Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 2 of Response

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.

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.

Agreed except for the way you have chosen to interpret " participates. " I think the proper way to interpret it is to say the effect participates by being caused. It illustrates the real relationship to its cause, not that the effect and the cause share in the same ontological act of existence. For that is a hurdle that cannot be leaped without turning the creature into God.

You cannot divide God into parts. His act of existence is Himself, it is God. So when it is said that the esse of creatures is the act of existence of God, it must be said that the esse of creatures is God and that is so near to something akin to Pantheism that it cannot be admitted. And if it is said that the esse of creatures is not God, then it must be admitted either, that the creature has been given its own act of existence by God or that the creature has no act of existence - that the creature has no actual existence, that the entire universe is an illusion.
,

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

And I have just shown that this cannot be. Either Thomas does not say that and I do not think that is what he says or we have to reject Thomas on this point, no matter the cost.

Linus2nd