G
Gloria1
Guest
[W]hat is the difference between essence and existence.
[Edited by Moderator]
[Edited by Moderator]
- Status
M
mschrank
Guest
[Edited by Moderator] I’ll give you one.
- Essence is what is inherent to that thing. Existence is inherent to God it is in God’s nature to Exist. God says, “I AM”.
- Existence is a property of some thing.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Essence and Existence in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
St. Thomas Aquinas answers the question whether essence and existence are the same in God.
St. Thomas Aquinas answers the question whether essence and existence are the same in God.
G
Gloria1
Guest
thanks very much for your answer! I really appreciate it! stay blessed!
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
MSC:
I hope you won’t mind my asking this. If essence is what is inherent to something or someone, and existence is inherent to God, then do you believe essence is existence?
To put it in a crude logical form:
If S = essence
and
I = Being inherent
and
X = to existence
And if
S = I
and
X = I
then
S = X
I’m just curious if this is what you are saying.
J
JimG
Guest
Existence is being. Anything which exists has the quality of being.
Essence is the answer to the question “what” is it that exists? It is the nature of a thing.
Only in God is essence equal to existence.
Essence is the answer to the question “what” is it that exists? It is the nature of a thing.
Only in God is essence equal to existence.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Jim:
Please explain what you mean by saying, “Only in God is essence equal to existence.”
J
JimG
Guest
Essence is the nature of a thing. My nature is “human.” A dog’s nature is canine. Spock’s nature is “Vulcan.” I have existence as a human being. But God’s essence is “to be.” His nature is existence itself, which is why He holds existence as necessary and not as contingent.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Hence His name: “I Am that Am”.
Obviously there is “more” to God than just existing, but only in the sense that pure, infinite existence is more than we can even begin to comprehend. Pure, infinite, eternal existence is still the very Essence of God, it just means more than we can speak with the word “existence”, and includes all “Divine Attributes” in a single unity.
Peace and God bless!
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thank you Ghost and Jim!Quote:Originally Posted by JimG forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif Essence is the nature of a thing. My nature is “human.” A dog’s nature is canine. Spock’s nature is “Vulcan.” I have existence as a human being. But God’s essence is “to be.” His nature is existence itself, which is why He holds existence as necessary and not as contingent.
Hence His name: “I Am that Am”.
Obviously there is “more” to God than just existing, but only in the sense that pure, infinite existence is more than we can even begin to comprehend. Pure, infinite, eternal existence is still the very Essence of God, it just means more than we can speak with the word “existence”, and includes all “Divine Attributes” in a single unity.
Peace and God bless!
I suppose, then, that logically what you are both saying is this:
God’s essence (S) is existence (X)
I think you both also agree with these premises:Since
Something or someone (M) is his, her or its essence (S)
it follows that
God (G) is His essence (S)Putting this in a simple logical form, the line of reasoning with which i come up is this:
S = X
and
G = S
therefore
G = X
That is, the logical conclusion that follows from what you are both saying is that God is existence. Is this correct?
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, God is existence. Not only is his essence equal to existence, but each of his attributes is identical to his essence. In other words God’s omnipotence = God’s Mercy = God’s Omnipresence, etc. His attributes are not something that he possesses as addendums to his existence but as his very essence.That is, the logical conclusion that follows from what you are both saying is that God is existence. Is this correct?
Humans and other creatures on the other hand, possess existence only contingently, and not as identical to our essence.
We tend to view “existence” as something passive, but Aquinas, I believe, also states that as between Act and Potency, God is all Act and no potency, thus he exists at an infinite and perfect level.
If the verb “to be” were a regular verb, we could say that God "be"s more than you and I, even an infinite extent more.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
What you are saying sounds wise, yet when i try to think it through, i run into a difficulty. Please allow me to explain:
I am a human being who, because i have conscious thought, know i exist. Whether i’m awake or dreaming, sane or out of my mind, i cannot tell. That my mind has existence as one of its attributes is certain, for, as Descartes wrote, “I think, therefore I am.”
Now, you say something that i have never considered before. For, i believe that the evidence is sound that God has existence as one of His attributes, but you are saying something else. Rather than saying God exists, you claim that He IS existence.
Putting these two premises together, the logical conclusion astonishes me: God is one of my attributes. The line of reasoning, in imperfect form, is this:
A = X
X = G
therefore
G = I
where
A is an attribute that i have
and
X is existence
and
G is God
Are you saying that on of my attributes is God? or do you think it is more accurate to say that God has and gives existence, rather than saying God is existence? or am i guilty of the sin i often commit of misunderstanding?
G
Ghosty
Guest
No, you kind of existence is fundamentally different from God’s, but analogically similar. He exists eternally, infinitely, and singularily; you exist contingently and compositely. The same word, existence, is used not because we have precisely the same thing as God in this case, but because contingent existence is an “aping” of true Divine Existence. It’s similar to how we could call both a basketball, and a picture of a basketball, “basketballs”.What you are saying sounds wise, yet when i try to think it through, i run into a difficulty. Please allow me to explain:
I am a human being who, because i have conscious thought, know i exist. Whether i’m awake or dreaming, sane or out of my mind, i cannot tell. That my mind has existence as one of its attributes is certain, for, as Descartes wrote, “I think, therefore I am.”
