Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

[Peter_Plato]

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

Note: I have posted essentially this same reply on the other thread that discusses this same issue.

Despite what you say, I think Linux’s view finds support in the following explanation:

Thus, the whole history of creation, and later salvation, is simply the history of God’s self-communicating or sharing with created beings (entia) the infinite fullness of His Esse. In other words, Ipsum Esse Subsistens has been enjoying the infinite, perfect, highest possible level of existence since all eternity and, subsequently (but not necessarily so), desires to share Its very Esse or Essence with all created beings, i.e., as a gift of participation in God’s perfections. Representing the mature thinking of St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles (written during 1259-1264) and especially Summa Theologiae (1266-1273), for example, are by and large two systematic elaborations of this unmistakable reality.
catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/3.pdf

The point being that created things exist only to the extent that they participate, but not necessarily or essentially so, in the Esse or Beingness of God. Existence is a free gift from God who lovingly shares his existence (esse) with creation. Only God is ipsum esse subsistens because only God necessarily exists as an aspect of what God is. Created things participate in God and only exist (ens) because they do so as a result of God “sharing” with us his being-ness (esse.) Our existence is contingent on God sharing himself with us. God’s existence is a necessary aspect of what he is. That is the meaning of ipsum esse subsistens.

I haven’t seen anything in Linux’s posts that contradicts this. Correct me if I am mistaken.

As to your point that Jesus is the only instance of the Esse of God, I would argue that Jesus is the first instance of a fully human being fully participating in the Esse of God but is also the revelation to humanity by God that God invites all humanity to participate through grace in his divinity. That is what Jesus means by being “born from above.”

The crucial difference between Jesus and other humans is that Jesus was a specific person - the Second person of the Godhead and so was by his very nature or essence one of the three divine Persons of the Trinity. The rest of us are not essentially divine, i.e., by nature, as Jesus was, but can participate in the divine Esse of God because God shares himself with us out of love - his desire to share his own being with us. God divinizes us by his action through grace, it is not something we can achieve on our own because we are powerless to do so and are in actuality nothing without God.

 

[Linux]

As to your point that Jesus is the only instance of the Esse of God, I would argue that Jesus is the first instance of a fully human being fully participating in the Esse of God but is also the revelation to humanity by God that God invites all humanity to participate through grace in his divinity. That is what Jesus means by being “born from above.”

The crucial difference between Jesus and other humans is that Jesus was a specific person - the Second person of the Godhead and so was by his very nature or essence one of the three divine Persons of the Trinity. The rest of us are not essentially divine, i.e., by nature, as Jesus was, but can participate in the divine Esse of God because God shares himself with us out of love - his desire to share his own being with us. God divinizes us by his action through grace, it is not something we can achieve on our own because we are powerless to do so and are in actuality nothing without God.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Linux:

I believe this is true, although I would say that God is “infinite mind” - in the “substance” sense.

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

I have a little problem with this, but I’m sure you will agree: while God is considered the First Cause, more importantly, He is Creator. Creation is causation on incomprehensible steroids.

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 God’s being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.

Agreed.

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

So it would seem.

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

Like living thoughts. But, that’s impossible. God can’t do that!

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Note: I have posted essentially this same reply on the other thread that discusses this same issue.

Despite what you say, I think Linux’s view finds support in the following explanation:

The point being that created things exist only to the extent that they participate, but not necessarily or essentially so, in the Esse or Beingness of God. Existence is a free gift from God who lovingly shares his existence (esse) with creation. Only God is ipsum esse subsistens because only God necessarily exists as an aspect of what God is. Created things participate in God and only exist (ens) because they do so as a result of God “sharing” with us his being-ness (esse.) Our existence is contingent on God sharing himself with us. God’s existence is a necessary aspect of what he is. That is the meaning of ipsum esse subsistens.

I haven’t seen anything in Linux’s posts that contradicts this. Correct me if I am mistaken.

