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

[Linusthe2nd]

The distinction points out the difference between that which is reality, and a potential essence which requires reality in order to have an act. It is not just some abstract principle.

" ,and a potential essence which requires reality in order to have an act…"

This is very ackward. It would be more clear to say "…and a potential form which requires an act of to be to exist as a being ( essence, substance, thing). The word " reality " would not be used as you used it in philosophy. Your usage creates confusion.

It really is confusing to speak of potential essence, since in Thomas " essence " usually refers to an existing substance composed of matter and form ( form being usually identified with a particular species of a specific genus). " Essence is often used interchangeabley with the existing substance or being. Essence, being, and substance are used more or less interchangeably. Later Scholatics used the term " Second Substance " to refer to an actually existing Essence composed of particular matter and Substantial Form ( substantial form being a particular species).

Yes, your language needs to be more philosophically precise. Let’s say a really existing composed being is a composit of matter and form. Matter, form, existence have no reality except in actually existing beings. Outside of actually existing beings or substances they are mental concepts only. Even God, the Ipsum Esse Subsistans, is an esse whose essence is to exist…

If you are using " essence " in the sense of " form " or " species, " they are real in actually existing beings. " Treeness " is real in a tree. " Man " is real in a real man.

QUOTE]No i am not trying to prove that all of creation is one esse.

You need to be careful how you use the word " esse " also. It is a Latin word you know. In English it should be translated according to the context. As a noun it means a " being. "
As a verb it means " acting " or in the process of " doing " something. This " acting " or " doing " may be static or active. To actually exist is a static " acting. " To run is " doing " or " acting " which is a process of movement. Or it may be used as a predicate. " To be or not to be is the question." Or John is a man. Or as a participle as in “…the men are acting like fools…”

Go and read the first and especially the second post again. No where in those posts have I said or attempted to prove that creation is by nature one esse. I only said that there is one esse. The distinct essence of creation is contingent upon that esse in-order to exist; but esse and essence are not the same thing, accept in God.

Perhaps we have a language problem. Is English your native language? Would you agree that creation is the action God engaged in which produced the universe? And since the universe depends on God’s action, it is contingent in the sense of being dependent?
However, it is contingent also in the sense that it is limited.

So who or what is the " one esse " you suggest? The only one Thomas talked about is God and that is the only one the Church teaches about. That " one esse " is either radically other than the universe of composed beings, time and space or it is in it. If it is a part of the universe that is pantheism.
According to Thomas only limited beings ( i.e. things which exist or have a " to be ") exist in the universe but they exist only as principles of particular composed beings.
There is no concept of " one esse " in the universe in Thomas. Indeed it is a metaphysical impossibility.

I have said no such thing and can only conclude that you are a deceptive person. Or at least self deceptive since you and empther are so desperate to find error in my arguments without actually presenting an argument.

O.K. I have big shoulders.

Yes. However I said nothing about creation being the same thing as that which I called esse. I have always maintained a distinction between esse and essence, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

???

No there are not. There are multiple essences that are a conjoining of reality and potential.

Right. That is what Thomas taught and what I agree to.
But let’s put it this way; "…There multiple beings which are composed of essence and existence or acts of to be. Each essence is a composit of matter and form and an act of existence ( act of ’ to be ’ ) which comes through or from the form.

reality is always and is absolutely distinct from that which was only potential to begin with.

Right. There is no " pure potential. " It is however a real principle of matter, prime and secondary both.

cont.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Cont. pg 2

Right. There is no " pure potential. " It is however a real principle of matter, prime and secondary both.

Esse is not and is never an intrinsic expression of their nature. There is only one esse; there is only one God.

Here is where you start getting into trouble. Only real beings exist. Existence alone does not exist, except in God ( which you seem to agree to). No one suggests that a being’s esse ( act of ’ to be ’ ) is an " expression of their nature." A things nature is " what it is, " a things act of to be ( its esse ) makes it a " being which exists." The being is a composit of " whatness " and " isness," which is educed from its prime matter or, more properly, its particular dimensioned matter.

But when you say there is only one esse, you are absolutely wrong. That is not only metaphysically impossible, it makes God a part of nature. This is pantheism, and contrary to faith. There is no esse floating around the universe from which composed beings are given a bit. How you ever came up with that idea is a mystery.

This is correct. So long as you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing (the absence of some - thing), It stands irrefutable.