Now, you say something that i have never considered before. For, i believe that the evidence is sound that God has existence as one of His attributes, but you are saying something else. Rather than saying God exists, you claim that He IS existence.
Putting these two premises together, the logical conclusion astonishes me: God is one of my attributes. The line of reasoning, in imperfect form, is this:
A = XX = GthereforeG = IwhereA is an attribute that i haveandX is existenceandG is GodAre you saying that on of my attributes is God? or do you think it is more accurate to say that God has and gives existence, rather than saying God is existence? or am i guilty of the sin i often commit of misunderstanding?
Peace and God bless!
J
JimG
Guest
Your existence is not an attribute, rather it is that in which attributes inhere. However, with God, each of his attributes is really identical with his existence, which is held as a necessity, not as a contingency.
Since God creates everything from nothing, the existence of all creatures depends on him. To us an analogy stolen from Frank Sheed, when I create something, perhaps a chair or a sculpture, and then I go off and leave it, it is held in existence by the material of which it is made–the wood or stone.
But God creates everything from nothing. If he creates, then goes off and leaves his creation, it is kept in existence only by that from which it was created–that is, nothing. The conclusion is that the very existence of you and I and all creation depends from instant to instant on God’s continuously holding us in existence. That is what it means to be a contingent creature!
I think it was Thomas Merton who wrote of the contemplative life that one can look into the core of one’s being and find God there; he must be there, otherwise we would cease to exist. (And that presence is of course, distinct from the spiritual indwelling of the Trinity, which is an added gift of the life of grace.)
Since God creates everything from nothing, the existence of all creatures depends on him. To us an analogy stolen from Frank Sheed, when I create something, perhaps a chair or a sculpture, and then I go off and leave it, it is held in existence by the material of which it is made–the wood or stone.
But God creates everything from nothing. If he creates, then goes off and leaves his creation, it is kept in existence only by that from which it was created–that is, nothing. The conclusion is that the very existence of you and I and all creation depends from instant to instant on God’s continuously holding us in existence. That is what it means to be a contingent creature!
I think it was Thomas Merton who wrote of the contemplative life that one can look into the core of one’s being and find God there; he must be there, otherwise we would cease to exist. (And that presence is of course, distinct from the spiritual indwelling of the Trinity, which is an added gift of the life of grace.)
H
Hastrman
Guest
The answer is what is known as “participation”. That which exists partakes of or participates in existence, while not being identical with it. Existence is one of its attributes. However, the essence of existence (God) is a subsistent form, that is, one that is real independently of anything partaking of it. Whiteness, for example, is not a subsistent form–whiteness is real only insofar as any given thing is white.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
It seems the two of you disagree. Jim, you say existence is not an attribute. Hast, you say existence is an attribute. However, perhaps your disagreement is merely an apparent one (i.e., the disagreement might not actually exist)?
Will each of you explain on what you appear agree or on what you seem to disagree?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, Ghosty, i see what you mean. Yet, i’m reminded of these words of Christ:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
(John 3:16)
If you agree that these words ring true, do you also assent that God can give to you or i the same infinite existence (i.e., the same eternal life) that He has?
J
JimG
Guest
I think it’s only an apparent disagreement. I agree with what Hastrman wrote. To the extent that we possess existence only contingently, it could be viewed as an attribute of humanity, (as opposed to the essence of humanity.) God possesses existence as his very essence. The one thing impossible to God is non-existence. Non-existence would be “nothing” and nothing IS impossible to God.It seems the two of you disagree. Jim, you say existence is not an attribute. Hast, you say existence is an attribute. However, perhaps your disagreement is merely an apparent one (i.e., the disagreement might not actually exist)?
Will each of you explain on what you appear agree or on what you seem to disagree?
G
Ghosty
Guest
That would be the participation in the Life of Grace, which is the very life of God, but not in the same what God has it.
Just as existence is true and real, but not quite the same as God’s manner of existing, the Life of Grace, or participated Divine Life, is true and real, and really is the Life of God, but is not possessed by us in the same way.
We can share in the Life of God, but we can not become the Life of God as God Himself is. We can have God, but not be God. We can know God, but we can’t comprehend God. All of these are expressions of how we can have the same attributes of God, but yet be fundamentally different.
Now, participation in the Life of Grace is above and beyond anything that can be natural, since Divine Life is not a creature by definition. God could no more create a creature that naturally lives with Divine Life than He could create Himself; it’s a contradiction in terms for Divine Life to be a creature. God CAN add His life on-top of nature, however, elevating it up to His level. Grace can only come “after” creation, however (and I use after not in the sense of time, but in the sense of causal priority).
St. Thomas Aquinas uses the example of fire and metal: metal can be heated by fire right up to the temperature and brightness of the fire, and it aquires the characteristics of fire such as light and heat, but it never becomes fire. It is as distinct in nature as ever, despite “participating” in all the essential aspects of fire. We are like the metal, and God is like the fire.
Peace and God bless!
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
OK, thank you all. You’ve given me something to think about.
- Status