Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

[Linusthe2nd]

We can view this problem in another way.

Where does the entirety creation as a whole exist?

One can argue that to speak of “where” is meaningless. We can say there is no such thing as a place outside of space since you have to have space before you can coherently speak of a place.

On the other-hand, we cannot coherently say that the universe exists in absolutely nothing at all.

So where ((analogously speaking) does creation exist?

If it cannot exist in nothing, there is only one other option. The universe Exists in Gods Mind or being; but not as a part of God’s nature, rather as a distinct nature.

Nothing can exist in God’s mind without being God Himself. God Is whatever we attribute to or of Him because God is Simple and Undivided in His Essence. See all of my prior postings. Nowhere does the teaching of the Church suggest or infer either or both that our substance exists in the Mind of God or that God’s Esse ( which is His Actus Esse, which is His Existence, which is God ), is the esse of creatures.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think you really understand what you are talking about.

It is only required that contingent essences are distinct from God.

Nothing you have said supports this claim

You misunderstand. I am not simply talking about “creatures” as separate from the universe; I am talking about the entirety of creation.

What does that even mean? So long as God is ontologically distinct from the nature of created things, there is no issue.

I think you should hand it over to people who are capable of fully grasping the concepts of what is being said.

Your sense of self importance has no basis in reality.

You have misrepresented and misconstrued just about everything I have said and ignored the refrences I have given you from ST Thomas. You have planted your flag in the ground and ignore all evidence and valid arguments against it. In other words, no matter what proofs and reasons one offers against it, your flag still flys.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

I took a look at Fr. Barron’s book Catholicism, which has more or less the same content as the DVD series by the same name. In chapter 3, on “The Ineffable Mystery of God,” he does not say that we exist in the mind of God, or that we exist only in the mind of God, but some passages touch on that idea.

Barron writes that Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as a young theologian in 1968 wrote of (in Barron’s words) “a great Intelligence who has thought the universe into being.” In that section, Barron was describing an argument for God’s existence based on the intelligibility of creation.

Also I found this interesting passage:

[Theologians] speak, for instance, of God’s omnipotence. By this they don’t mean that God is the strongest being around; they mean that God, as the very ground of existence, presses on all things with an unconditioned power. Similarly, they assert that God is omniscient. Again, this doesn’t mean so much that God is the smartest being in existence; it means that God knows the entirety of the universe into existence and hence is inescapably and personally present to every aspect of it. … Theologians speak as well of God’s omnipresence, but this should never be taken to mean that God is the vague “force” or “energy” described by devotees of the New Age. Instead it means that God transcends any particular space and hence can be construed as being present to every space.

This sounds like the reference I recall. In particular, the quote from Pope Benedict referring to God as, “a great Intelligence who has thought the universe into being.” I do believe this is a useful analogy for creation that keeps us away from both pantheism and deism.

Linus,
I am not clear how this would entail that creation is, therefore, the same substance as God, since God “thinking” a being into existence would imply that the nature (form and material) of that thing is also “thought” into being by God. Such a being exists (has been brought into being or actualized by God), but that does not mean the being is of the same nature as God because the entirety of what it is (substance and nature) has been “thought” into existence as a contingent being. God is the “ground” of existence - that which gives reality to all that exists - but that need not entail that the substantial nature of created reality is God’s nature, but only that the existence of contingent things is grounded in God who is existence itself.

 

[Beryllos]

Very interesting discussion. Can’t say that I follow every word, but parts of it make sense.

Linux, perhaps you misunderstood my objections to your first assertion:

He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.

Had you written that God has an infinite mind or intellect, I would have accepted that with the understanding that it describes the “mind of God” in human terms, which is to say it may not even be analogous, but it’s a start. However, you wrote that God is an infinite mind or intellect, and I cannot accept that.

Here’s one way to understand what I am saying: Our attempts to understand God are like medical X-ray images. A hand, for example, is three-dimensional, it is made up of different tissue types with different functionalities, it can be used in many ways, for example, to manipulate, to sense, and to communicate, and there is a certain self-feeling (proprioception) associated with it. An X-ray picture reduces all this “essence of the hand” to a two-dimensional monochrome projection. So when you say God has intellect and will, I say yes, but in ways that we cannot pretend to understand.

When physicians want more information, they do a CAT scan or MRI. They could even feel the hand, listen to it, or smell it. In a similar way, when we want to understand God better, we consider and analyze him as an intellect, a father, a creator, a judge, a king, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, a lover, or simply Love. We pray, we spend time, we listen, we just “be with God.” All of these things bring us closer to the truth, closer to an accurate understanding, though still limited by our humanity.