But God did it. See below. I refuted your ideas, so did Thomas.

I am clearly saying no such thing. I always maintain a distinction between esse and essence, and thus I cannot possibly be talking about emanations in the pantheistic sense of the word.

Sure fooled me.

No he has not. He has disproved the straw-men that you have made of my argument. And in your case his metaphysics is of no benefit to you at all if you cannot grasp the ontological consequences that come with the fact that out of absolutely nothing comes nothing.

Fiddle Sticks. See below.

Sure it does. And I don’t think Thomas is infallibly right in everything but I don’t know myself where he has made an error.

Why would you know if he had made error? You are of the impression that God’s “esse” is not an ontological absolute.

O contraire! Where did you get that from?

But rather, there can be many distinct esse’.

Exactly!!

You are treating God as if he is one esse among other esse.

Indeed, God is Pure Existence. The beings of the universe are participated beings, whose acts of existence are limited by the forms ( natures, essences) which receive them. But we can compare the being of creatures to that of God only by analogy.

You have have not fully grasped the rational consequences of claiming that Gods’ essence is his esse, and what it means for a potential essence to be conjoined with esse.

The consequence is that God is Pure Actuality ( uncaused Being) whereas all other beings are composed of two separate principles, essence and existence, which makes them beings by participation ( i.e. limited created, caused beings).

Aquinas never said that material forms are there own esse; which means that they are absolutely distinct in nature; unlike God.

Exactly. They owe their esse ( act of existence ) entirely to God. Right, they are distinct in nature and multiple. I never said anything else, neither did Thomas.

You are misinterpreting Aquinas. You have a superficial understanding of his work.

Fiddle Sticks!!!

Aquinas is an “esse-monist”.

Brotherrrr!!!

Aquinas went as far as to prove that there is a being that is the embodiment of esse. But he never explained how God creates new actual essences. This will always be a stumbling block for atheists, since out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get a new act of reality out of absolutely nothing no matter how infinitely powerful you might be, because it is a metaphysical contradiction

, just like a square triangle is a contradiction. Reality and nothing are absolutely distinct; you cannot attribute to nothing that which is true of reality as an act.

It isn’t just St. Thomas’ arguments that are stumbling blocks. Any argument purporting to demonstrate God’s existence is a stumbling block to them.
Of course Thomas never explained how God creates the beings outside Himself. No one can or could and if you are trying to do it you will drive yourself over the edge. Thomas just described this action of God as a " flux " of power. In other words it is a mystery which we may or may not know, if we ever get to Heaven.
You not only can get a " new act of reality " where nothing existed previously but God, God has done it!!! To say he didn’t is contrary to Defined Catholic teaching and is also to fall into patheism once again.
It is not a metaphysical contradiction, it is a metaphysical necessity.
Of course reality and nothing are absolutely distinct. Neither I nor Thomas have attributed reality to nothing. Look, for an eternity of time there was just God. Then He created the universe in time and space. Prior to that there was no space, no time, no composed beings, only God. " Nothing " has no existence, it is the privation of time, space, and composed being. It would be better if Thomas and the Church had never mentiond the word because it seems to confuse everyone. So Thomas made a mistake and the Church made a mistake ( not really Lord, just illustrating a point)!

I am not trying to complete what Aquinas began; rather than repeating something that is incomplete.

It is true Thomas stopped writing about a year before he died and he never completed the Summa Theologiae but I think he completed his arguments for God’s existence.
In conclusion I will just say, either I can’t read or you can’t write. Perhaps a little of both. But if you are trying to improve on Thomas’ arguments just remember no one up to now has been able to do it.

 

[Alindawyl]

Its one thing to disagree with somebodies writings and give a rebuttal of what they have written, or not understand them and ask for help in understanding them. Its another thing entirely for somebody to accuse me of saying things i have not said. People are clearly putting words in my mouth, and saying that i have said things that i have not said. This is not a sign of good character. I am not going to be bullied or emotionally blackmailed into apologizing for pointing out bad attitude. You don’t have to post here.

You do have the option of addressing the points that i have made. Or you can ignore them and continue with that attitude. But i am not going respond to you anymore if you make that choice.

Perhaps you should stop treating me like an idiot.

If you were presenting this as a masters thesis or doctoral dissertation and took the aggressive and dismissive approach you’re taking here in dealing with the questions of the examining committee, they’d not only throw you out but blackball you among all the professors they deal with at other universities.

