Being!

[Sair]

Yes it is clear. Its metaphysically impossible.

Why, and according to whom?

No. Quantum physics says nothing about how the universe came into existence. Science merely measures its effect after the fact of its existence.

What quantum mechanics has done is changed physicists’ perception of how physical reality operates - for one thing, it has changed the definition of ‘nothing’ to the point where it is actually an extant something, but unstable. There’s no suggestion the philosopher’s ‘nothing’, in the sense of complete nonexistence, ever did nor ever could obtain - even from a religious perspective, it could not exist, since if God exists, then ‘no-thing’ cannot obtain.

I don’t see why an absolute act of reality cannot be an eternal creative act.

Nor I, but that fits in much better with my perception of ‘god’ than with any classically theistic perception thereof.

It only becomes a problem when you limit creativity to physical definitions.

Physical definitions are all for which we have evidence or any point of reference. What does it mean to ‘create’ nonphysical substance or phenomena, and how would anyone know?

What you have said here does not tell me that it is impossible or even unlikely because you are using the wrong epistemological context for the Job.

What is the ‘correct’ epistemology for studying the supernatural?

Only if God is physical. God is his existence, which is his love, which is his creative act, which is his omnipotence. God’s being and act are simultaneous and synonymous.

The only existence we can detect is physical. Even the concepts of love and creativity have no meaning if you strip them of a physical context. Think about it.

God is not mere existence, he is existence.

Then your God is everything that exists - just the same as my god!

Why can’t anything exist without composition?

How could it? If you can’t say what something is, how can you even claim to be capable of knowing it exists? You spoke of epistemology earlier - if an extant thing lacks spatial and temporal extension or any form of detectability, how can you know it exists?

Because it has been proven with absolute certainty that the nature of the first cause must be synonymous with the act of existence.

That seems pretty much tautological to me - existence exists, and without existence, nothing could exist. That doesn’t mean you have any need to define existence in itself as a separate phenomenon from extant things/beings.

Existence has to be its intrinsic nature to account for all contingent things. Contingent beings cannot come out of nothing. It really is an act of desperation when people attempt make it appear otherwise by fallaciously pointing to quantum events.

As I said, part of the point in introducing quantum mechanics is precisely to point out that ‘nothing’ does not, perhaps could never, obtain. A quantum vacuum is not the philospher’s ‘nothing’ - it is an extant state of affairs, capable of giving rise to extant objects. It is no fallacy to accept that nothing can come from nothing, but then to reject the possibility of nothing.

That something exists does not mean or imply that it can be defined in physical terms. You are making contextually misleading assertions which is key to the philosophy called scientism, or better yet positivism.

For physical beings - which we undoubtedly are - to be aware of any ‘supernatural’ being, said being must be capable of interacting with physical substance; to create physical substance, such a being must be capable of interacting with physical substance; and if you can’t define an entity in physical terms, how do you define it in such a way that any person could begin to comprehend it? What does it mean for the God of Classical Theism to exist? How would the universe be different if he did not exist and how would anyone know? It won’t do to say the universe would not exist without God, firstly because if we did not exist, we’d be none the wiser; also because we can say with greater certainty that the universe would not exist without quantum fluctuations. That much has been detected and calculated by physicists - God never has been.

But you can describe and know the essence of a dragon without it actually existing. If the essence of a dragon was intrinsically the same thing as existing, the essence of a dragon would timelessly exist, since in this case the essence defined as “dragon” cannot logically be separated from being an actual thing.

I should think it’s perfectly possible to describe and know the essence of a god, even ‘the’ God, without it actually existing. That is what I think is going on anyway. We’re getting back to the problem of defining existence without an extant object - if anything exists, it exists as something - attempting to define God as ‘existence itself’ is just skirting the problem.

If this were actually the case with the universe, that would contradict the fact that the universe is finite, evolves, has potential, or essentially becomes more through the actuality of new qualities or natures. The universe is not the act of existence, it is merely sustained in existence by that which is fundamentally the act of Existence.

Since the actual definition of ‘universe’ is ‘everything that exists’, any true concept of the universe must include any extant gods - it makes no sense, in this context, to speak of anything existing ‘outside’ the universe; that is, outside the realm of extant things. Of course the universe is not the ‘act of existence’ - existence cannot be actualised without extant objects. And again, how would any nonphysical being sustain a physical universe without being physically detectable?

