Being!

[belorg]

well, if you want to engage in an exegesis of the writings of aquinas, then cool: show me how aquinas’ understanding of god’s immutability excludes the possibility of cambridge change.

I am not talking about Cambridge change. As I have said before, Cambridge change is the change in a relation due to the other partner(s) in the relation changing. That’s why I start with a world in which there are no partners.
I think Edward Feser brings up Cambridge change to counter the argument that if God cannot change, he nevertheless “becomes” a creator. That is not my argument.

So, I do not see any need to delve into Aquinas for the time being. But, according to Aquinas, God 's essence is his existence and God is ultimately simple. Since He has no parts, we cannot say that only an insignificant part of Him changes

if your principle concern is to show an inconsistency in the thought of aquinas, then let’s start with the thought of the man himself.

My principle concern is to investigate whether an immutable being can be the basis of chnagung reality.

a relational change is only one kind of incidental (red: non-substantial) change.

That’s why the argument you presented doesn’t work. (2) is a non-sequitur.

maybe i’m not - it will depend on the outcome of our discussion about thomas’ writings on divine immutability.

I’ll try to dig up some of his writings.

Here is one
Thomas of Aquino Summa Theologica:

I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.

First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.

Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved.

Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A. There is an entity E in wA that is changing (observation)
B. There is possibly an entity E in wA that is possibly changing
C. by S5 : there is nessarily a possible entity that is possibly changing
D. In every possible world there is a possible entity E that can possibly change
E. in wG there is a possible entity that can possibly change(from D)
F. (from E) wG can possibly change.

I don’t think that D follows from A/B because there is a possible world expressed by the statement wA-E=wG where entity E(mperical propositions) is not realized and thus no such observations could be made. My .02. Thanks for posting something interesting.

 

[wittgenstein]

Nothing changes. Einstein showed that time is a dimension, like height,depth or width. If time moves, how fast? Seconds per what?
Ultimately the universe is a block universe(space time) that does not change. Past and future are like east and west,directions but not a particular place.
For example, Detroit is west of New York and east of Los Angelus. The day I was born is past compared to 2013 and future compared to 1939.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not familiar with " hacceity. "
Linusthe2nd

Here is an article about haecceity,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-haecceity/

Well, I know Duns Scotus is a Blessed. Nevertheless his idea on " individuation " or the principles of " haecceities " are just plain nutty. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If God is being, then perhaps that is why only God can provide unconditional love ( grace).

youtube.com/watch?v=dj1BuNmhjAY

I didn’t get much out of the video. The Being of God is without limit. This Being is simply Perfect Existence, all that is without limit, perfect Goodness, etc. This is a huge philosophical topic, I’m just stating the facts not trying to prove them. Since by the fact of his perfect, unlimited existence, God is perfect Love, he loves without limit. And it is also the reason why he bestows special gifts, graces, upon his intelligent creatures.

Is his love unconditional ? He loves all his creation, especially his intelligent creatures. They are good and loveable in as much as they exist. Is his love unconditional? He does not love sin and will punish the unrepentant sinner. Whether that should be called unconditional love or conditional love I can’t say.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Kant showed that existence is not a predicate (property). Something without properties is undefinable ( similarly God is ineffable ). Let “X” represent something undefinable. If I say,"X exists " have I said anything meaningful?
I want to be clear about this. I am not saying that if God is Being (existence) itself, the proposition that God exists is meaningless. I am saying that in the context of the correspondence theory of truth ( which has many problems,for example if the correspondence theory of truth is true then it must correspond to something, another correspondence theory of truth…infinite regress) it is meaningless. One must approach God from outside signifiers and signifieds. In other words faith is not about finding similarities between our concepts and God’s reality.

Not many here have much regard for Kant. I know I don’t regard him as having any philosophical value at all. And I have no idea what you have in mind when you use terms like " correspondence theory of truth. " St. Thomas is the philosopher of choice around here. And to him Truth was that which corresponded to reality.

Not really sure what you mean by " signifiers " and " signifieds. " This is not normal terminology or I should say, it is a specialized terminology and I wouldn’t or couldn’t make any judgments of its value in regard to " approaching " a knowledge of God.

Thomas and the Scholastics, even St. Augustine approached God from two vantage points. First through Revelation and Faith. Secondly, speculatively through philosophical judgments about observed reality ( i.e. the universe exists, therefore God exists ).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think that God does have some defineable properties. If nothing else, He has a mind, or rather, three minds-- at least that’s my understanding of what trinitarians believe. He also has the power to use his mind to create physical things, so his is a mind with physical power.