There’s no need to be uncharitable and act as if those who have questions about what you’ve written are out to get you, or are of low moral character, or are treating you like an idiot. While I can’t speak for others, all I’m doing is giving my honest impression of what you’ve written. I welcome a further explanation if my impression is incorrect. Simply telling me to re-read what you’ve previously written, and then getting your panties in a bunch and not providing any further clarification when I say that I’m still getting the same impression and, if I’m wrong, NEED that further clarification, does not help.

 

[ReapReason]

act as if those who have questions about what you’ve written are out to get you, or are of low moral character, or are treating you like an idiot. While I can’t speak for others, all I’m doing is giving my honest impression of what you’ve written…

Its evident to me that you have put words in my mouth. Its not a matter of being uncharitable. Its a matter of pointing out facts.

 

[ReapReason]

No one suggests that a being’s esse ( act of ’ to be ’ ) is an " expression of their nature."

If esse is not an expression of its nature, then the issness or esse of its nature is necessarily not apart of what its nature is. It is not an intrinsic part of its nature to exist, since it can fail to exist and has a beginning in existence. Its not its nature to be esse, and never does it become its nature to be esse. Otherwise it would always exist, like God; since Gods esse is his essence; it is his nature to exist and that is precisely why he is eternal. He is the act of reality itself. You cannot get something out of absolutely nothing. It is a metaphysical contradiction. Therefore it is necessarily true that God is the isness of all potential essences; but he is not the essence of all potential essences.

The distinction between esse and essence (an essence that was once only potentially real) is absolute. The conjoining of esse and essence does not make the esse an intrinsic part of its nature. If it is contingent upon esse, then it necessarily follows that it is not esse.

Only God is esse.

There is no escaping this.

If God is not intrinsically the essence of contingent objects, then you cannot say that this is pantheism, since pantheism does not make a real distinction between esse and essence, and evidently neither do you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If esse is not an expression of its nature, then the issness or esse of its nature is necessarily not apart of what its nature is. It is not an intrinsic part of its nature to exist, since it can fail to exist and has a beginning in existence. Its not its nature to be esse, and never does it become its nature to be esse. Otherwise it would always exist, like God; since Gods esse is his essence; it is his nature to exist and that is precisely why he is eternal. He is the act of reality itself. You cannot get something out of absolutely nothing. It is a metaphysical contradiction. Therefore it is necessarily true that God is the isness of all potential essences; but he is not the essence of all potential essences.

The distinction between esse and essence (an essence that was once only potentially real) is absolute. The conjoining of esse and essence does not make the esse an intrinsic part of its nature. If it is contingent upon esse, then it necessarily follows that it is not esse.

Only God is esse.

There is no escaping this.

If God is not intrinsically the essence of contingent objects, then you cannot say that this is pantheism, since pantheism does not make a real distinction between esse and essence, and evidently neither do you.

Well, I’ve done all I can. My analysis stands. You may be trying to say something reasonable but neither I nor anyone else is able to understand what it is. Again, I think your problem is that you have not defined your terms properly or perhaps your grasp of the English language does not come up to the ideas you are trying to express. Chow

 

[ReapReason]

My analysis stands.

No it does not. You refuse to acknowledge my argument merely for the fear that i am arguing for pantheism.

1. If you cannot get something out of nothing then a necessary being must exist, since it is evident, metaphysically speaking, that there is such a thing as existence.
2. What ever nature that necessarily exists is absolute in its existence; it is everything that is true of necessary reality insofar as it is the antithesis of nothing.
3. You cannot get something out of nothing, and therefore it necessarily follows that the only way that a necessary act of reality can create a contingency, is to conjoin its own act of reality with a potential nature, since that which is potential has no actuality of its own. God gives his actuality to the idea of finite objects or natures. But those natures or objects are not “essentially” identical with God when they are conjoined with him. Thus the distinction between creator and creation is maintained.
4. This is the only way that creation is possible since out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get more esse out of nothing.

Conclusion: Therefore esse-monism is true. Like it or not.

If you want to call it pantheism, that’s your problem. Making a straw-man does not change the validity of my argument.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hi ReapReason,

it seems blatantly obvious to me that people have fundamentally misunderstood you, and that you are no pantheist. You are also right to point out that a substantial part of the misunderstanding comes from people not at all grasping the difference between esse and essence, which is crucial to Thomistic philosophy.

