To say that there is no potentiality in God, can only mean that Gods does not begin to exist and does not change. But in order to “create” God must have the potentiality and thus the power to do so.stated in charity (hopefully):
There is no potentialty in God.
He creates from absolute nothingless because of His infinite power!
(Also explains why He can do the impossible!)
Potentiality as in they begin to exist and change.Potency and Act (Potentiality and Act):
All existences are a composite of potentiality and act.
As in God does not begin to exist. However; in Gods pure act, there is the potentiality for the universes existence.God is pure act.
(Thus no potentiality)
I do not need to comprehend infinity to realize that God cannot do the logically impossible. God cannot cease to exist, as this would contradict Gods nature. Also, God cannot get something from nothing, because that would contradict the fact that out of nothing comes nothing.Not being able to comprehend infinitely does not imply irrationality.
I never said that potentiality is the functional cause of Gods power. Gods power determines what God can do. However; if God does something its because the potentiality exists in Gods eternal power to bring that something about.I believe “power” and “potential” do not have the same meaning (one is not the cause of the other).
Gods being is fundamentally logical. Gods nature is the reason why logic exists; because God, in his perfection of being, is the absolute antithesis of nothing. By this i mean that Gods eternal perfect nature is the reason why some things are metaphysically impossible, and God cannot change his Nature. Thus God is subject to the limits of his own nature. God serves the nature of God / Love serves the nature of Love. God is a servant of God.The first principles of logic: subject, predicate.
God is not limited by logic.
God has no potentiality you say? You and I are on the same page when you say “God is pure act or actuality.” There is nothing for God “to become” or evolve to. He is already Perfection in BEING and lacks nothing. There is nothing for God to gain.Potency and Act (Potentiality and Act):
All existences are a composite of potentiality and act.
God is pure act.
(Thus no potentiality)
Not being able to comprehend infinitety does not imply irrationality.
Did you read the link you provided?God has no potentiality you say? You and I are on the same page when you say “God is pure act or actuality.” There is nothing for God “to become” or evolve to. He is already Perfection in BEING and lacks nothing. There is nothing for God to gain.
But where you and I make opposite turns is in your statement God has no potentiality.
An infinite perfection in being WHO is pure actuality can do all things that are possible. St. Thomas Aquinas puts it like this … “whatever is possible - is possible for God.” Thus in what is possible for God to do is His Potentiality. All of creation is contingent existence and depends on God to continue in being. Whereas God does not depend on anything for His existence nor does God “derive” His existence from anything. God SIMPLY IS all that HE IS in Perfection of BEING. Actus Purus. Within God’s Actus Purus is His ability to bring into being that which does not exist (ie - contingent existence). You and I need not exist. If God stopped thinking of you or me or creation for one brief moment - it would no longer exist. We derive our existence moment by moment by the sheer thought and will of God. The Psalmist writes “what is man that you should think of him?”
It is false to say that God has no potentiality. Actuality possesses potentiality - the ability to do or bring something into being that does not exist. What is possible for God to do - is Potentiality, but a Potentiality possessed by Actuality.
Please read the section out of the Catholic Encyclopedia on Actus Purus -
newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm
So that God is not a becoming, as in some pantheistic systems, nor a being whose infinite potentiality is gradually unfolded or evolved. But He possesses at once all perfections. He is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect. What we conceive as His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence includes essentially His existence. For all intelligences except His own, God is incomprehensible and indefinable. The nearest approach we can make to a definition is to call Him the Actus Purus. It is the name God gives to Himself: “I am who am”, i.e., I am the fullness of being and of perfection.
Yes, I did read the link I provided and you are not understanding the distinction I am making about Pure Actuality possessing Potentiality. If we understand that for God “all things are possible - that are possible”, then God has the “potential” to do or act. It is in His Power, Thought and Will to do so. What is possible for God is potentiality. That is the CONTEXT of what I am trying to say. Take it out of context, and you will misunderstand.Did you read the link you provided?