God has no properties. God IS pure existence. This Pure Existence is Pure Goodness, Pure Truth, is Pure Beauty, etc. These are not his properties, Each and many more terms are Who he is, they are not a part of God. They are simply our puny method of saying who he is. That’s all.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It has always struck me as odd to refer to god as ‘being itself’ - as you intimate here, being, or existence, is not something that can be considered separately from things that exist - and then to say, ‘existence exists’ is saying nothing meaningful, scarcely even tautological.

God is usually deemed a separate entity from ‘created’ things - for example, Christianity has no time for pantheism, the idea that the universe itself (and all within it) is to be revered as divine. No, there is definitely an insistence that God is not the universe, whether or not he is believed to suffuse it or indwell it or whatever. Hence it’s hard to see how you can refer to god as ‘being itself’ when god is supposed to be a separated entity from all other things that exist.

Being is an analogical definition of things that exist. God exists perfectly and eternally and without limit. He simply IS, He is his own existence. We really cannot have a proper concept of this type of being, we know that he is and so on. But he surpasses our intellectual capacity to comprehend more than a comparative understanding of His Perfection.

By his power he has created a limited, contingent universe. You have two forms of existence here, God who is limitless and the limited universe which he created. I don’t see the difficulty in understanding that - nor the reluctance to accept it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve studied St. Thomas, but never engaged in much dialogue, explanation, or debate about his philosophy (and I’m no expert anyway), so I’ll try my best at explain some relevant points as far as I understand them…we’ll see how it goes

Thomas understands existence as an act, in his Aristotelian act-potency model of reality. All finite entities, for Thomas, are a composition of an essence, whatness, and an act of being. Obviously, as you point out, the essence isn’t separable in reality from the act of existence - but Thomas would maintain that they are still two, real, distinct principles in every finite entity. For Thomas, there cannot be composition within God (that is, within that which is the most fundamental metaphysical reality), or else that of which He is composed (essence and act of existence) would be more fundamental than He. God’s essence and existence are one, then, and He is His own act of existence.

Well said.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote:
Being per se as referred to God means He is that Whose Essence is Existence. If His Essence is Existence then he is Infinite and Eternal. He simply Is without limit, without potency, the totality of perfection, yet utterly Simple and without composition of any kind. God is unlimited Existence. He is Existence, purely and simply.

This doesn’t imply that God is actually capable of action, if he/she/it is existence in and of itself.

Right. I didn’t imply that. But now that you mention it, since the universe does exist God is capable of action. He created the universe. " In him we live and move and have our being."

Quote:
The beings of the universe are limited in existence and caused. Therefore God cannot be part of the universe but is instead the cause of the being or existence of the universe. It should be clear from a cursory glance of the universe that it cannot have caused itself, that it cannot account for its own existence, that is limited in every way. The universe and the beings which are in it HAVE existence.

It isn’t clear that the universe could not have caused itself. That is a notion from the time before relativity and quantum mechanics…

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it. No matter how you fashion an argument for a self existent, uncaused universe you still have to have an intelligent cause for its existence which is not a part of the universe and which exists outside the universe itself. This is a far more rational conclusion than to suppose the universe is the cause of itself.

If God is the cause of all other existence, he/she/it cannot be simply ‘existence itself’, since to be, simply and uncomplicatedly, without composition, does not imply any actual ability beyond mere existence - not even the ability to impart existence to other beings, since that would change the nature, character, essence or whatever of the being that is mere existence into both ‘extant being’ and ‘creator’ - hence it would no longer be ‘being itself’ but ‘being and actor’.

Yes, God is both an " extant being " and the " creator. " And he is also " being itself, " By now you should know the arguments ST. Thomas brings forth to show that the Pure Existence " of God is an Active existence. His existence is Pure Intelligence and intelligence is by definition active. You object because you do not see how this could be possible. I answer, it is so because there is not other reasonable alternative. Either He Is or We Aren’t. It is really that simple. And we are, so He Is.

Quote:
Note that Being and Existence are interchangeable terms. And Essence or the Nature of a Being is Identified with Being only in God.

The first part of this assertion makes sense. The second part does not. God cannot be ‘mere’ existence, and then also be specific existence with the nature and attributes of actual things that exist.

You missread what I wrote. Let me say it differently. As it pertains to God, Essence is Identified with Existence and God is a Being that simply Exists ( but in a dynamic way, in a creative and fecund way). I do wish you would actually read one of Thomas’ Summas !!

Quote:
God is Pure Existence, having no composition.

