Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

It certainly does mean that creation is outside of God’s Being. If it is not outside God’s Being, then it and God are one and the same. And no Catholic can accept that.

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.

I have addressed your " arguments " until I am weary to death. And of course they are contrary to Catholic Teaching. They are also contrary to some central elements of Thomas Aquinas and just plain common sense. One does not have to be a genius to see just how wrong you are.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

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.

Pot calling the kettle black. You have not addressed my argument rationally. And every-time I make a logical argument, you avoid the argument by accusing me of heresy; either that or you just simply assert what ever you like… Red herrings all the way down.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pot calling the kettle black. You have not addressed my argument rationally. And every-time I make a logical argument, you avoid the argument by accusing me of heresy; either that or you just simply assert what ever you like… Red herrings all the way down.

Anyone who has followed these debates know I have given you pages of arguments and also have backed them up with the Teachings of the Church on key points. Of course you and everyone else are welcome to form their own opinions - after they have read the respective posts.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For those interested, the O.P. seems to have been inspired by his post of Jan1,2013 : " Deeppak chopra: We Exist In God’s Mind

---

I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, however he has some interesting points on what is and what is not objective physical reality. And I would like to discuss the implications of his thought.

A fruitful discussion will require you to watch the video. Thanks.

huffingtonpost.com/deepak…_b_604476.html

"

And this has led to other errors in other of his posts.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linux]

For those interested, the O.P. seems to have been inspired by his post of Jan1,2013 : " Deeppak chopra: We Exist In God’s Mind

---

I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, however he has some interesting points on what is and what is not objective physical reality. And I would like to discuss the implications of his thought.

A fruitful discussion will require you to watch the video. Thanks.

huffingtonpost.com/deepak…_b_604476.html

"

And this has led to other errors in other of his posts.

Linus2nd.

This is a Red Herring.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

“As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant diversionary tactic.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a Red Herring.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

“As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant diversionary tactic.”

Oh no, It is right on point - you just don’t want to admit it. One error leads to another.

Linus2nd.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So I scanned through a number of the posts on this thread, and I’m trying to figure out what the point is. Suppose Linux were right. Why would this create any problems?

I think the claim that we are all “ideas”, as it were, in the mind of God, is perfectly compatible with orthodox Christianity. It does not deny the notion of substance; it just corrects the notion so that the notion is not incoherent. It does not entail that God is the author of sin. Berkeley wrote extensively on this topic, and his claims receive far too little respect today.

So I’m not sure why I shouldn’t just say that Linux is right, and then we can move on. Is there some theological problem with idealism?

 

[empther]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

Quote:
Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

Is God the esse of all contigent essences?

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Previously I wrote the following in the thread :

Quote:
A Challenge to Philosophers / Theologians / Others

which challenges this pantheistic humbug.

On Linuseht2nd’s recommendation,
I will copy this post to the other two threads listed above.

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.

All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Quote:
Quote:
I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man’s tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.
Here, Aquinas points out that the human intellect cannot be material or it could not know everything humans know, virtually any idea that is presented to it.

Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is ) of God.

---

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Previously I wrote the following in the thread :

which challenges this pantheistic humbug.

On Linuseht2nd’s recommendation,
I will copy this post to the other two threads listed above.

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.

All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is ) of God.

---

 

[Ganesha]

Most definitely and he exists in our mind as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Actually, pantheism is the claim that God is nothing but the universe taken as a totality. This is not Linux’s view at all, as far as I can tell. The idea that the entire cosmos exists in the mind of God logically entails that God exists as far superior Being itself (esse ipsum subsistens) upon which all the cosmos depends but completely independent of the cosmos. Which means the cosmos exists as an entity completely contingent on God. A thought would not exist without a thinker, but a thinker need not have any particular thought and, indeed, no thought at all. The universe would simply cease to exist should God choose not to think about it.

At least part of the issue stems from our Cartesian legacy where the very existence of a thinker depends upon the thinker having thoughts: I think, therefore I am. Personally, I think Descartes got it backwards. It should be stated as, “I am, therefore I can think.” Thinking presumes the existence of a rational being, even for Decartes

You misunderstand what pantheism is if you think Linux’s view is a form of pantheism. In pantheism God is one with the universe in the sense of being nothing but the universe.