*
Actus Purus* means pure act with no potential. God possesses all perfections and has no potential. God can’t become something else because God is already perfect in every way. If God could change then He would not possess all perfections.
Stop right there.Yes, I did read the link I provided and you are not understanding the distinction I am making about Pure Actuality possessing Potentiality.
Please try to put on your thinking cap. If I have the possibility to do something and the ability to bring that something about (ie - the example of building a chair) - then that possibility is potentiality FOR ME.Stop right there.
If something is pure act by definition it has no potential.
You are proposing that something is both fully actual and not fully actual in the same respect. This is a contradiction.
I have been using the words POSSIBILITY and POTENTIALITY as synonomous. Is there anyone out there trained in Philosophy that can set me straight. Have I gone off the track to think that what is possible for God but not actualized is ‘potential’?Stop right there.
If something is pure act by definition it has no potential.
You are proposing that something is both fully actual and not fully actual in the same respect. This is a contradiction.
This is a contextual confusion. I think the word potential is being used here not in the sense of time or change, but rather it is being used in the sense of God having the power and the will to bring something into existence. It is necessarily true that God has the power to create before (ontologically speaking) he can create; which is little different to when we say that the ball has the potential to caused this particular phenomena. The only different is that, in the case of the ball, the word potential is being used in the context of both change and power; whereas in the context of God, the word potential is being used only in the context of having the power to do something. I think the word potential can be used in the sense of power without suggesting a passage of change.Stop right there.
If something is pure act by definition it has no potential.
You are proposing that something is both fully actual and not fully actual in the same respect. This is a contradiction.
You haven’t gone of track. You are just able to think in a highly abstract manner that allows you to realize a legitimate context in which one can apply the word potential to God without contradicting Gods nature. Your opponent has failed to view God in the abstract manner that you are capable of. But i perfectly understand what you mean. I wouldn’t worry, and there is no use getting frustrated. Some people are just not capable of understanding. No disrespect intended.I have been using the words POSSIBILITY and POTENTIALITY as synonomous. Is there anyone out there trained in Philosophy that can set me straight. Have I gone off the track to think that what is possible for God but not actualized is ‘potential’?
Thank you in advance.
Thank you. That is why I think the doctrine of “exnihilo” does not from a philosophical point of view give a the best or most complete answer. Yes I agree God did not use any “stuff” to create the universe out of nothing. But then again, before anything was created God in His Absolute Perfection of BEING had the possibility (ie - potential) to create the world. Thus in another sense or context, God did not just create out of nothingness, but rather His Potentiality which is completely possessed by His Pure Actuality. As I have mentioned before, one of the greatest misunderstandings of scripture is that “for God all things are possible”. In one context that is true, but in another is not true. Only that which is possible (in the realm of possibility) is possible for God. Therefore God created the Universe (including you and me) out of His Potentiality. That to me is a more fuller understanding philosophically speaking of the doctrine of creation. God’s potentiality (what is possible to God) is not NOTHINGNESS - hence referring back to the topic of this thread.You haven’t gone of track. You are just able to think in a highly abstract manner that allows you to realize a legitimate context in which one can apply the word potential to God without contradicting Gods nature. Your opponent has failed to view God in the abstract manner that you are capable of. But i perfectly understand what you mean. I wouldn’t worry, and there is no use getting frustrated. Some people are just not capable of understanding. No disrespect intended.
There are, as we know, at least two ways to understand the word, “potentiality”. As you said, it can refer to Possibility. In philosophy, particularly Catholic medieval philosophy, it referred more commonly to “Privation”. For Aquinas, for example, motion and the causal occurrence, consisted of three main parts: matter, form and privation. Matter and form are essential properties of being, whereas, privation is an accidental property of being.I have been using the words POSSIBILITY and POTENTIALITY as synonomous. Is there anyone out there trained in Philosophy that can set me straight. Have I gone off the track to think that what is possible for God but not actualized is ‘potential’?
Thank you in advance.