As to your point that Jesus is the only instance of the Esse of God, I would argue that Jesus is the first instance of a fully human being fully participating in the Esse of God but is also the revelation to humanity by God that God invites all humanity to participate through grace in his divinity. That is what Jesus means by being “born from above.”

The crucial difference between Jesus and other humans is that Jesus was a specific person - the Second person of the Godhead and so was by his very nature or essence one of the three divine Persons of the Trinity. The rest of us are not essentially divine, i.e., by nature, as Jesus was, but can participate in the divine Esse of God because God shares himself with us out of love - his desire to share his own being with us. God divinizes us by his action through grace, it is not something we can achieve on our own because we are powerless to do so and are in actuality nothing without God.

I have already argued all these points thoroughly. You can research by going back through this thread and the two other pertinent threads.

I will address two of your points. Thomas never taught that creatures share the esse of God. He specifically taught that God gave creatures their own esse. For this point I refer you to Thomas’ commentary on Peter Lombard entitled "1 Sentences, Distinction 37, ques 1, ans 1 here: www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

I have quoted the entire piece in another post elswhere ( but I guess no one read it ). I suggest you begin at " On the Contrary…" Thomas makes two points very important to the entire debate and to your concerns. He states…" In reply we must say that God is essentially present in all things, not however in such a way that He is mixed with them as a part of anything… ( underline is mine ). Further on he states, " …Now to create is to give the act of being ( underline is mine )

Or again in S.T. Ques 45, 5, from " Reply " on. " Among all effects the most universal is existence itself, which should accordingly be the proper effect of the first and most universal cause, which is God…Now God’s proper effect in creating is that which is presupposed to any other, namely existence tout court.
newadvent.org/summa/1045.htm#article5

The conclusion is obvious, God gives to each being its own act of existence. And he does this by His immediate and sustained action as the agent of this particular effect.

The participation of each created being in the act of being means either to partake of the common note of existence that all created beings have, as in the manner that all men share the note of humanity. Or it means to be the receipient of the causal act of God’s action in giving existence.

Finally, the presence by of God by Grace is not an ontological mixing of two natures, the human and the Divine.

To sum up the most serious of Linux’s errors

1. The Esse of God is the esse of all contingent beings.
2. All creatures have an ontological existence in the Mind of God
3. There is no creation ex nihilo
4. There is no existence outside the Mind of God.

All three of these positions are directly contrary to Catholic Dogma
If these three positions are true then we live in a make believe world, nothing is real.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have already argued all these points thoroughly. You can research by going back through this thread and the two other pertinent threads.

I will address two of your points. Thomas never taught that creatures share the esse of God. He specifically taught that God gave creatures their own esse. For this point I refer you to Thomas’ commentary on Peter Lombard entitled "1 Sentences, Distinction 37, ques 1, ans 1 here: www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

I think you are misreading Aquinas because his overall point is:

Accordingly, it is clear that, since God is the first cause of all things, his power is the most immediate in all things. But because he himself is his own power, not only is he, for this reason, the immediate principle of operation in all things, but he also operates immediately in all things.

This means God exists in all things as the “immediate principle of operation in all things.”

Secondly, he states,

Hence, if a thing’s being is conserved without some agent, that agent will not be a cause of being, but only a cause of becoming, as a seal is the cause of a shape in wax.

This argues against your point that “God gave creatures their own esse” because as Aquinas points out above, if the thing’s being or esse is conserved without God then God would not be the cause of that being’s esse but only the cause of its becoming. The entity would have existence as its own essential nature and thus would be its own ipsum esse subsistens, i.e., would be divine by its own nature. I think you have misread Aquinas.

From my reading, Aquinas would support Linux’s view for the above reasons.

 

[Linux]

I think you are misreading Aquinas because his overall point is:

This means God exists in all things as the “immediate principle of operation in all things.”

Secondly, he states,

This argues against your point that “God gave creatures their own esse” because as Aquinas points out above, if the thing’s being or esse is conserved without God then God would not be the cause of that being’s esse but only the cause of its becoming. The entity would have existence as its own essential nature and thus would be its own ipsum esse subsistens, i.e., would be divine by its own nature. I think you have misread Aquinas.