What Linux - among others who have offered the idea that the universe is thought into existence by God - is proposing is not very far from the very Biblical view that the universe was “spoken” into existence through God’s Word or Logos. Since thought precedes word, at least for humans, then the Scriptural presentation of God figuratively “saying” or “speaking” all of creation into being - “God said, ‘Let there be light!’” - seems to presuppose that God had the cosmos “in mind” before he spoke it into existence (actualized it.)

I think part of the confusion stems from thinking of “the mind of God” as having some location or other, as if the universe is “located” in the mind of God and, therefore, “in” him as if God, like the cosmos, must also have spatial continuity. This idea comes from applying a “too literal” understanding to the analogy which I doubt is even intended by Linux.

This is not even a question of proposing pantheism, it is merely one of whether the analogy of mind → thought is as apt an analogy for creation as speaker → word. I think both have merits and neither one is intended to be a complete expression of the idea of God’s relationship to creation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think part of the confusion stems from thinking of “the mind of God” as having some location or other, as if the universe is “located” in the mind of God and, therefore, “in” him as if God, like the cosmos, must also have spatial continuity. This idea comes from applying a “too literal” understanding to the analogy which I doubt is even intended by Linux.

Yeah, I think the basic idea is just a rejection of the notion that the world would continue to exist – or matter would continue to exist – without God “continuing” to think it. (I put scare quotes around “continuing” because God does not continue to do anything, strictly, since God is outside time.) Thus, the basic idea is very much Aquinas’s view of existence, not Descartes’s view.

Another metaphor that might help is the metaphor of a book. God is the author of creation, but the characters have a certain amount of free reign to determine their own actions. Nevertheless there will be no next word in the book unless God keeps writing. Obviously the book is not identical to the author of the book.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So I scanned through a number of the posts on this thread, and I’m trying to figure out what the point is. Suppose Linux were right. Why would this create any problems?

I think the claim that we are all “ideas”, as it were, in the mind of God, is perfectly compatible with orthodox Christianity. It does not deny the notion of substance; it just corrects the notion so that the notion is not incoherent. It does not entail that God is the author of sin. Berkeley wrote extensively on this topic, and his claims receive far too little respect today.

So I’m not sure why I shouldn’t just say that Linux is right, and then we can move on. Is there some theological problem with idealism?

Then you have not understood what the issues actually are.
And yes, we could just accept what Linux says and just move on. But in that case we must agree that there is no such thing as truth, that all conclusions are equally valid and true.

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then you have not understood what the issues actually are.

OK, then can you tell me what the issues are?

But in that case we must agree that there is no such thing as truth, that all conclusions are equally valid and true.

Huh? Linux is obviously making a truth claim. Is he also claiming that everything is subjective? Can you point me to a post?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually, pantheism is the claim that God is nothing but the universe taken as a totality. This is not Linux’s view at all, as far as I can tell. The idea that the entire cosmos exists in the mind of God logically entails that God exists as far superior Being itself (esse ipsum subsistens) upon which all the cosmos depends but completely independent of the cosmos. Which means the cosmos exists as an entity completely contingent on God. A thought would not exist without a thinker, but a thinker need not have any particular thought and, indeed, no thought at all. The universe would simply cease to exist should God choose not to think about it.

At least part of the issue stems from our Cartesian legacy where the very existence of a thinker depends upon the thinker having thoughts: I think, therefore I am. Personally, I think Descartes got it backwards. It should be stated as, “I am, therefore I can think.” Thinking presumes the existence of a rational being, even for Decartes

You misunderstand what pantheism is if you think Linux’s view is a form of pantheism. In pantheism God is one with the universe in the sense of being nothing but the universe.

What Linux - among others who have offered the idea that the universe is thought into existence by God - is proposing is not very far from the very Biblical view that the universe was “spoken” into existence through God’s Word or Logos. Since thought precedes word, at least for humans, then the Scriptural presentation of God figuratively “saying” or “speaking” all of creation into being - “God said, ‘Let there be light!’” - seems to presuppose that God had the cosmos “in mind” before he spoke it into existence (actualized it.)

I think part of the confusion stems from thinking of “the mind of God” as having some location or other, as if the universe is “located” in the mind of God and, therefore, “in” him as if God, like the cosmos, must also have spatial continuity. This idea comes from applying a “too literal” understanding to the analogy which I doubt is even intended by Linux.

