Can we say that "God IS" is an objective truth?

[TheSecondMile]

What does it mean to say that “God is” as opposed to saying “Kenny Loggins is”?

You were not addressing me but I answered this earlier in the thread:

Also, I just would like to add a point of clarification regarding the statement “God IS” and “God exists.” By this we do not mean that “God has existence” or “God receives being” as if it were an accident, but rather that God is the act of being. That is, he gives being and exists through his essence, which is pure act.

EDIT: St. Thomas gives the example of a phoenix and a man. You could know everything about the essence of both without knowing anything about whether or not they exist because their essence and existence are distinct. God is that reality in which they are not distinct, his essence is to be.

 

[ChainBreaker]

You were not addressing me but I answered this earlier in the thread:

EDIT: St. Thomas gives the example of a phoenix and a man. You could know everything about the essence of both without knowing anything about whether or not they exist because their essence and existence are distinct. God is that reality in which they are not distinct, his essence is to be.

You are saying God is existence? What does it mean for God to give existence, and what does it mean for a creature to receive or have existence?

If essence and existence are distinct in somethings then what is existence in relation to an essence.

 

[TheSecondMile]

You are saying God is existence? What does it mean for God to give existence, and what does it mean for a creature to receive or have existence?

If essence and existence are distinct in somethings then what is existence in relation to an essence.

For a creature to receive existence means that its existence, not being caused by the principles of its essence, is caused by an external efficient cause. For example, my existence, not being caused by the principles of my essence, is caused by an external efficient cause, my parents. My parents also have received their existence from an external efficient cause and so on and so on. God’s existence is caused by the principles of his essence. In this way God is the source of all being.

Essence and existence are related. Existence actualizes essence. That is, Existence is the actuality of essence. The composition of essence and existence are beings that owe their existence to something external to their essence.

 

[ChainBreaker]

For a creature to receive existence means that its existence, not being caused by the principles of its essence, is caused by an external efficient cause. For example, my existence, not being caused by the principles of my essence, is caused by an external efficient cause, my parents. My parents also have received their existence from an external efficient cause and so on and so on. God’s existence is caused by the principles of his essence. In this way God is the source of all being.

Essence and existence are related. Existence actualizes essence. That is, Existence is the actuality of essence. The composition of essence and existence are beings that owe their existence to something external to their essence.

You speak of the composition of essence and existence. Do they remain distinct in that composition and if so what is “existence” as that which is distinct from the essence?

 

[TheSecondMile]

You speak of the composition of essence and existence. Do they remain distinct in that composition and if so what is “existence” as that which is distinct from the essence?

Essence tells us what it is and existence tells us that it is. Yes, they are distinct in composts, otherwise it wouldn’t be a composite.

I suggest On Being and Essence by St. Thomas. It is, in my view, the greatest contribution to metaphysics since Aristotle.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is an important difference between truth and fact. God may be considered a truth, but there is no way, at this point, to list the same as a fact. To be considered fact, you must have tangible and testable evidence…revelation, etc. are matters of faith.

Only if you are a materialist, naturalist, etc. That God exists is a fact deduced from observation of reality, as Thomas Aquinas would say. And Revelation is an equally valid source for saying God exists. And even revelation is not blind faith, there are many good reasons for believing revelation is true. So there is nothing subjective about God’s existence. It does not matter that many reject both modes of knowledge, that just shows they lack objectivity, their judgment is clouded by subjective thinking in many ways.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In speaking of the distinction between essence and exitence we have to keep in mind that in the material universe an essence is composed of matter and form which exists. Existence is what makes material substances to be actually existing things. Existence, strictly speaking, is not in composition with the substance or essence, it is an act, a power given by God which makes a thing/substance exist in reality. For example, a runner is participating the act of running. I am participating in the act of existing, it is somthing I am doing. Existing is the act of a living tree, it is engaged in the act of existing. So while existence is not a part of any composit, the composit cannot exist without it. It is an act that pervades every particle of its matter and makes the form compose with its proper matter. You could compare it a glue that holds things in reality.