From my reading, Aquinas would support Linux’s view for the above reasons.

I have said this before, but he will not listen.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have quoted the entire piece in another post elswhere ( but I guess no one read it ). I suggest you begin at " On the Contrary…" Thomas makes two points very important to the entire debate and to your concerns. He states…" In reply we must say that God is essentially present in all things, not however in such a way that He is mixed with them as a part of anything… ( underline is mine ). Further on he states, " …Now to create is to give the act of being ( underline is mine )

You are also misreading this. What Aquinas is arguing is that God is not in all things as some aspect or “part” of them like the bones are “part” of a human body. God is not in human beings or in any other creature as some distinguishable aspect as in, “Well, here we have muscle cells, here are some bone fragments, and over here is the God part.” What Aquinas is arguing is that God is present “essentially” in what the creature is, in its very being indistinguishable from what it is, its esse or act of existence.

Accordingly, it is clear that, since God is the first cause of all things, his power is the most immediate in all things. But because he himself is his own power, not only is he, for this reason, the immediate principle of operation in all things, but he also operates immediately in all things. This does not happen in other causes, however much particular things may have proper operations by which they produce their own effects.

What Aquinas is arguing here is that other causes produce changes or effects in existing things, but do not suffice as the cause that brings about the actual existence of those beings. God is a unique causative agent because God imparts existence not just change on created things. Created things cannot have their own esse because they would, then, not be contingent but self-existent in their own right. However, only God can be self-existent (ipsum esse subsistens) so created things cannot exist in their own right except insofar as they share in the existence or esse of God.

Again, I detect a misreading of Aquinas on your part.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To sum up the most serious of Linux’s errors

1. The Esse of God is the esse of all contingent beings.
2. All creatures have an ontological existence in the Mind of God
3. There is no creation ex nihilo
4. There is no existence outside the Mind of God.

All three of these positions are directly contrary to Catholic Dogma
If these three positions are true then we live in a make believe world, nothing is real.

What on earth do you mean by “real”? Do thoughts not exist?

And surely to think something completely new is to create ex nihilo.

As for (1), no one has been so kind to tell me what an “esse” is, and I’m no Scholastic, so I cannot comment.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What on earth do you mean by “real”? Do thoughts not exist?

And surely to think something completely new is to create ex nihilo.

As for (1), no one has been so kind to tell me what an “esse” is, and I’m no Scholastic, so I cannot comment.

Esse is the Thomistic word that attempts to capture the idea of existence, the act of existence or what it means to be. That a thing is as distinct from its essence or what a thing is. The idea captured in Shakespeare’s “to be or not to be.”

According to Aquinas, God is ipsum esse subsistens. That means God exists purely because of what, or more precisely Who, he is. What he is is indistinguishable from that he is. His essence is “to exist.” To Moses God described himself as “I Am Who Am.” (I Am because I Am?)

Other beings have an essential nature that does not include existence. After describing what they are, the question remains whether they actually do exist. A unicorn is a white, horse-like creature with one horn on its head. That is what a unicorn is. Could unicorns actually exist? Yes. Do they actually exist? Well, no.

For Aquinas, God is unique because his essential nature is “to exist.” God is Uncaused Cause because he is Self-Subsistent or Subsistent Being Itself (ipsum esse existens.) He is the pure act of existence itself. It wouldn’t make sense to ask whether existence actually exists. God is Existence itself or Being itself. Some more modern philosophers have used the term “Necessary Being” as distinct from contingent beings, which sort of captures the idea.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Esse is the Thomistic word that attempts to capture the idea of existence, the act of existence or what it means to be. That a thing is as distinct from its essence or what a thing is. The idea captured in Shakespeare’s “to be or not to be.”

According to Aquinas, God is ipsum esse subsistens. That means God exists purely because of what, or more precisely Who, he is. What he is is indistinguishable from that he is. His essence is “to exist.” To Moses God described himself as “I Am Who Am.” (I Am because I Am?)