 

[CrispSnowflake]

Apparently so, because that’s what Rebecca Gibbs said in the play “Our Town”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things ( proceedings from the Council of Trent on the Creator and Creation)

The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God,
creator and lord of heaven and earth,
almighty,
eternal,
immeasurable,
incomprehensible,
infinite in
will,
understanding and
every perfection.
Since he is
one,
singular,
completely simple and
unchangeable
spiritual
substance,
he must be declared to be in reality and in essence,
distinct from the world,
supremely happy in himself and from himself, and
inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
This one true God,
by his goodness and almighty power,
not with the intention of increasing his happiness,
nor indeed of obtaining happiness,
but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what he creates,
by an absolutely free plan,
together from the beginning of time
brought into being from nothing
the twofold created order, that is
the spiritual and the bodily,
the angelic and the earthly,
and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body [10].
Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well [11] . All things are open and laid bare to his eyes [12] , even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.

The underlined phrase above indicates that creatures are distinct from God. And since they are distinct from God, God is also distinct from them. That is that creatures exist outside of their Creator. So there is no way creatures could exist in the Being of God, nor could the Being of God be in creatures in such a way as to mix with their natures. He can be said to be present in creatures in three ways. The only important way here is that whereby He is present in His creatures as a cause is present to its effect.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things ( proceedings from the Council of Trent on the Creator and Creation)

Sorry. I meant Vatican Council 1

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

The underlined phrase above indicates that creatures are distinct from God. And since they are distinct from God, God is also distinct from them. That is that creatures exist outside of their Creator.

There is no outside of God. God is the antithesis of nothing. Since creation in its entirety cannot exist in absolutely nothing , there is no where else for creation to be accept in the mind of God; the antithesis of nothing.

To speak of creation existing outside of the mind of God would mean that therefore there are distinct finite quantities of existence moving around in absolutely nothing, that the universe is expanding into absolutely nothing; but since absolutely nothing is not an actual thing, it makes no rational sense for these finite beings to be moving around in it.

It is not hard to see the logical problem and the necessity of saying that in God we move and have our being. But if you are a do or die Catholic that is absolutely convinced of the conspiracy that Linux is trying to turn Catholics in to pantheist, then you will almost certainly turn a blind eye to the problem and do as Linus is doing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no outside of God. God is the antithesis of nothing. Since creation in its entirety cannot exist in absolutely nothing , there is no where else for creation to be accept in the mind of God; the antithesis of nothing.

To speak of creation existing outside of the mind of God would mean that therefore there are distinct finite quantities of existence moving around in absolutely nothing, that the universe is expanding into absolutely nothing; but since absolutely nothing is not an actual thing, it makes no rational sense for these finite beings to be moving around in it.

It is not hard to see the logical problem and the necessity of saying that in God we move and have our being. But if you are a do or die Catholic that is absolutely convinced of the conspiracy that Linux is trying to turn Catholics in to pantheist, then you will almost certainly turn a blind eye to the problem and do as Linus is doing.

On the contrary, what I supplied was Defined Catholic Dogma. The whole of creation exists outside the Being of God. That does not stop Him from working most intimately throughout His creation it such a manner that there is no place He is not present. This is also Defined Catholic teaching. He is present in His Eternity, we are outside that Eternity in our finiteness.

Linus2nd

 

[Beryllos]

Linux, when you say “exist in the mind of God,” do you mean “exist only as a thought in God’s mind”?

 

[Linux]

Linux, when you say “exist in the mind of God,” do you mean “exist only as a thought in God’s mind”?

No. In any case I don’t know what it entails for God to have a thought. For all I know as soon as God has a creative abstraction that abstraction becomes a distinct and actual being.

 

[Linux]

On the contrary, what I supplied was Defined Catholic Dogma. The whole of creation exists outside the Being of God. That does not stop Him from working most intimately throughout His creation it such a manner that there is no place He is not present. This is also Defined Catholic teaching. He is present in His Eternity, we are outside that Eternity in our finiteness.

Linus2nd

Defined Dogma is not a statement of metaphysics. And even if It was, the use of the term outside is obviously used in the context of distinguishing between two natures that are not identical. It could only mean that Gods essence is absolutely distinct from the essences found in creation. It does not mean that creation exists outside of God’s being.