 

[Sair]

But you can describe and know the essence of a dragon without it actually existing. If the essence of a dragon was intrinsically the same thing as existing, then the essence of a dragon would timelessly exist, since in this case the essence defined as “dragon” cannot logically be separated from being an actual thing assuming they are the same thing.

To add to the discussion following from this, it would not be possible to define a dragon such that its essence was the same thing as existing. If it were, then it would not be confined to the definition of a dragon, but could as easily be present in a cat, in a tree, in a chair, in a walnut and so forth.

Gods are not concepts, not generic existence - they are specific, defined beings, with particular attributes, at least as they are described by classically theistic religions - they are a particular kind of extant object. The supposition that god is existence is far closer to pantheism than to Catholicism.

 

[belorg]

The supposition that god is existence is far closer to pantheism than to Catholicism.

I think this observation is not far from the truth, Sair.
If God is existence, then existence is God. That is pure pantheism.
The problem in using it to ague for the Catholic God is that under Catholicism God at the same time is existence but also transcends existence.
Claiming that there is such a thing as pure existence, which is immutable, while at the same time claiming there is also such a thing as impure existence (which means that existence isn’t immutable after all) is the main contradiction in Thomism.

The main reason why the notion of God as existence is called “Catholic” is because Thomas of Aquino (among others) used this concept in order to create a rational basis for Catholicism.
Thomas defined His God in so vague a manner, that he could escape accusations of heresy.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

To add to the discussion following from this, it would not be possible to define a dragon such that its essence was the same thing as existing. If it were, then it would not be confined to the definition of a dragon, but could as easily be present in a cat, in a tree, in a chair, in a walnut and so forth.

Gods are not concepts, not generic existence - they are specific, defined beings, with particular attributes, at least as they are described by classically theistic religions - they are a particular kind of extant object. The supposition that god is existence is far closer to pantheism than to Catholicism.

i think the phrase is ‘God exists’. ‘God is existence’ would seem to limit God to existence insofar as objects have existence. but “for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.”

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

What quantum mechanics has done is changed physicists’ perception of how physical reality operates - for one thing, it has changed the definition of ‘nothing’ to the point where it is actually an extant something, but unstable. There’s no suggestion the philosopher’s ‘nothing’, in the sense of complete nonexistence, ever did nor ever could obtain - even from a religious perspective, it could not exist, since if God exists, then ‘no-thing’ cannot obtain.

No quantum mechanics textbook I have ever read (and, being a physicist, that number is somewhat large) has suggested that the “definition of nothing” has changed due to its influence–this sounds more like New Age interpretations of quantum physics than actual science. Could you please provide a credible textbook (and not a New Age book) that states this?

 

[Linux]

Since the actual definition of ‘universe’ is ‘everything that exists’, any true concept of the universe must include any extant gods - it makes no sense, in this context, to speak of anything existing ‘outside’ the universe; that is, outside the realm of extant things.

This is such a desperate thing to say. The above is a philosophical concept which has no scientific basis. The universe is everything that is physical. In other words it is everything that can be measured by the scientific method. For anything that cannot be known through its method, science is simply agnostic. This has no epistemological bearing on whether or not something can be know outside the scientific method. That’s a philosophical question. Science is not capable of inferring metaphysical absolutes about what exists or what it means for a thing to exist. Thus everything you have said thus far is flawed. Everything you said seems to ignore or fail to address my argument by giving either pseudo-definitions of scientific concepts or positivism fallacies about what we can know or not know through the power of inference. I don’t have time to deal with this now, but given your above confusion which to me is not a very difficult fallacy to see, I don’t think anybody should take your arguments seriously, since only a strong desire to preserve ones atheism would push somebody to such irrational extremes. God only knows what other errors you have made.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What quantum mechanics has done is changed physicists’ perception of how physical reality operates - for one thing, it has changed the definition of ‘nothing’ to the point where it is actually an extant something, but unstable. There’s no suggestion the philosopher’s ‘nothing’, in the sense of complete nonexistence, ever did nor ever could obtain - even from a religious perspective, it could not exist, since if God exists, then ‘no-thing’ cannot obtain.

An existent no-thing is a logical contradiction. A=A, no-thing=no-thing.