Yet I am asking myself what the real difference is to that philosophy, except a more radical terminology for things. Aquinas distinguishes between God’s “esse” (being) and the creatures’ “actus essendi” (act of being). The* actus essendi* is a creaturely participation in God’s esse, which is why God needs to be the sustainer of the universe with all its creatures in it at every moment. But perhaps there is not really that much difference in saying that creatures participate in God’s being, and saying that God’s being is the being of all His creatures.

So I am wondering if you simply say the same thing as Aquinas, but rename it in more radical terms. What new is gained then? After all, you already concede that Aquinas is an “Esse-monist”.

Al

 

[ReapReason]

Hi ReapReason,

it seems blatantly obvious to me that people have fundamentally misunderstood you, and that you are no pantheist. You are also right to point out that a substantial part of the misunderstanding comes from people not at all grasping the difference between esse and essence, which is crucial to Thomistic philosophy.

Yet I am asking myself what the real difference is to that philosophy, except a more radical terminology for things. Aquinas distinguishes between God’s “esse” (being) and the creatures’ “actus essendi” (act of being). The* actus essendi* is a creaturely participation in God’s esse, which is why God needs to be the sustainer of the universe with all its creatures in it at every moment. But perhaps there is not really that much difference in saying that creatures participate in God’s being, and saying that God’s being is the being of all His creatures.

So I am wondering if you simply say the same thing as Aquinas, but rename it in more radical terms. What new is gained then? After all, you already concede that Aquinas is an “Esse-monist”.

Al

Darn, you caught me out.

Ironically, I am not actually saying anything different from Aquinas, and it is in fact my opponents that are in danger of pantheism when they say that the nature of created essences are the same thing as their existence. However, Peoples interpretation of what it really means for there to be a distinction between esse and essence, do tend to differ radically from the logical conclusions that follow such a distinction.

If God is necessary reality, then God is everything that is “naturally” true of the act of existence. Everything else is necessarily artificial. Metaphysically speaking, God is the only natural being. This is to say that everything that is not God cannot exist by its own nature, but rather they are in fact unnatural artefacts found in the act of God. In that respect created things are radically distinct from what reality is in its most fundamental and natural sense. In the context of metaphysics, my essence as a man is not the same thing as being real, it is not my nature to be real. My essence is not an intrinsic expression of reality, otherwise I would always exist; I would be eternally real. Only God is reality; only God is eternal.

To proceed rationally, it must always be understood that Esse or Reality is radically and absolutly distinct from nothingness. So if from nothing comes nothing, if you cannot get the act of reality from nothing, how is it therefore possible for God to create a nature that is its own act of reality from nothing? It is metaphysically impossible for God to create an act of reality that is intrinsically distinct from Gods own act; since that would mean that God has created an act of reality that is radically distinct from the act of reality, manifesting it from that which is the antithesis of reality. That does not make any rational sense. Therefore one has no rational choice but to admit that God is the “isness” or “act” of all potential natures, since from nothing comes nothing. God is the esse of all essence.

This is not the same thing as saying that created essences are the same as God. Rather I am saying that created essences are so radically unlike God, so unnatural to the act of reality, that they require the act of God’s reality in order to be real. In fact it is the distinction between esse and essence that allows Christianity to be free from the error of pantheism; since while my esse is God, my essence is not; my essence is radically distinct from God.

Thus, while there are many distinct essences, there is only one esse. Hence esse-monism.

It is my position that Aquinas is an Esse-Monist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi ReapReason,

it seems blatantly obvious to me that people have fundamentally misunderstood you, and that you are no pantheist. You are also right to point out that a substantial part of the misunderstanding comes from people not at all grasping the difference between esse and essence, which is crucial to Thomistic philosophy.

Yet I am asking myself what the real difference is to that philosophy, except a more radical terminology for things. Aquinas distinguishes between God’s “esse” (being) and the creatures’ “actus essendi” (act of being). The* actus essendi* is a creaturely participation in God’s esse, which is why God needs to be the sustainer of the universe with all its creatures in it at every moment. But perhaps there is not really that much difference in saying that creatures participate in God’s being, and saying that God’s being is the being of all His creatures.

So I am wondering if you simply say the same thing as Aquinas, but rename it in more radical terms. What new is gained then? After all, you already concede that Aquinas is an “Esse-monist”.