Other beings have an essential nature that does not include existence. After describing what they are, the question remains whether they actually do exist. A unicorn is a white, horse-like creature with one horn on its head. That is what a unicorn is. Could unicorns actually exist? Yes. Do they actually exist? Well, no.

For Aquinas, God is unique because his essential nature is “to exist.” God is Uncaused Cause because he is Self-Subsistent or Subsistent Being Itself (ipsum esse existens.) He is the pure act of existence itself. It wouldn’t make sense to ask whether existence actually exists. God is Existence itself or Being itself. Some more modern philosophers have used the term “Necessary Being” as distinct from contingent beings, which sort of captures the idea.

Got it. I’m a modern philosopher, and you’ve successfully translated it into modern terms. Thanks!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What on earth do you mean by “real”? Do thoughts not exist?

And surely to think something completely new is to create ex nihilo.

As for (1), no one has been so kind to tell me what an “esse” is, and I’m no Scholastic, so I cannot comment.

I simply listed the errors Linux promotes. " Real " for the things created by God are things which have an actual existence. This would be opposed to ideas or thoughts

As far as Catholic teaching is concerned, it is Defined Dogma that God created the universe out of nothing. That the universe exists outside of the Divinity and is absolutely distinct from it. That God is present in the universe by His very Being, and most intimately, but as an agent cause is present to its effects, but not so as to mix with His effects. In a similar way fire causes water to heat but fire is not mixed with the water, nor with the steam.

And creatures absolutely do not exist in the Mind of God, except as Ideas.

If any of these errors were true don’t you think that such facts would be important enough for the Church to enunciate those facts in an unmistakeable manner by a Dogmatic statement? But there is none, there is not even any ordinary teaching stating that these are facts which Catholics must hold. Such " facts " are not even suggested. Therefore they are not to be held - no matter what Plato or Linux say…

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

That the universe exists outside of the Divinity and is absolutely distinct from it.

God is absolutely distinct from the essence of the universe. That is all that is meant from the term “outside”. It is not “and outside”. That is an emphasis that you have added.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Note: I have posted essentially this same reply on the other thread that discusses this same issue.

Despite what you say, I think Linux’s view finds support in the following explanation:

The point being that created things exist only to the extent that they participate, but not necessarily or essentially so, in the Esse or Beingness of God. Existence is a free gift from God who lovingly shares his existence (esse) with creation. Only God is ipsum esse subsistens because only God necessarily exists as an aspect of what God is. Created things participate in God and only exist (ens) because they do so as a result of God “sharing” with us his being-ness (esse.) Our existence is contingent on God sharing himself with us. God’s existence is a necessary aspect of what he is. That is the meaning of ipsum esse subsistens.
I haven’t seen anything in Linux’s posts that contradicts this. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Linux has interpreted participation or sharing to mean that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures. I have made ample argument to prove to you and to Linux that such cannot be the case. The esse of creatures is created by God when the creature was created. It is not God’s Esse.

Don’t you think if we actually shared God’s Esse that that " fact " would be important enough that the Church would have defined it so in unmistakable language in a Dogmatic statement? But there is none, nor is there any ordinary teaching to that effect.

Ditto with the other positions Linux has taken, including his contention that creatures actually exist in the Mind of God, or that there is no real creation ex nihilo? Where is the Dogmatic teaching on such assertions, where is the ordinary teaching on them? There is none.

Therefore they cannot be held, period.

As to your point that Jesus is the only instance of the Esse of God, I would argue that Jesus is the first instance of a fully human being fully participating in the Esse of God but is also the revelation to humanity by God that God invites all humanity to participate through grace in his divinity. That is what Jesus means by being “born from above.”

