider also the nonsensical nature of the interaction of this entity with God. I have written of oneness as a state that God would be looking to avoid returning to, and the whole nature of mankind, as separate consciousnesses, is meant to create and maintain this separation from oneness, but the "how" behind it is still a mystery. God could potentially erase this claim of nothing from reality, possibly proving it false, but in doing so I feel something (hehe) would be lost. How rare it must be to have someone make a claim that is logically indisputable, if only for the fact that God is not in this domain of nothing, and would prefer not to return to a state where the domain claimed does not exist. Compared to other such "gods" over time, like one that claims lightning for example, since God made the lightning, the claim is flimsy at best and could be easily proven false by God without upending anything else (Job is an excellent example of several things that God has dominion of which collectively seem to make God unfathomable). Claiming dominion over anything that has been created would end up this way, which seems like it would mean that nothing could be claimed (I did it again lol), but how then would The Law include the statement "you are gods?" I imagine that such claims over aspects of creation might have been of passing interest, possibly as a challenge of sorts, at one time to God, but perhaps not anymore. Additionally, the one claiming to be the "god of nothing" could also be removed by God, but why would God do this? If that one had a heart for God, which seems to be the most critical component to God's favor in general, and had a knack for actually maintaining this position, would not God's position be improved by retaining nothing and the one who could master the assessment of it? If oneness is something to be avoided, would not this one claiming to be the god of nothing possess precisely the tools to allow that to be accomplished indefinitely? After all, what could one possibly offer the God with everything?

This examination spirals into countless hypothetical scenarios with all manner of opponents for me, of semantics being argued at length, regarding if any claim has actually been made, much less any claim that broke any law. In this process I also pictured a game developing- which is truly more of a logical exercise designed to further one's self awareness- where two, each claiming to be the god of nothing "battle it out." One could attack the other's claim, one could defend their own. Additionally one could attempt to hand off the crown that goes to the victor of the battle, but even this is nonsense because the defeated one's response would simply be "you have won the crown this day and have left me with... nothing." Underlying these challenges would be the sense that somewhere in the examination is a bedrock where one is, a bedrock that cannot be upended by anyone, even by one's self. Much like any logic, the logic pertaining to nothing does not change in these disputes, its form is only more fully discovered, and personally I could see this game leading to the unbinding of many chains thought to be inescapable, especially the chains of a disquiet mind. I know personally that picturing this process has already focused my own mind in areas that previously would have been directionless noise.

Ultimately there is no power to be gained from this claim directly, that's part of the fun in my opinion, though the examination of this claim could lead to power, given or uncovered, in many forms. Personally, I think it is like anything else: how this manifests is dependent on the heart that wields it. One particularly potent move in the game, by the way, is to claim that love permeates all; the concepts of nothing and love, mixed, feel like they have any and all manner of permutations stemming from them. Returning briefly to how desirable and requested by God this position feels, Hebrew has two letters, one being the first letter, that are silent, the audible (and, indirectly, written) representation of nothing. The Word mentions light shining in the darkness and not being understood by it (John 1:5); this concept of structuring everything so that at some point nothing might be understood to a strong enough degree to be taken up as a position (and ultimately a position that can be claimed by many to varying degrees and in varying ways), feels like a story quietly filled with a melancholy longing, followed by an amazing and unexpected twist.