A Challenge to Philosophers / Theologians / Others

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
Give me a reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or from Scripture that states absolutely that created creatures exist in the Mind of God, physically as opposed to as an Idea and/or that the Esse of God is the esse of created creatures.

Linus2nd
 
I don’t think scripture does goes as far as to say we exist in God’s mind, but it does says that we exist *in *God, with Paul quoting a Cretan philosopher/poet…

Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and exist.

As far as I can see the concept of ‘mind’ is not something the authors of scripture were particularly concerned with, bit we certainly read of indwelling in God (and an indwelling of God in us; this being a mutual Perichoresis).
 
I don’t think scripture does goes as far as to say we exist in God’s mind, but it does says that we exist *in *God, with Paul quoting a Cretan philosopher/poet…

Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and exist.

As far as I can see the concept of ‘mind’ is not something the authors of scripture were particularly concerned with, bit we certainly read of indwelling in God (and an indwelling of God in us; this being a mutual Perichoresis).
Yes, but that is not very clear. In this context I think Paul is talking about the presence of the Trinity in us by grace. I am looking for something that would indicate that would show that creatures exist in the Mind of God as they exist in their ontological structure as opposed to merely the Idea or Knowledge God has of them.

Linus2nd
 
Because of two lengthy threads entitled : Do we exist in the Mind of God? and How does God create the " act of existence " out of nothing?

Linus2nd
In that case, I really don’t understand why yet another thread is even necessary. Are they over the post limit or stale?
 
In that case, I really don’t understand why yet another thread is even necessary. Are they over the post limit or stale?
No. There were some there, including several Catholics, who felt that indeed we exist in the Mind of God and/or that the esse of God is the esse of creatures. And it is my view that such ideas are contrary to Catholic teaching. So I guess you could say that this thread is an attempt to demonstrate to them that their position is one that cannot be held by Catholics, if they truely understand the issues. For, if no one can provide good examples demonstrating the " truth " of their position, then perhaps they will see that their position is not valid and should not be held.

Linus2nd
 
No. There were some there, including several Catholics, who felt that indeed we exist in the Mind of God and/or that the esse of God is the esse of creatures. And it is my view that such ideas are contrary to Catholic teaching. So I guess you could say that this thread is an attempt to demonstrate to them that their position is one that cannot be held by Catholics, if they truely understand the issues. For, if no one can provide good examples demonstrating the " truth " of their position, then perhaps they will see that their position is not valid and should not be held.

Linus2nd
An absence of such information is not a proof of the opposite. To prove your point, you would be further required to provide evidence that the Church actually teaches your view. Are you prepared to offer such information?

It is unfortunate if, as you indicate, said participants are asserting a positive teaching that supports their view without actually providing it. However, they have the same right to be mistaken as I do. In the absence of positive teaching to the contrary, it’s usually best to let them be.
 
Personally, I find the argument to be too close to the “dream hypothesis” (i.e. everything only exists in a dreamer’s mind).

I think that if you read more on Divine Essence and Energies you might find what you are looking for. (That is, understanding the principles to demonstrate your point that God’s essence is fundamentally different from that of creatures.) Wikipedia’s article might get you adequately started.
 
Personally, I find the argument to be too close to the “dream hypothesis” (i.e. everything only exists in a dreamer’s mind).

I think that if you read more on Divine Essence and Energies you might find what you are looking for. (That is, understanding the principles to demonstrate your point that God’s essence is fundamentally different from that of creatures.) Wikipedia’s article might get you adequately started.
Of course I can be in error like anyone. However I have read and meditated on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas for nearly 50 years now - not that I have any claim to know Thomas any better than any other layperson - but I think I understand him well enough. Also I am well acquainted with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church as well. If you go over and review the sites I mentioned above, you will get the picture a little better.

Linus2nd
 
However I have read and meditated on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas for nearly 50 years now -
You beat me by a few years. 😃

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.
 
All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2
I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man’s tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.
Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.
Here, Aquinas points out that the human intellect cannot be material or it could not know everything humans know, virtually any idea that is presented to it.

Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is 🤷 ) of God.
 
You beat me by a few years. 😃

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.
Good points. Why not think of a way to put these ideas on one of the other sites I mentioned above?

Linus2nd
 
All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Here, Aquinas points out that the human intellect cannot be material or it could not know everything humans know, virtually any idea that is presented to it.

Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is 🤷 ) of God.
Yes, why not put this on one of the sites I mentioned above and see what happens.

( " esse " is a Latin word meaning " a being, " the participle " existing or acting, " the verb " to be or is. " ) And Hitler and the Jews were beings which had an " act of existing. " Being, as a noun, is any substance ( you, me, God ) which exists, except that God is pure Existence and you and I have existence. Feser talks about this some in " Aquinas. " But a better book is " Elements of Christian Philosophy " by Etienne Gilson.

Linus2nd
 
How could we exist *physically *in the mind of God? A mind contains ideas, not physical objects? Do you reckon that God’s mind is extended? :confused:
 
How could we exist *physically *in the mind of God? A mind contains ideas, not physical objects? Do you reckon that God’s mind is extended? :confused:
I know but some people, even some Catholics ( :rolleyes: ) seem to accept that. Your comment really belongs on one of the threads I mentioned above. What I’m trying to do here is to show that there is no support for this idea in Church teaching or in Scriptures. Then perhaps they will change their thinking.

These threads :

" Because of two lengthy threads entitled : Do we exist in the Mind of God? and How does God create the " act of existence " out of nothing? "

Linus2nd
 
What other websites?
Is that what I said ( :o ), I meant : " Because of two lengthy threads entitled : Do we exist in the Mind of God? and How does God create the " act of existence " out of nothing? "

I think you have already been on both of them.

Linus2nd
 
How could we exist *physically *in the mind of God? A mind contains ideas, not physical objects? Do you reckon that God’s mind is extended? :confused:
The physical world is governed by the laws of physics and the laws of physics are “ideas”. I suppose it is possible that the physical world is a “physical” manifestation of those ideas…

I have not read the entire Catechism or Bible so I do not know if anything like this is mentioned at all or not (I haven’t come across anything), but at first thought it sounds plausible and it doesn’t seem incompatible with Catholicism (in my opinion).
And as others have said… just because such it is not mentioned in Catechism or the Bible does not mean it’s contradictory to Catechism or the Bible (but at the same time, the fact that it’s not contradictory does not mean that it has to be true).
 
The physical world is governed by the laws of physics and the laws of physics are “ideas”. I suppose it is possible that the physical world is a “physical” manifestation of those ideas…

I have not read the entire Catechism or Bible so I do not know if anything like this is mentioned at all or not (I haven’t come across anything), but at first thought it sounds plausible and it doesn’t seem incompatible with Catholicism (in my opinion).
And as others have said… just because such it is not mentioned in Catechism or the Bible does not mean it’s contradictory to Catechism or the Bible (but at the same time, the fact that it’s not contradictory does not mean that it has to be true).
But if no sources can be found, it should suggest that people should perhaps not discuss the " possibility " in public, especially on a Catholic forum. Theologians discuss many things but they do it with discression ( if they are loyal men and women of the Church). They don’t usually discuss things in public which may cause confusion among the layity.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top