How can anything exist without composition? And how would anyone know? Existence implies identifiability, if that is even a word - or to put it another way, it implies that it should be possible to actually define the extant being. There seems to be a great deal of difficulty in defining god - declaring what he/she/it is not seems to be about as far as most philosophers and serious theologians can get.

Sair, throughout these forums you keep raising the same questions. Why don’t you read Thomas? He isn’t all that hard. No, it is quite easy to define God. See either Summa or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He has been defined but you don’t accept it. Fine, but don’t say he hasn’t been defined, say you don’t accept it. It isn’t as though St. Thomas and the Scholastics, St. Augustine, the Fathers of the Church, etc were morans. They were some of the greatest minds the world has produced as you well know. So just say you won’t accept it, or can’t accept it, or refuse to accept it.

Quote:
Creatures are composed essences, composed of matter and form.

What does this mean, exactly? And how could essences exist without the objects that define them? Could I say, for example, that the essence of a dragon exists, without being able to define or describe what a dragon is?

For example, a dog is composed of a certain matter and the form of a dog. The form is the nature it shares with all dogs in the species. The matter, having received the form along with the act of existence becomes living animal matter. The being so conformed becomes a dog. If you would ever take the time to read one of the Summas you would know that. Philosophically the dog is an Essence or a Being or a Substance. These terms are often used interchangeably in Thomas. Why don’t you read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. He explains things better than I can.

Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen

Brave words. We’ll see what he says on his death bed. And to Cohen I would say “…the fool says in his heart there is no God…” David

I’ll put my money on David, the Prophets, the Church, ST Thomas. Compared to them Cohen is an insignificant cypher.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It does not imply that he is not either

Yes it is clear. Its metaphysically impossible.

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

I don’t see why an absolute act of reality cannot be an eternal creative act. It only becomes a problem when you limit creativity to physical definitions. 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.

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

God is not mere existence, he is existence.

Why can’t anything exist without composition?

Because it has been proven with absolute certainty that the nature of the first cause must be synonymous with the act of existence. Existence has to be its intrinsic nature in order 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.

That something exists does not mean, and neither does it 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.

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.

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.

Excellent answers .

 

[Sair]

Being is an analogical definition of things that exist. God exists perfectly and eternally and without limit. He simply IS, He is his own existence. We really cannot have a proper concept of this type of being, we know that he is and so on. But he surpasses our intellectual capacity to comprehend more than a comparative understanding of His Perfection.

Well, if you can’t understand it, why the absolute confidence in asserting it as truth? Why do you need any extra ‘being’ when you have the universe to explore?

By his power he has created a limited, contingent universe. You have two forms of existence here, God who is limitless and the limited universe which he created. I don’t see the difficulty in understanding that - nor the reluctance to accept it.

Because a god that exists extraneous to the universe is a ridiculous idea, unnecessary and superfluous.

 

[Linux]

Because a god that exists extraneous to the universe is a ridiculous idea, unnecessary and superfluous.

This is just empty criticism devoid of any rational basis. What is truly irrational is the idea of potentiality becoming actual by itself, which is what you would ultimately have to believe if you reject the existence of an unmoved mover, or uncaused cause. It is out of absolute respect for the fact that contingent objects cannot produce themselves from nothing that an honest person has no choice but to accept the existence of a necessary timeless non-physical intelligent cause.

The Idea that we have no basis for presenting such a case is nonsense.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Because a god that exists extraneous to the universe is a ridiculous idea, unnecessary and superfluous.

The universe is not logically necessary, therefore it is not it’s own explanation.

 

[shoe]

Since the first law of thermodynamics says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form to another; and since nature has nothing existing within itself that is able to account for its own origin, then the origin of nature has to come from something outside nature (a supernatural being such as God).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The universe is not logically necessary, therefore it is not it’s own explanation.

Excellent !! Never thought of that before but it is certainly true. The universe is absolutely useless, worthless, meaningless unless there is a God outside it who thought it up, and decided to make it for his own good purposes.

But we are way off topic but I guess it is up to Witgenstien to corral us back to the point.