You obviously are not interested in actually addressing anybodies argument and are more interested in showing them to not be in line with your beliefs. On that note I bid you farewell.

 

[tonyrey]

Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.

It is more accurate to say God is Love, i.e. dynamic goodness.

1. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.

God is not in any human category like “causes” and “beings” and “first”. Such terms are analogical - like “Love” and “dynamic goodness”.

1. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite. Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.

That is true with the proviso that all language attempting to describe God is analogical. Nothing we think or say about the Supreme Being is literally true. We are confronted with the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans”. (Rudolf Otto).

1. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God.

]To single out “mind” or “intellect” as the basis of our existence is misleading.

The simplest approach is to accept the fact that without God neither we nor anything else would exist rather than try to draw conclusions about the dynamics of divine Creation from human language.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This sounds like the reference I recall. In particular, the quote from Pope Benedict referring to God as, “a great Intelligence who has thought the universe into being.” I do believe this is a useful analogy for creation that keeps us away from both pantheism and deism.

Linus,
I am not clear how this would entail that creation is, therefore, the same substance as God, since God “thinking” a being into existence would imply that the nature (form and material) of that thing is also “thought” into being by God. Such a being exists (has been brought into being or actualized by God), but that does not mean the being is of the same nature as God because the entirety of what it is (substance and nature) has been “thought” into existence as a contingent being. God is the “ground” of existence - that which gives reality to all that exists - but that need not entail that the substantial nature of created reality is God’s nature, but only that the existence of contingent things is grounded in God who is existence itself.

And I agree. I was objecting to the origianl thesis as stated :

" Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.
2. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.
3. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite.Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.
4. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God "

It is true that God does think us into existence. But the exact way is that He wills us into existence.

We cannot reach the conclusion the O.P. reaches the way he has stated the " argument. " We do exist outside the Mind of God because we are utterlly distinct. And this is Defined Dogma. God also permeates His existence. This also Defined Dogma. But this does not mean that we exist in the Mind of God. For eventhough there is no created " space " where God is not, He suffuses His creation as a cause is in contact with its effect ( i.e. similar to touching ), as Thomas says. God is in His Eternal Now, we are in our temporal finiteness. Therfore, we cannot exist in the Mind of God. And to say this as a metaphore is dangerous because too many people take it literally.

And it is such thinking and some responses to it that prompted my thread that " Philosophy/Theology can be dangers to ones salvation. Just look at some of the comments people make on deep subjects. It is clear that they are fireing off without sufficient knowledge or thought or just as a prank, or whatever.

Just read Linux’s comments above. He simply wrong. He has a fixation on the idea that we exist in God’s Mind. Christians cannot agree to that at all.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

On the contrary, what I supplied was Defined Catholic Dogma. The whole of creation exists outside the Being of God. That does not stop Him from working most intimately throughout His creation it such a manner that there is no place He is not present. This is also Defined Catholic teaching. He is present in His Eternity, we are outside that Eternity in our finiteness.

Linus2nd

I am objecting to the imprecise phrasing of your " thesis. " It is misleading in the extreem and therefore dangerous.

Go back to my post # 65 and read it again. That is the exact language used by Vatican 1.

Now the following is the way Ott expresses the pertinent section in his " Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma " : " All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced by God. "

What this is saying is that God and His creation are two utterly different realities. And while it is true that God suffuses His creation, He does so as a cause is present immediately to its effect. Or, as Thomas expresses it, not so as to mix or comingle with it. The only way we can exist in God’s Mind is as a thought or Idea.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And I agree. I was objecting to the origianl thesis as stated :

" Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.
2. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.
3. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite.Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.
4. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God "

It is true that God does think us into existence. But the exact way is that He wills us into existence.

We cannot reach the conclusion the O.P. reaches the way he has stated the " argument. " We do exist outside the Mind of God because we are utterlly distinct. And this is Defined Dogma. God also permeates His existence. This also Defined Dogma. But this does not mean that we exist in the Mind of God. For eventhough there is no created " space " where God is not, He suffuses His creation as a cause is in contact with its effect ( i.e. similar to touching ), as Thomas says. God is in His Eternal Now, we are in our temporal finiteness. Therfore, we cannot exist in the Mind of God. And to say this as a metaphore is dangerous because too many people take it literally.

And it is such thinking and some responses to it that prompted my thread that " Philosophy/Theology can be dangers to ones salvation. Just look at some of the comments people make on deep subjects. It is clear that they are fireing off without sufficient knowledge or thought or just as a prank, or whatever.