Then there are angels. They are pure essences which exist. But their act of existence is limited just like the act of existence of material substances because their act of existence has been given to them by God, and it is limited by their particular essence, which says, " this much existence and no more. "

God, on the other hand is a pure essence which is his own existence, he is existnece in a perfect and infinite way. He is pure subsistent existence, that is his essence.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Truth is always absolute. Otherwise it is violation of the principle of contradiction. A statement or fact cannot be both true and subjcetive at the same time in the same respect. The very foundations of society, science, learning, religion, and communication are based on this fact.

Linus2nd

I am not clear that this is true. Perhaps it might be true that things cannot exist in themselves and in a mind at the same time and in the same respect - I say “perhaps” because some of the key figures in Thomism have argued that the ability of the intellect to grasp the form or essence of things is an argument for the reality of mind.

So, it might be that the material aspect of things cannot exist in the intellect, but the substantial form of things could. In which case, when something is known (i.e., the truth of a thing) it exists in the mind of the knower, that is, the truth is subjectively known AS the truth.

Your “violation of the principle of contradiction” claim seems to rely on Kantian rather than Thomistic metaphysics.

Pardon me, while I duck behind this log for a moment – I expect some return fire on this one. :manvspc:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am not clear that this is true. Perhaps it might be true that things cannot exist in themselves and in a mind at the same time and in the same respect - I say “perhaps” because some of the key figures in Thomism have argued that the ability of the intellect to grasp the form or essence of things is an argument for the reality of mind.

So, it might be that the material aspect of things cannot exist in the intellect, but the substantial form of things could. In which case, when something is known (i.e., the truth of a thing) it exists in the mind of the knower, that is, the truth is subjectively known AS the truth.

Your “violation of the principle of contradiction” claim seems to rely on Kantian rather than Thomistic metaphysics.

Pardon me, while I duck behind this log for a moment – I expect some return fire on this one. :manvspc:

Yes, I would disagree with you. Certainly I know the universal forms of things in my mind. But my intellect judges that these universals exist in particular external beings which actually exist. Thomas’ " theory of knowledge " is not subjective in the sense that our knowledge of universals is not based in facts existing outside the mind. This knowledge is subjective only in the sense that it exists in my mind. That does not exclude the reality of those things existing outside the mind, from which these universals have been abstracted.

Thomas does say that we do not know the particular as such. That does not mean it does not exist or that we cannot know it. We know it by an act of judgment. There is no doubt in my mind that I am using my computer to typw a response to your comment. And my computer is an objective reality, it is objectively true and I know it. There is nothing subjective about it. It actually exists and I know it. If Thomas disagrees with that, then he is wrong. The fact is, if we do not know the real particular things/material substances which exist outside our mind, then we could not exist and function in the world God created for us. .

So I stand by all that I have said.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That God exists is a fact deduced from observation of reality, . . .

Not disagreeing, I would say that God exists as a fact, described and clarified in the teachings of the Church, which are guided by the Holy Spirit and ever developing in time.
In some respects, this is similar to the courts where it is the judge who determines what the facts are of a case, or science whose methods empirically define what are the facts concerning the universe.
The facts about the nature of God and His relationship with mankind, are a guide to developing one’s own relationship with Him as part of a community.
And, it is within that relationship that they reveal themselves as truth.

 

[oldcelt]

Only if you are a materialist, naturalist, etc. That God exists is a fact deduced from observation of reality, as Thomas Aquinas would say. And Revelation is an equally valid source for saying God exists. And even revelation is not blind faith, there are many good reasons for believing revelation is true. So there is nothing subjective about God’s existence. It does not matter that many reject both modes of knowledge, that just shows they lack objectivity, their judgment is clouded by subjective thinking in many ways.

Pax
Linus2nd

That is all very much open for discussion, which means…it is not a fact…but a belief.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is all very much open for discussion, which means…it is not a fact…but a belief.

My faith in the existence of God and the Truths the Catholic Church teaches are objective truths. And it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe them.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Truth is always absolute. Otherwise it is violation of the principle of contradiction. A statement or fact cannot be both true and subjcetive at the same time in the same respect. The very foundations of society, science, learning, religion, and communication are based on this fact.