 

[Shike]

For your learning and others, an ontologically necssary being is a being that if it exists cannot not exist. theer is nothing that suggests any reason for why it exisst in the first place. So an ON being is, without further argumention, logically contingent, which makes it a brute fact.
And yes, there can be other necssary beings whoese necessity is derived from the one underived necessary beings, but as I said, this is not relevant

I see, I think what you call an ON being is perhaps what I call an ON being whose necessity is not derived from any other. Without any qualification, an ON being can refer to many different beings, whereas an ON being whose necessity is not derived can refer to only one. With these two types of ON beings in mind, it might be good to point out a few things:

1. In the ontological sense, necessary means that it cannot go out of existence. IE. There is no potential (existential instability) in a thing to go out of existence. So while you are correct in your negative definition that a ON being cannot not exist, it is only from the point of view of it already existing here and now, it is a very different animal than logical possibility; in other words, it may be logically possible that an ON being not exist while at the same time impossible for it to go out of existence (at least, as long as the ON being has its necessity derived).
2. Now, you may have a partial point, at least, when you talk about there not being any reason to suggest why an ON being exists in the first place (but this must be qualified greatly). In the case of an ON being whose necessity is derived, your comment is completely false–indeed, it is precisely its derived necessity that gives its existence meaning. But in the case of the ON being whose necessity is not derived, you have a point–just the mere statement of necessity doesn’t say much about the reason for its existence in the first place. BUT, and here is the kicker, there is nothing that excludes a reason for its existence, and, furthermore, one would expect a reason given further considerations such as the following: namely, that the existence of other ON beings whose necessity is derived from the ON being whose necessity isn’t derived gives quite a puzzle for you. How can something further down in an ontological chain that derives its meaning from higher up the chain have meaning while the first member does not.
   3)But, if it is thought about a little more, an ON being whose necessity is not derived has a reason for its existence that is self-contained, namely, that it always existed. It isn’t a brute fact because brute facts are opaque without any reason at all, whereas this reality is intelligible through and through. It’s the difference between a first principle and magic.

Since there is nothing in Catholic doctrine nor in Thomism that precludes this possibility, I am allowed to insert this premise. But it is shorthand for " therer are no other beings there and God is immutable" so it is also based on insight into DI.

I will allow the premise, but it is not an insight into Divine Immutability because you are defining a group that contains only one member, who happens to be immutable.

It follows using S5. Something that is possible in one PW is possible in every PW. Chnage is possible in wA therefore change is possible in every PW, including wG

Yeah, I think doran is right in most of what he’s saying. This conclusion does not follow. At best, it seems to me a failure to utilize the “possible world terminology” correctly. Possible world terminology can be thought of in spacial terms. Draw a square grid with many smaller interior squares. Color in one of the squares and you have something that is possible, or rather, you have a possible world. Color in all the squares, and you no longer have something that is merely possible but logically necessary.

And this is precisely the point. I don’t see how change is logically necessary. There’s nothing in the principles that makes it a logical necessity, such as, for instance, A=A.

Hopefully this will clarify my position a bit.

I think it does, somewhat. I also think there has been much more that you have been trying to argue for that isn’t contained in this argument. But that’s alright, you’re allowed to.

 

[Jesusaves777]

This doesn’t imply that God is actually capable of action, if he/she/it is existence in and of itself.

It isn’t clear that the universe could not have caused itself. That is a notion from the time before relativity and quantum mechanics…

If God is the cause of all other existence, he/she/it cannot be simply ‘existence itself’, since to be, simply and uncomplicatedly, without composition, does not imply any actual ability beyond mere existence - not even the ability to impart existence to other beings, since that would change the nature, character, essence or whatever of the being that is mere existence into both ‘extant being’ and ‘creator’ - hence it would no longer be ‘being itself’ but ‘being and actor’.

The first part of this assertion makes sense. The second part does not. God cannot be ‘mere’ existence, and then also be specific existence with the nature and attributes of actual things that exist.

How can anything exist without composition? And how would anyone know? Existence implies identifiability, if that is even a word - or to put it another way, it implies that it should be possible to actually define the extant being. There seems to be a great deal of difficulty in defining god - declaring what he/she/it is not seems to be about as far as most philosophers and serious theologians can get.

What does this mean, exactly? And how could essences exist without the objects that define them? Could I say, for example, that the essence of a dragon exists, without being able to define or describe what a dragon is?

Ah yes Sair! We meet again, spinning your tall tales of evolutionary rubbish on here too. We still haven’t finished our conversation on the last post. Don’t get me wrong Sair I care about you! But, I just have a few questions, questions that I had tried to get you to answer on the last post. You were putting down every bit of proofs that I had given you…I’m still waiting for you to give me something…anything! Question #1- Where do you get your knowledge on evolution? #2- Do you have any proofs of these evolutionary hypothesis? #3- When did evolutionary “thought” come about, ie Year/From whom? #4- Do you have ANY references with sources on where you got your ideas? And to answer your question about the Bible speaking of Christ before His time…Yes! That’s because Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. But, before you judge Christianity…can you please read about it first? If you don’t then your judgments are not justified. Thank you for your time.

