(Chapter 1) Reap-Reason explains "Esse-Monism."

[Abnormality]

If that’s what he’s saying,
and at this point who the heck knows what he’s saying !
then he’s wrong.

I am not so sure. But lets see what you have.

God is not the existence of created things. The idea is meaningless. It would mean he increased himself by creating other things which is impossible because he’s unchanging.

This is not correct in my opinion. It would only be an increase if God was increasing his “esse”. But that is not what i think Reap was saying. Lets take into consideration that Reap makes an absolute distinction between essence and esse. Also take in to account that the word “conjoined” is not the same thing as saying that two objects have become essentially identical. It seems to me that he is saying God timelessly creates essences by conjoining his esse with the contents of an abstract idea of potential things, but that at no time in this conjoining do esse and essence become the same thing. (Aquinas himself says that even when esse and essence is conjoined they remain distinct; read Aquinas by Edward fesser) So while essences change and become actual, esse does not necessarily change with essence, because they are not the same thing. If esse is not essence, then why does esse have to change?

Now i am not saying that reap is correct, but you have however raised an issue concerning the simultaneous existence of changing things and a timeless thing. This is a rational problem for Catholics since it certainly is not self evidently possible that change and non-change can exist in relation to each other without them having an effect on one-another. Is it meaningful for timelessness to exist? For example; the universe is a continuous chain of actualized potentiality. According to Thomism every event in the universe is dependent upon God for its existence. This means that God is actively actualizing every potential moment. At face value this also appears to contradict Gods timelessness; and even more so in terms of Gods knowledge, since the universe is accumulative and therefore this would imply that Gods knowledge is forced to be accumulative also.

These are problems. But, reap does have one thing in his favor insofar as he stresses the impossibility of causing esse to come out of nothing as a distinct entity. This is an issue that is yet to be dealt with sufficiently, and i can appreciate that Reap at least attempts to subject the issue to rational analysis.

God can’t create something “out of” nothing in the sense that he can’t change what wasn’t already there,

but he can create something where there was nothing.

I don’t understand how this addresses the issue that you cannot get something out of nothing. Creating something where there was nothing is the same thing as getting something from nothing (unless he is merely transporting materials from one place to another). If there is no materials or things from which to create something, then it is impossible to create it; because you cannot get something in the absence of things.

Reap reason, although i am not sure that i can accept his argument, is the only person i have come across that actually tries to address this issue while avoiding pantheism.

 

[Abnormality]

I think you have valid points here.

I don’t quite follow. Creation ex-nihilo is possible also if creatures only participate in God’s being by God’s attribution of an actus essendi (Aquinas) to them.

Thanks for the reply Al Moritz. What do you mean by actus essendi? It appears as if you and reap are saying the same-thing but with different words.

What does creation exnihilo mean? Because it appears to me to be saying that God can do the logically impossible.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks for the reply Al Moritz. What do you mean by actus essendi?

The participation in God’s esse (being). God bestows an actus essendi on His creatures.

For actus essendi, see also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_Essendi

It appears as if you and reap are saying the same-thing but with different words.

That is what I had been suggesting, yes. What I had been questioning was the need for his more radical language.

Yet your initial post pointed out some distinctions that caused me to say “I think you have valid points here”.