Linus2nd

Really? There are three scenarios available, A) either we both are right, B) one of us is wrong, C) both of us are wrong.

(A) is incorrect since we don’t agree with each other
(B) is incorrect since we are intellectual beings and we should agree on absolute truth if we have access to it
(C) is correct since that is the only option

Yeah, truth being a utility of mind becomes objective since Jesus said “I am”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Really? There are three scenarios available, A) either we both are right, B) one of us is wrong, C) both of us are wrong.

(A) is incorrect since we don’t agree with each other
(B) is incorrect since we are intellectual beings and we should agree on absolute truth if we have access to it
(C) is correct since that is the only option

Yeah, truth being a utility of mind becomes objective since Jesus said “I am”.

Yes, God exsists. And that is an objective truth. These are true statements whether or not you agree. Truth does not demand universal agreement. There will always be people who lack intellectual perception .

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

For a creature to receive existence means that its existence, not being caused by the principles of its essence, is caused by an external efficient cause. For example, my existence, not being caused by the principles of my essence, is caused by an external efficient cause, my parents. My parents also have received their existence from an external efficient cause and so on and so on. God’s existence is caused by the principles of his essence. In this way God is the source of all being.

Essence and existence are related. Existence actualizes essence. That is, Existence is the actuality of essence. The composition of essence and existence are beings that owe their existence to something external to their essence.

As far as, “God’s existence is caused by the principles of his essence.”

Isn’t God referred to as the “uncaused cause”.

Concerning God’s essence, God’s essence is LOVE.

Love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

One of the things about attempting to explain the “causation” of God is to point out our trying to explain something that is beyond our comprehension and all that we seem to do is puff ourselves up and “puff down” God.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, God exsists. And that is an objective truth. These are true statements whether or not you agree. Truth does not demand universal agreement. There will always be people who lack intellectual perception .

Linus2nd

In fact absolute truth demands universal agreement. How it could be otherwise? Truth could however be completely personal.

 

[dedo]

One thing that interests me is to inquire about how a system works, and why it works that way.

Christian theology before the fall of Satan makes it clear that all the angels knew absolutely that God existed; however, many of the angels did not know God. These angels followed Satan. Then evil came into creation and on and on.

Thus, if that was the experience of God, it would make no sense to build another system where beings could know of God’s existence for certain, without knowing God.

So, in our current existence, you must seek God to know “for certain” whether God exists, or not.

There is no other way.

 

[Tom_Baum]

That is all very much open for discussion, which means…it is not a fact…but a belief.

I happen to agree with you that a belief is a belief and knowledge is knowledge and that “belief and knowledge” are two different words with two different meanings.

Even Jesus seems to have said something to that effect when He said, “Blessed is he who believes and has not seen”, He did NOT say, ‘Blessed is he who KNOWS and has not seen’.

I believe what I believe and do NOT know if all of my beliefs are true, I know a little and I would stake everything on the few things that I know as being true even tho there is NO way that I can prove some of what I “know” as being “fact”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In fact absolute truth demands universal agreement. How it could be otherwise? Truth could however be completely personal.

And that is not true, which should be obvious - but apparently not to you. I can give you thousands, millions of examples to prove you are wrong. For example, the earth circles around the sun every 365 days. Yet there was a time when people thought the sun circled the earth. This disbelief does not change the absolute truth that the earth circles the sun every 365 days. So your statement is wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

One thing that interests me is to inquire about how a system works, and why it works that way.

Christian theology before the fall of Satan makes it clear that all the angels knew absolutely that God existed; however, many of the angels did not know God. These angels followed Satan. Then evil came into creation and on and on.

Thus, if that was the experience of God, it would make no sense to build another system where beings could know of God’s existence for certain, without knowing God.

So, in our current existence, you must seek God to know “for certain” whether God exists, or not.

There is no other way.

And just why would God have to follow what you consider to be “sense”?

And as far as “build another system”, do you really consider the spiritual creation and the material creation to be absolutely two totally independent separate systems?

Ever given any thought to what you seem to think of as two “totally different systems”, whatever that may mean, as being one system that is interdependent?

Ever given any thought that God just might have had the “whole of creation” in mind, so to speak, before any of creation was started?