Al

You can think what you want Al but you and Reap are both wrong. Neither of you think I understand Thomas, check my posts. Reap is dead wrong, so are you. Thomas was no Esse - Monist. He was a Realist according to his most reliable advocates such as Etienne Gilson. But as I told Reap, the whole O.P. doesn’t deserve more discussion. I certainly don’t intend to .

 

[ReapReason]

You can think what you want Al but you and Reap are both wrong. Neither of you think I understand Thomas, check my posts. Reap is dead wrong, so are you. …But as I told Reap, the whole O.P. doesn’t deserve more discussion. I certainly don’t intend to .

You seem to be in the habit of confusing your assertions with real syllogisms.

You are “dead wrong” that nobody understands my argument.

 

[ReapReason]

Thomas was no Esse - Monist. He was a Realist according to his most reliable advocates such as Etienne Gilson.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

So Esse-Monism argues,

1. There is a nature that is intrinsically Existence.
2. There is only one act of Existence
3. There is no duality in the act of Existence.
4. There is only duality in reference to “natures” or “essences” which begin to be real.
5. Essences that begin to be real are not intrinsically the act of Existence.

Hence the term Esse-Monism so as to distinguish itself from pure Monism.

1. Can you reword and explain what you mean? We might as what the nature of existence is. One could argue that God, or some thing or some being, has, as part of their nature, existence itself (this is highly debated). I’m not sure what you mean by “There is a nature that is intrinsically existence.” I think premis 1 might already be a flaw. You are not saying that there is something that intrinsically exist but that tehre is something that intrinsically is existence… and that does not make sense to me
2. This seems problematic. You are saying the actuality of existence, but existence is by definition something that is actualized. Potential existence is not existence. To say there is an act of existence is literally, as far as I understand it, like saying there is an actuality of actuality or an existence of existence.
3. I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. You may need to better define your terms.

4 & 5) It seems like you have a Platonic conception of existence, which seems self-refuting to your position. For how can existence exist in a realm that is not this realm on your view? For whatever existence is in the realm of the forms, it cannot be material. Also, you are saying existence is something that exists of itself. What is the existence of existence like? I think this is absurd. I think you may need to rethink of how you are defining existence/actuality and how you understand them.

It is debated whether essence is actually a part of a thing’s essence or not. Some think that existence is simply the actuality of an essence, but has nothing to do with the essence itself. The essence of a unicorn is not existence. If a unicorn did exist, existing did not make them any more or less a unicorn in essence, only in actuality. If every human being were to go extinct and cease, the essence of a human being would still exist. It is one thing to say that the essence of something exists, but another to say that existence is a part of a things essence.

Can an essence begin to exist? For example, let us say the essence of a dog eternally exists in some sense, somewhat like Platonic forms. The dog may not have always been actualized materially, but the essence has always existed. So what essence ever begins to exist?

also, on your view, is it meaningful to say that something does not exist? Does nonexistence exist? What is the essence of nonexistence?

Have I misunderstood your argument? Perhaps you can better define your terms. To say something exists is relative. It may exist in the mind, it may exist outside of the mind, perhaps it exists in the realm of the forms, or what have you. Existence is relational and is used to describe something, but cannot exist in itself. For if existence were the only thing to exist… what would that mean? I’m really just asking questions at this point. Looking forward to your answers and clarifications.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If God is necessary reality, then God is everything that is “naturally” true of the act of existence. Everything else is necessarily artificial. Metaphysically speaking, God is the only natural being. This is to say that everything that is not God cannot exist by its own nature, but rather they are in fact unnatural artefacts found in the act of God. In that respect created things are radically distinct from what reality is in its most fundamental and natural sense. In the context of metaphysics, my essence as a man is not the same thing as being real, it is not my nature to be real. My essence is not an intrinsic expression of reality, otherwise I would always exist; I would be eternally real. Only God is reality; only God is eternal.

To proceed rationally, it must always be understood that Esse or Reality is radically and absolutly distinct from nothingness. So if from nothing comes nothing, if you cannot get the act of reality from nothing, how is it therefore possible for God to create a nature that is its own act of reality from nothing? It is metaphysically impossible for God to create an act of reality that is intrinsically distinct from Gods own act; since that would mean that God has created an act of reality that is radically distinct from the act of reality, manifesting it from that which is the antithesis of reality. That does not make any rational sense. Therefore one has no rational choice but to admit that God is the “isness” or “act” of all potential natures, since from nothing comes nothing. God is the esse of all essence.