 

[belorg]

I see, I think what you call an ON being is perhaps what I call an ON being whose necessity is not derived from any other. Without any qualification, an ON being can refer to many different beings, whereas an ON being whose necessity is not derived can refer to only one. With these two types of ON beings in mind, it might be good to point out a few things:

1. In the ontological sense, necessary means that it cannot go out of existence. IE. There is no potential (existential instability) in a thing to go out of existence. So while you are correct in your negative definition that a ON being cannot not exist, it is only from the point of view of it already existing here and now, it is a very different animal than logical possibility; in other words, it may be logically possible that an ON being not exist while at the same time impossible for it to go out of existence (at least, as long as the ON being has its necessity derived).

That’s what I thought ON means. An impressive sounding name for a brute fact.

1. Now, you may have a partial point, at least, when you talk about there not being any reason to suggest why an ON being exists in the first place (but this must be qualified greatly). In the case of an ON being whose necessity is derived, your comment is completely false–indeed, it is precisely its derived necessity that gives its existence meaning. But in the case of the ON being whose necessity is not derived, you have a point–just the mere statement of necessity doesn’t say much about the reason for its existence in the first place. BUT, and here is the kicker, there is nothing that excludes a reason for its existence, and, furthermore, one would expect a reason given further considerations such as the following: namely, that the existence of other ON beings whose necessity is derived from the ON being whose necessity isn’t derived gives quite a puzzle for you. How can something further down in an ontological chain that derives its meaning from higher up the chain have meaning while the first member does not.

Yes, of course, a being whose necessity is derived is not a brute fact. But my garden shed is not a brute fact either,

And to answer your last question: there is no problem as all. It is perfectly possible to reject teleology.

3)But, if it is thought about a little more, an ON being whose necessity is not derived has a reason for its existence that is self-contained, namely, that it always existed. It isn’t a brute fact because brute facts are opaque without any reason at all, whereas this reality is intelligible through and through. It’s the difference between a first principle and magic.

To have always existed is not a reason.

I will allow the premise, but it is not an insight into Divine Immutability because you are defining a group that contains only one member, who happens to be immutable.

Which makes the whole of reality in wG immutable. And it is that premsie you need to reject in order to refute my argument.

Yeah, I think doran is right in most of what he’s saying. This conclusion does not follow. At best, it seems to me a failure to utilize the “possible world terminology” correctly. Possible world terminology can be thought of in spacial terms. Draw a square grid with many smaller interior squares. Color in one of the squares and you have something that is possible, or rather, you have a possible world. Color in all the squares, and you no longer have something that is merely possible but logically necessary.

You should look up on S5 again, Shike, because you are simply wrong, as is john.

And this is precisely the point. I don’t see how change is logically necessary. There’s nothing in the principles that makes it a logical necessity, such as, for instance, A=A.

Since my argument does not claim that change is logically necssary, this comment is irrelevant.

I think it does, somewhat. I also think there has been much more that you have been trying to argue for that isn’t contained in this argument. But that’s alright, you’re allowed to.

The basis of what I have been trying to argue for is in this argument. Along with the fact that, contrary to what you claim, I do not need any sort of temporality tio make my point, something I have been saying all along, but which you failed to understand.

 

[Shike]

That’s what I thought ON means. An impressive sounding name for a brute fact.

Yes, of course, a being whose necessity is derived is not a brute fact. But my garden shed is not a brute fact either,

And to answer your last question: there is no problem as all. It is perfectly possible to reject teleology.

To have always existed is not a reason.

Which makes the whole of reality in wG immutable. And it is that premsie you need to reject in order to refute my argument.

You should look up on S5 again, Shike, because you are simply wrong, as is john.

Since my argument does not claim that change is logically necssary, this comment is irrelevant.

The basis of what I have been trying to argue for is in this argument. Along with the fact that, contrary to what you claim, I do not need any sort of temporality tio make my point, something I have been saying all along, but which you failed to understand.

Your responses are particularly unhelpful. Regardless if you actually have a good argument or not, no one could ever know because they wouldn’t be able to learn from you. Yes, I’m a bit frustrated, at least mentally speaking.

Simple assertions to the contrary help no one.

I will only say this much more. The rejection of final causality is one move you could make. But if you make that move, as I was hinting at in my puzzle, we would be presented with an odd scenario indeed… a chain of beings that each rely on an outside member entirely for their existence but yet have no first member to ground the chain, meaning that there would also be no reason for each member in the chain to exist. It’s about as weird as it gets.

Good luck