Physical definitions are all for which we have evidence or any point of reference…

We don’t see with our eyes we perceive with our mind, as the saying goes. It seems to me that our perceptions of logic are as equally “real” as our empirical perceptions.

What is the ‘correct’ epistemology for studying the supernatural?

Rationalism?

The only existence we can detect is physical…

The only existence we can detect is rational.

Then your God is everything that exists - just the same as my god!

How so? your a pantheist and we are pan-en-theists.

…That doesn’t mean you have any need to define existence in itself as a separate phenomenon from extant things/beings.

Being is causally independent, other things are causally dependent. Being is thus a separate phenomenon from other things we describe by their other properties

For physical beings - which we undoubtedly are - to be aware of any ‘supernatural’ being, said being must be capable of interacting with physical substance…

Empiricism has been dead for decades. That horse is long dead. Stop beating it. It is and seemingly always will be an out right logical contradiction.

…; to create physical substance, such a being must be capable of interacting with physical substance;

What deduction is this based on?

and if you can’t define an entity in physical terms, how do you define it in such a way that any person could begin to comprehend it?

Causally?

…we can say with greater certainty that the universe would not exist without quantum fluctuations. That much has been detected and calculated by physicists - God never has been.

Obviously a universe must exist in order for there to be quantum fluctuations. You completely misunderstand the science you refer to.

…if anything exists, it exists as something - attempting to define God as ‘existence itself’ is just skirting the problem.

Being is something…you’re trying to conflate a causally independent something with causally dependent somethings. You’re missing the forest for the trees so to speak. Things are not a collection of properties with existence as one of those properties. Things are collections of properties which are causally dependent on existence.

Since the actual definition of ‘universe’ is ‘everything that exists’, any true concept of the universe must include any extant gods - it makes no sense, in this context, to speak of anything existing ‘outside’ the universe; that is, outside the realm of extant things.

**u·ni·verse
/ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/
Noun

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years...**

It appears that you are using an incorrect definition of “universe”. You can hardly beat the dead horse of empiricism and then claim that objects non-empirical objects constitute part of the universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think this observation is not far from the truth, Sair.
If God is existence, then existence is God. That is pure pantheism.
The problem in using it to ague for the Catholic God is that under Catholicism God at the same time is existence but also transcends existence.

Your confusing panthism with pan-en-theism. Same root word, different concepts. Christians are pan-en-theists, not pantheists.

Claiming that there is such a thing as pure existence, which is immutable, while at the same time claiming there is also such a thing as impure existence (which means that existence isn’t immutable after all) is the main contradiction in Thomism.

What is an “impure existence”?

The main reason why the notion of God as existence is called “Catholic” is because Thomas of Aquino (among others) used this concept in order to create a rational basis for Catholicism.

G-d as existence is called pan-en-theism. Did you just make this up, or is there a source for this idea?

Thomas defined His God in so vague a manner, that he could escape accusations of heresy.

Source?

 

[belorg]

Your confusing panthism with pan-en-theism. Same root word, different concepts. Christians are pan-en-theists, not pantheists.

If God is existence and existence is God, that is pantheism and not panentheism. Panerntheism would mean that existence is God but God is not existence.
BTW, some time ago there was a discussion here on panentheism and it was rejected as a heresy.
So maybe one or a few of the countless varieties of Christianity is panenetheistic, but both pantheism and panentheism are completely impossible under the Thomist concept of being.

What is an “impure existence”?

Existence mixed with some essence that differs from existence itself.

G-d as existence is called pan-en-theism. Did you just make this up, or is there a source for this idea?

God as existence in the Thomist sense is not called panentheism.

Source?

Just try to describe Thomas’ God as anything more than a vague concept.

 

[wittgenstein]

I believe that the difference between existence and existing things is similar to the difference between consciousness and an idea. For example, I may have the idea," Socrates was mortal". I am not the idea,“Socrates was mortal” even tho without consciousness “Socrates was mortal” is not an idea. It is then only a collection of signifiers ( google signifier signified) without intentionality ( google,"intentionality stanford enyclopedia philosophy).
Just as I am consciousness and not the contents of consciousness (thoughts,beliefs,personality etc) God is existence not particular existing things.
PS: I have no idea why my tablet put that which I had put in parenthesis on a new line and would not let me fix it. Hmm after I posted the problem vanished. Weird!