The crucial difference between Jesus and other humans is that Jesus was a specific person - the Second person of the Godhead and so was by his very nature or essence one of the three divine Persons of the Trinity. The rest of us are not essentially divine, i.e., by nature, as Jesus was, but can participate in the divine Esse of God because God shares himself with us out of love - his desire to share his own being with us. God divinizes us by his action through grace, it is not something we can achieve on our own because we are powerless to do so and are in actuality nothing without God.

When you say we participate in Divine Esse out of God’s love, you are speaking of God’s grace working in the soul. That is not an ontological sharing or mixing of natures and that is not what Linux meant when he said that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures. Whatever grace is, it is not a mixing of two distinct natures. So far the Church has no precise Definition of what grace actually is ( as far as I know ) except that it is a special love God bestows on a soul in the State of Grace, moving it to greater conformity to the Divine Will. It is also the bestowal of special gifts upon the soul which are never totally lost.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

it is Defined Dogma that God created the universe out of nothing.

There is nothing in defined dogma that necessitates that this means that God creates a new distinct “esse”. That is an emphasise that you have added.

Neither does defined dogma take into consideration the real distinction between esse and essence as a theological statement. That is an emphasise that you have added.

Neither does creatio ex nihilo necessitate that we must distinguish between the esse of God and the esse of creatures. That is an emphasise that you have added.

Defined dogma merely states that the nature of the universe is not the **nature **of God. And thus how one expresses that claim metaphysically is not as rigid as you want us to believe.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I simply listed the errors Linux promotes. " Real " for the things created by God are things which have an actual existence. This would be opposed to ideas or thoughts

“Things which have actual existence”. God’s thoughts don’t have actual existence? Then how can we talk about them? This is a puzzling view. I assure you, Linus, that the Church does not teach that God’s thoughts are not real.

As far as Catholic teaching is concerned, it is Defined Dogma that God created the universe out of nothing.

Has anyone denied this? You are tilting at windmills.

That the universe exists outside of the Divinity and is absolutely distinct from it. That God is present in the universe by His very Being, and most intimately, but as an agent cause is present to its effects, but not so as to mix with His effects. In a similar way fire causes water to heat but fire is not mixed with the water, nor with the steam.

To say that the universe exists outside of God is a category mistake. There is no “inside” or “outside” with God. God’s thoughts are not inside Him. But surely there is no problem in saying that God’s thoughts are distinct from God, even if Linux is right. To say that “we are God’s ideas” is a metaphor. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, says the Lord.” We are like ideas, in that we are utterly dependent on God and incapable of acting without Him allowing it. To say that the Earth would continue spinning without God’s sustaining action is not a scientific mistake; it is a theological mistake.

If you don’t like the metaphor, that’s fine. But don’t accuse those who use the metaphor of heresy.

If any of these errors were true don’t you think that such facts would be important enough for the Church to enunciate those facts in an unmistakeable manner by a Dogmatic statement? But there is none, there is not even any ordinary teaching stating that these are facts which Catholics must hold. Such " facts " are not even suggested. Therefore they are not to be held - no matter what Plato or Linux say…

Logical fallacy. No Church document tells us dogmatically the answer to the mind/body problem. Why not? Because there are a huge number of potential answers consistent with Church teaching, and there is no moral or epistemic reason for the Church to insist that one of them is correct.

The question of this thread looks like a question in theology, but it is not really. The answer does not impact any central theological issue. Anyone who lives their lives in a different way because of the answer to this question does not understand the question. It is purely speculative.

Most importantly, it has nothing to do with relativism or the rejection of absolute truth.

Have fun with those windmills!

 

[Linux]

If any of these errors were true don’t you think that such facts would be important enough for the Church to enunciate those facts in an unmistakeable manner by a Dogmatic statement? But there is none

I think you misunderstand the roll of theology in comparison to metaphysical thought.

Dogma does not speak of the real distinction between esse and essence. Does that make Aquinas’ thought on the matter unimportant? Obviously not, so your claim is false and irrelevant.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is absolutely distinct from the essence of the universe. That is all that is meant from the term “outside”. It is not “and outside”. That is an emphasis that you have added.