Just read Linux’s comments above. He simply wrong. He has a fixation on the idea that we exist in God’s Mind. Christians cannot agree to that at all.

And as I have frequently reminded you, metaphysics/theology, for Catholics, must always be guided by Catholic teaching. And since you are on a Catholic site, it applies to any philosophy discussion you engage in on this site - whether or not you are a Catholic.

Linus2nd

 

[Beryllos]

On that note I bid you farewell.

Roger and out, good buddy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Very interesting discussion. Can’t say that I follow every word, but parts of it make sense.

Linux, perhaps you misunderstood my objections to your first assertion:

Had you written that God has an infinite mind or intellect, I would have accepted that with the understanding that it describes the “mind of God” in human terms, which is to say it may not even be analogous, but it’s a start. However, you wrote that God is an infinite mind or intellect, and I cannot accept that.

Here’s one way to understand what I am saying: Our attempts to understand God are like medical X-ray images. A hand, for example, is three-dimensional, it is made up of different tissue types with different functionalities, it can be used in many ways, for example, to manipulate, to sense, and to communicate, and there is a certain self-feeling (proprioception) associated with it. An X-ray picture reduces all this “essence of the hand” to a two-dimensional monochrome projection. So when you say God has intellect and will, I say yes, but in ways that we cannot pretend to understand.

When physicians want more information, they do a CAT scan or MRI. They could even feel the hand, listen to it, or smell it. In a similar way, when we want to understand God better, we consider and analyze him as an intellect, a father, a creator, a judge, a king, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, a lover, or simply Love. We pray, we spend time, we listen, we just “be with God.” All of these things bring us closer to the truth, closer to an accurate understanding, though still limited by our humanity.

I think you need to read your Catechism. God is absolutely simple and undivided, Infinite and Eternal. His Being is His Intellect and His Will and His everything. That is why St. Thomas said He is simply the Pure Subsisting Act, absolutely Perfect, He Who Is,

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This sounds like the reference I recall. In particular, the quote from Pope Benedict referring to God as, “a great Intelligence who has thought the universe into being.” I do believe this is a useful analogy for creation that keeps us away from both pantheism and deism.

Linus,
I am not clear how this would entail that creation is, therefore, the same substance as God, since God “thinking” a being into existence would imply that the nature (form and material) of that thing is also “thought” into being by God. Such a being exists (has been brought into being or actualized by God), but that does not mean the being is of the same nature as God because the entirety of what it is (substance and nature) has been “thought” into existence as a contingent being.

Agreed.

God is the “ground” of existence - that which gives reality to all that exists - but that need not entail that the substantial nature of created reality is God’s nature, but only that the existence of contingent things is grounded in God who is existence itself.

This is where you are wrong. God is the ground of the existence of creatures because He gives them their own existence. And that is what the Catholic Church teaches and that is precisely what Linux is denying. Catholic Dogma and the Scriptures make it absolutely clear that God and creatures are absolutely distinct. God is absolutely transcendent to creatures. Linux is attempting to finess his way out of that box. For what reason I have no idea.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no outside of God. God is the antithesis of nothing. Since creation in its entirety cannot exist in absolutely nothing , there is no where else for creation to be accept in the mind of God; the antithesis of nothing.

To speak of creation existing outside of the mind of God would mean that therefore there are distinct finite quantities of existence moving around in absolutely nothing, that the universe is expanding into absolutely nothing; but since absolutely nothing is not an actual thing, it makes no rational sense for these finite beings to be moving around in it.

It is not hard to see the logical problem and the necessity of saying that in God we move and have our being. But if you are a do or die Catholic that is absolutely convinced of the conspiracy that Linux is trying to turn Catholics in to pantheist, then you will almost certainly turn a blind eye to the problem and do as Linus is doing.

There is no problem with Catholic teaching, the problem is with those who refuse to be instructed, who place their " understanding " or lack thereof ahead of truth.

You have laid great stress on the logic of your " thesis. " In fact your " thesis " is based on groundless assumptions. The whole purpose seems to be directed at Catholic Doctrine. Your very first assumption is simply the statement that, There is no Esse but God. And from that groundless assumption, your errors continue to multiply.

Your first assumption is wrong because we obviously exist, so God could not be the only esse. You have attempted to finess your way aroung this obsticle but you cannot do it without violating Catholic Dogma even more.

No. I don’t know what your object in all this may be. All I know is that no Catholic can accept it.

Linus2nd