 

[Linux]

I believe that the difference between existence and existing things is similar to the difference between consciousness and an idea. For example, I may have the idea," Socrates was mortal". I am not the idea,“Socrates was mortal” even tho without consciousness “Socrates was mortal” is not an idea. It is then only a collection of signifiers ( google signifier signified) without intentionality ( google,"intentionality stanford enyclopedia philosophy).
Just as I am consciousness and not the contents of consciousness (thoughts,beliefs,personality etc) God is existence not particular existing things.
PS: I have no idea why my tablet put that which I had put in parenthesis on a new line and would not let me fix it. Hmm after I posted the problem vanished. Weird!

It may surprise you to know that this is exactly how God creates, by conjoining his actuality with abstractions.

 

[belorg]

It may surprise you to know that this is exactly how God creates, by conjoining his actuality with abstractions.

Conjoining His actuality means that there is a distinction between ‘unconjoined actuality’ and ‘conjoined actuality’. To go from unconjoined actuality to conjoined actuality is a change, which is impossible for a Purely Actual Being.

 

[Linux]

Conjoining His actuality means that there is a distinction between ‘unconjoined actuality’ and ‘conjoined actuality’. To go from unconjoined actuality to conjoined actuality is a change, which is impossible for a Purely Actual Being.

God conjoins his actuality with abstractions. Its been explained on numerous occasions that Gods creative act is simultaneous with his act of reality or nature. Gods creative act is not a sequence of events, it is instantaneous with his being.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If God is existence and existence is God, that is pantheism and not panentheism. Panerntheism would mean that existence is God but God is not existence.

Think about what you just said. Pantheism says A=A. Pan-en-theism says A~=A. If these definitions were correct the better argument against the Christian position would be to prove it false by contradiction.

However,

Pan-EN-theism: G-d=Being, the very act of existing.

Pantheism: G-d=Universe.

To get where you’re trying to go you also need: Universe=Everything. (a conflation of different ontological natures)

You are treating the fact that something exists as a property of those beings instead of an entirely different object from those beings. Yet there is a basic ontological difference between properties and existence.

*Being is formally logically necessary because it’s negation, a state of not being, is a logical contradiction. Being=not being.

*Properties are not logically necessary because their negation presents no logical contradiction. Every object I see lacks properties that others possess. Proof that properties can fail to exist without violating the laws of logic.

So the claim that Existence=Property is a demonstrable contradiction and proven false. Pantheism is therefore false.

BTW, some time ago there was a discussion here on panentheism and it was rejected as a heresy.

What has the Church said?

So maybe one or a few of the countless varieties of Christianity is panentheistic,

I have a hard time imagining how any Christians cannot be panentheistic. Which ones are not and why?

but both pantheism and panentheism are completely impossible under the Thomist concept of being.

How are you defining the Thomistic concept of being?

Existence mixed with some essence that differs from existence itself.

I don’t understand how existence can be mixed with something else. What sources are you drawing this from?

Just try to describe Thomas’ God as anything more than a vague concept.

What I really meant to ask was how you knew Thomas’ motivations.

 

[belorg]

God conjoins his actuality with abstractions. Its been explained on numerous occasions that Gods creative act is simultaneous with his act of reality or nature. Gods creative act is not a sequence of events, it is instantaneous with his being.

Whether it’s simultaneous or not is completely irrelevant.

 

[belorg]

Think about what you just said. Pantheism says A=A. Pan-en-theism says A~=A. If these definitions were correct the better argument against the Christian position would be to prove it false by contradiction.

The Christian position that holds that existence is God but God is not existence is indeed false bt contradiction.
Panentheism means that contingent beings are part of God, but that God transcends contingent beings, God is more than the sum total of all other beings.

Pan-EN-theism: G-d=Being, the very act of existing.

Pantheism: G-d=Universe.

To get where you’re trying to go you also need: Universe=Everything. (a conflation of different ontological natures)

Nope, I do not need this at all.

You are treating the fact that something exists as a property of those beings instead of an entirely different object from those beings. Yet there is a basic ontological difference between properties and existence.

Again, nope, I am doing no such thing. I do not treat existence as a property.