This is not the same thing as saying that created essences are the same as God. Rather I am saying that created essences are so radically unlike God, so unnatural to the act of reality, that they require the act of God’s reality in order to be real. In fact it is the distinction between esse and essence that allows Christianity to be free from the error of pantheism; since while my esse is God, my essence is not; my essence is radically distinct from God.

That does make sense, but I have never seen anyone formulate what is essentially Thomism in such a radical manner. I understand that you put particular emphasis on the something-out-of-nothing portion, but then again, this is addressed just as well – even though not with such radical terminology – in Aquinas’ concepts of esse and actus essendi, the latter being a participation on God’s esse. So why introduce new terminology when the philosophy essentially stays the same?

You concede that yourself:

Darn, you caught me out.

Ironically, I am not actually saying anything different from Aquinas,

 

[Al_Moritz]

You can think what you want Al but you and Reap are both wrong. Neither of you think I understand Thomas, check my posts.

I have checked your posts, and neither have you shown that you understand Thomas nor you have proven ReapReason wrong. But in order to prove somebody wrong, you first have to understand their position, and you have not shown that either.

Reap is dead wrong, so are you. Thomas was no Esse - Monist. He was a Realist according to his most reliable advocates such as Etienne Gilson.

Sure he was a realist, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You are “dead wrong” that nobody understands my argument.

Indeed. I do.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Indeed. I do.

Good, that makes one ! Challenge, have this " esse - monist " argument published ( you should be able to do that ) and see what the public reaction will be.

Good thing I have thick skin. If you don’t think I understand Thomas, then you would have to say that neither does Edward Feser, Gilson and a host of others.

 

[Abnormality]

That does make sense, but I have never seen anyone formulate what is essentially Thomism in such a radical manner. I understand that you put particular emphasis on the something-out-of-nothing portion, but then again, this is addressed just as well – even though not with such radical terminology – in Aquinas’ concepts of esse and actus essendi, the latter being a participation on God’s esse. So why introduce new terminology when the philosophy essentially stays the same?

You concede that yourself:

Hello Al Moritz.

As far as i can tell, from the little i have read, there does seem to be a subtle difference between this esse-monism and what Aquinas taught. From what i know of Aquinas, he said that Gods nature is the same thing as his existence while created things differ in the sense that they are a composite of nature and existence; and Aquinas seems to stop there. While he does speak of a distinction between esse and essence, he at least appears to be treating the esse of created things as being something distinct from the esse that he attributes to God. Perhaps i am mistaken, but that’s what it looks like to me.

But “Reap Reason” goes further then Aquinas by saying that God is all existence. It does look a bit like pantheism. I can understand why people are saying that. But i can also see how he tries to avoid pantheism by stressing the distinction between esse and essence. He appears to be saying that it is not their individual existence that makes them distinct from God, but rather it is their essence that differentiates them from God.

I don’t know if he succeeds, but i think he brings up a legitimate reason for forming this idea. I agree with him that out of nothing comes nothing. If that is true, then the Catholic idea of creation ex-nihilo is impossible.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hello Al Moritz.

As far as i can tell, from the little i have read, there does seem to be a subtle difference between this esse-monism and what Aquinas taught. From what i know of Aquinas, he said that Gods nature is the same thing as his existence while created things differ in the sense that they are a composite of nature and existence; and Aquinas seems to stop there. While he does speak of a distinction between esse and essence, he at least appears to be treating the esse of created things as being something distinct from the esse that he attributes to God. Perhaps i am mistaken, but that’s what it looks like to me.

But “Reap Reason” goes further then Aquinas by saying that God is all existence. It does look a bit like pantheism. I can understand why people are saying that. But i can also see how he tries to avoid pantheism by stressing the distinction between esse and essence. He appears to be saying that it is not their individual existence that makes them distinct from God, but rather it is their essence that differentiates them from God.

I don’t know if he succeeds, but i think he brings up a legitimate reason for forming this idea. I agree with him that out of nothing comes nothing.

I think you have valid points here.

If that is true, then the Catholic idea of creation ex-nihilo is impossible.

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.

 

[empther]

But “Reap Reason” goes further then Aquinas by saying that God is all existence.

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

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.
Of, if created things were in some way already God, that’s pantheism again.

---

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.