I wasn’t quoting, I was highlighting.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you misunderstand the roll of theology in comparison to metaphysical thought.

Dogma does not speak of the real distinction between esse and essence. Does that make Aquinas’ thought on the matter unimportant? Obviously not, so your claim is false and irrelevant.

I have already told you and others that your interpretation of Aquinas is incorrect. And if I thought it were correct then I would say that Thomas erred on that point or part company with him on that point.

On the other if any of your contentions were true, including the question of the thread, don’t you think that it would be important enough to rate a Dogmatic Statement or at least an item in Ordinary teaching. Neither exists.

As far as the " roll of Theology " I had my fill of, so called, Theologians in the period between 1960 to the present. There is probably no single group of people more deserving of condemnation for their lack of discression ( to be polite ), not to say of loyalty to the Chuch. Of course there are many exceptions.

The same can be said of Philosophers and Scientists or Phds in general. A great many in seem to be nothing but idological mouth pieces ( I had a much more appropriate word which is better left unsaid ).

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Linux has interpreted participation or sharing to mean that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures. I have made ample argument to prove to you and to Linux that such cannot be the case. The esse of creatures is created by God when the creature was created. It is not God’s Esse.

I don’t think this is the case for two reasons

1. Aquinas holds that if God imparts to creatures their own existence then they would subsist in their own right. God would then be the cause of their becoming but the creatures would then have their own existence and would then exist in their own right.

In Aquinas’ own words from a previous post :

Hence, if a thing’s being is conserved without some agent, that agent will not be a cause of being, but only a cause of becoming, as a seal is the cause of a shape in wax.

1. Nowhere in my reading of Aquinas does he categorically state that the esse of creatures is created when the creature was created.

Even the peer reviewed article cited by ProdigalSon2011 interprets Aquinas as claiming that the existence of created things is a “participation” in the existence of God.

Essence/existence composites merely have existence; whatever an essence/existence composite is, it is not its existence. Insofar as essence/existence composites merely have, but are not, existence, they participate in existence in order to exist. This is a second of Thomas’s fundamental metaphysical teachings: whatever does not essentially exist, merely participates in existence. Insofar as no essence/existence composite essentially exists, all essence/existence composites merely participate in existence. More specifically, the act of existence that each and every essence/existence composite possesses is participated in by the essence that exists…

Essences exist, but they do not exist essentially, they participate in their acts of existence. Insofar as an essence participates in its act of existence, the essence limits that act of existence to the nature of the essence whose act it is; for the essence merely has existence, it is not existence, in which case its possession of existence will be in accord with the nature of the essence. The act of existence is thus limited and thereby individuated to the essence whose act it is.
iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#H4

What the author is claiming is that created things participate in existence by virtue of what they have been created to be. It is their essence that determines the extent to which they participate in existence (esse), they do not have their own existence, they participate in the only existence possible, existence itself (God) to the extent that they have been created to participate. It is their essential nature that determines the extent of their participation.

I have never read anywhere in Aquinas that God creates the esse of creatures in the act of creation because existence, for Aquinas, is actualization of potential. God is pure act, existence itself and creatures exist to the extent that they are actualized (exist) by what they are as defined by their essential nature. Esse (existence) is not an add-on feature over and above essence. The essence of a creature determines the extent to which it participates in existence, pure and simple.

Aquinas even distinguishes three senses of participates and settles on the third to describe the way in which creatures participate in existence. As explained in the article cited by ProdigalSon2011:

Thirdly, an effect can be said to participate in its cause, especially when the effect is not equal to the power of that cause. The effect particularises and determines the scope of the cause; for the effect acts as the determinate recipient of the power of the cause. The effect receives from its cause only that which is necessary for the production of the effect. It is in this way that a cause is participated in by its effect.

What the created thing essentially is is what determines the extent to which it participates in existence itself, which is God. The created essence receives from God as cause only that which is necessary for it to exist to the degree that it does exist.