So the claim that Existence=Property is a demonstrable contradiction and proven false. Pantheism is therefore false.

Pantheism does not entail that existence is a property.

What has the Church said?

I do not know. But panentheism leads to a lot of undesired consequenses.

I have a hard time imagining how any Christians cannot be panentheistic. Which ones are not and why?

Thomists aren’t, because on panentheism, reality (which) is changing) is a part of God, who is immutable. Hence Giod would be immtable and changing at the same time. That’s a contradiction.

How are you defining the Thomistic concept of being?

The Thomistic concept ,of being is that it is Pure Act and immutable.

I don’t understand how existence can be mixed with something else. What sources are you drawing this from?

An existing object that is red exists and on top of that has a property redness, that is distibnct from its esse. God’s esse is pure in that it hyas no separate properties. Therfore, every existing thing, apart from God, has impure existence.

What I really meant to ask was how you knew Thomas’ motivations.

Thomas was a human being and human beings do not like to be burned at the stake.

 

[Linux]

Whether it’s simultaneous or not is completely irrelevant.

The biggest assertion I have ever seen you make. It is relevant, since your argument required a before and an after in-order to work. Change is something which is only true of physical things. If God is not physical, and his being is simultaneous with his creative act, then your argument falls flat on its very large hairy face because a perfect act does not need to change. Why? Because physical laws don’t apply to God and thus time does not effect God.

So there…

 

[Shike]

Conjoining His actuality means that there is a distinction between ‘unconjoined actuality’ and ‘conjoined actuality’. To go from unconjoined actuality to conjoined actuality is a change, which is impossible for a Purely Actual Being.

Change as defined in the context relevant to aristotelian-thomistic philosophy of nature and metaphysics is the reduction of potency to act (or potentiality to actuality). Exercising a power to create something doesn’t necessarily have to undergo such a reduction in the agent, although any example from the material world will have such a feature.
The gist of all this: at the very least, there is no contradiction with having an Unmoved Mover (Unchanged Changer) within the relevant philosophical contexts that also creates.
In further other words: Aquinas and many other philosophers are not stupid and you are not the first to proffer such an objection.

 

[Shike]

The biggest assertion I have ever seen you make. It is relevant, since your argument required a before and an after in-order to work. Change is something which is only true of physical things. If God is not physical, and his being is simultaneous with his creative act, then your argument falls flat on its very large hairy face because a perfect act does not need to change. Why? Because physical laws don’t apply to God and thus time does not effect God.

So there…

I understand what you are trying to say, Linux, and I would say that in the main you are correct.
However, change (as defined in the aristotelian-thomistic tradition) happens to any being whose essence is not its existence. In other words, I would say that Angels change even though they are not physical (unless you stretch the boundaries of the word to its breaking point).
Look at it this way. Physical/material beings undergo accidental change and substantial change which both necessarily involve a reduction of potency to act. But what falls under merely the reduction of potency to act? It’s scope is much much broader and could very well exceed our everyday experience and even what our senses could pick up: in other words, who knows what other kinds of change there are. But what we do know, at the very least from Aquinas’ Five Ways, is that such a reduction of potency to act cannot apply to God. Ergo, change, as defined in the aristotelian-thomistic tradition, doesn’t apply to God.

All this talk of God and change usually misses the point. The argument should be at the definition of change, but it is usually assumed that we are all talking about the same thing. Yah… sure we are.

 

[Shike]

I am interested in Aquinas (and any other philosopher) that talks about Being. The idea that God is that whose essence is Being, fascinates me. However, I am weak when it comes to medieval philosophy ( I am not being derogatory, I have great respect for medieval philosophy and believe it has much to offer) and would be grateful for an explanation of topics such as hacceity.

To the OP:
As far as I know, hacceity is much more of a Scotus thing than an Aquinas thing. Aquinas is not an essentialist in that what primarily makes a thing real is not that it is what it is.
A great book that takes you through an analysis of being to progressively more accurate notions is Klubbertanz’s Introduction to the Philosophy of Being.

In objection to the naysayers (Sair) that being cannot be considered apart from an individual being, he is only partially correct. The very fact that being applies both to an individual being and multiple beings, that it applies to both one and many, and that it is a concept not reached by abstraction… should give pause for thought - is being (as being, the object of metaphysics) separable?