This is not even a question of proposing pantheism, it is merely one of whether the analogy of mind → thought is as apt an analogy for creation as speaker → word. I think both have merits and neither one is intended to be a complete expression of the idea of God’s relationship to creation.

Is there a universal standard by which we determine what Pantheism is? The point is that the positions held by Linux is opposed to Catholic Dogma.

And Linux has not shown any inclination to agree that his positions are merely misunderstandings. On the contrary, he has been adamant that he is correct.

According to your line of thinking and that of Prodegalson, we need not object to anything - all truth is relative.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

According to your line of thinking and that of Prodegalson, we need not object to anything - all truth is relative.

If things are in God’s mind, then they don’t exist? I don’t get it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is there a universal standard by which we determine what Pantheism is? The point is that the positions held by Linux is opposed to Catholic Dogma.

And Linux has not shown any inclination to agree that his positions are merely misunderstandings. On the contrary, he has been adamant that he is correct.

According to your line of thinking and that of Prodegalson, we need not object to anything - all truth is relative.

Linus2nd

Now that you bring it up, there need not arise anything like the claim that all truth is relative from Linux’s position. Truth is absolute. Truth is that which is, that whch exists absolutely. However, that fact does not mean any of us has an absolute grasp of the truth. Our understanding of truth is necessarily limited and, in some sense, metaphysically relative because of inherent limitations that prevent us from taking it all in, from seeing the “overall” perspective that God has. There is a difference between claiming 1) truth is relative because there is no absolute truth and 2) our relative perspective means we cannot grasp the whole truth and, therefore, our understanding of the truth is somewhat relative.

The other issue is whether we as rational beings are capable of recognizing the truth when we see it. I would argue that we are capable, with grace, to do so. However, our fallen state interferes with accepting it because in many ways truth makes demands that we do not always have the inclination to carry out so we deny those aspects of the truth which we don’t want to accept.

I do not think Linux is promoting relativism of any kind. He is proposing a way of envisioning a “large” view of creation by analogy to thinker → thought. I don’t see that entailing relativism of the first sort (no absolute truth exists) unless you reduce the mind of God, as the thinker behind the universe, to a mind very like a human mind, which is not at all what Linux has presented. God as Absolute Being could be the only ground for absolute truth. His thoughts are not our thoughts precisely because in the absolute manner in which God thinks, he gives rise to reality, creates it and brings it into existence.

According to Linux’s view God creates reality by thinking it into existence. That reflects the awesome power of God. Our minds work with fleeting reflections of reality, but we do access reality to some extent, though not completely and not purely. However, we, unlike God, do not “create” reality by thinking it, we only “visualize” it to a limited extent.

 

[empther]

Linusthe2nd says it like it is ( post 93 in “Is God the esse of all contingent things?” ) …

Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd says it like it is ( post 93 in “Is God the esse of all contingent things?” ) …

Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.

Linus2nd

Thank you again. It is clear that some minds just can’t be reached. They are too clever by half.

The world seem to be divided between the eternal sophists, skeptics, the gullible, and the reasonable.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If one considers the case of the Incarnation, God does assume a human nature and so pervasively that the composition is a Person, the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. And instead of supporting Linux’s argument, it supports my own.

First of all this is a miracle. But in the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. For in the instance of the rest of creation this is not the case, because in them their esse is their own. In the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. This demonstrates that the " conjoining " the Esse of God to that of a creature is Miracle and is not the case for the rest of creation. For them, their esse is their own.

Secondly, the instance of the Incarnation it proves that if the Esse of God is " conjoined " with the essence of a creature, the resulting being is God. And this is a result that Linux has steadfastly denied. For it is his contention that to " conjoin " the esse of God to the essence of a creature does not make the resultant being identical to God. That is, it does not turn it into God. Conversely, it has been my contention that to " conjoin the Esse of God to the essence of a creature transforms the creature into God.

So, the instance of the Incarnation proves my argument correct and demonstrates that Linux’s argument is wrong on these points.

So, the instance of the Incarnation is the one instance in which the creature is truely in the mind of God. It also proves what happens when the Esse of God is the esse of the
creature - you get God!!!

Linus2nd