The existence of creatures is not a separate quality distinct from the existence of God. This flies in the face of Aquinas’ entire metaphysic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think this is the case for two reasons

1. Aquinas holds that if God imparts to creatures their own existence then they would subsist in their own right. God would then be the cause of their becoming but the creatures would then have their own existence and would then exist in their own right.

In Aquinas’ own words from a previous post :

And I have shown in previous posts that Aquinas never said that. www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

Your interpretation of this reference does not establish your conclusion. For Thomas clearly states ( to summarize ), " …but not in such a manner that the substance or effect and the cause are mixed in any way…" So if it is said that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures, we have mixed the substance of the effect and the substance of the Cause ( God ). We are saying, that the effect and the cause are the same being.

And in S.T., Part 1, Ques 45, Reply, Thomas says, “…Among all effects the most universal is existence itself, which should accordingly be the proper effect of the first and most universal cause, which is God…” and “…Now to produce existence absolutely …belongs to the meaning of creation…” and further on, “…Now God’s proper effect in creating is that which is presupposed to any other, namely existence, tout court ( or simply)…” It must be concluded that God gives " existence " to the effect as its own act and not as His act. Otherwise Thomas would not say that entire substances were the proper effect of creation. newadvent.org/summa/1045.htm#article5

1. Nowhere in my reading of Aquinas does he categorically state that the esse of creatures is created when the creature was created.

I don’t see what other conclusion we can draw from what I have shown above. I agree, he certainly could have been more clear and definite. All I can say is that if he is interpreted the way Linux insists, then we can only conclude we are God ( and just don’t know it) and the world as we know it is an illusion.

Even the peer reviewed article cited by ProdigalSon2011 interprets Aquinas as claiming that the existence of created things is a “participation” in the existence of God.

There is no evidence that this is a peer reviewed article and even if it where that means nothing. I can show you thousands of peer reviewd articles that are absolute nonesense - and you know it. In regard to this particular one it does not say what you say it does. Your take is itself an interpretation. It does not say that the Esse of God ( or God since we cannot separate God’s Esse from Himself, His Esse is Himself) is the esse of creatures. So do we not then say that God Himself is the esse of creatures. To say it bold and clear puts quite a different light on the statement doesn’t it ?!!

What the author is claiming is that created things participate in existence by virtue of what they have been created to be. It is their essence that determines the extent to which they participate in existence (esse), they do not have their own existence, they participate in the only existence possible, existence itself (God) to the extent that they have been created to participate. It is their essential nature that determines the extent of their participation.

His explanation of " participation " is just as vague as Thomas. The author is giving his interpretation. I notice he did not use Etienne Gilson, a serious omission which says a lot.
Gilson says otherwise and he is a known expert on Thomas. My own view is that to " participate " means to be caused by or simply to be the effect of that cause which is Existence itself. Gilson interpretes Thomas to say that creatures have their own act of existence given to them by God.

I have never read anywhere in Aquinas that God creates the esse of creatures in the act of creation because existence, for Aquinas, is actualization of potential.

I have shown you above. Also, God causes the act of existence both in creation and in the changes in the actualization of potentials.

God is pure act, existence itself and creatures exist to the extent that they are actualized (exist) by what they are as defined by their essential nature. Esse (existence) is not an add-on feature over and above essence. The essence of a creature determines the extent to which it participates in existence, pure and simple.

Agreed, but to assume that God is " adding on someting " in giving a creature existence is a big jump. He creates the creatures " act of existence " along with its essence as He produces a complete substance. We must assume He does something similar in giving existence to the beings undergoing change. Though it is not clear exactly how this is done. We have to infer from the example of creation, that He does it in some manner that does not mean " adding on " something.

Aquinas even distinguishes three senses of participates and settles on the third to describe the way in which creatures participate in existence. As explained in the article cited by ProdigalSon2011:

Yes and I have shown you the same thing in the reference from 1 Sentences. But the article interprets the meaning of " participate " to lead to the desired conclusion. Thomas himself isn’t that bold.

Part 1 of response concluded
Linus2nd