First Cause

[levinas12]

Out of nothing comes nothing.

God created beings out of nothing. Just because He causes them to be and sustains their esse doesn’t mean that their esse is identical with the divine esse.

Aquinas says that beings have a real relation to God. He doesn’t say essences; he says, beings (essence + esse). Beings can’t be different from God unless their esse is different from His.

I noticed you did not address the issue of analogy.

You seem to take the Parmenidean position that esse has only a univocal meaning. I don’t think Aquinas would agree.

 

[levinas12]

Out of nothing comes nothing.

God created beings out of nothing. Just because He causes them to be and sustains their esse doesn’t mean that their esse is identical with the divine esse.

Aquinas says that beings have a real relation to God. He doesn’t say essences; he says, beings (essence + esse). Beings can’t be different from God unless their esse is different from His.

I noticed you did not address the issue of analogy.

You seem to take the Parmenidean position that esse has only a univocal meaning. I don’t think Aquinas would agree.

 

[levinas12]

Out of nothing comes nothing.

Sorry I mangled the quote from your posting. See my previous posting above.

 

[levinas12]

There is a real distinction between your essence and the act of reality. It is not just a categorical distinction; it is an objective and ontological distinction.

I agree that there is a real distinction between finite essence and finite existence. And I agree that this is an ontological distinction.

But I cannot agree that the esse which makes my essence actual is identical with God’s esse.

Is this how Aquinas sees it? Maybe if you could provide some cites.

 

[levinas12]

Nothing is the antithesis of being, and thus it is meaningless to say that this so called new esse is created from nothing. It is not possible to support that position without destroying the ontological foundation of logic itself.

Assume for the sake of argument that God creates both essence and esse out of nothing. Why is that a logical impossibility? Why can’t creaturely esse be distinct from God’s esse? Why can’t beings exercise their own “act to be” without implying that they have caused themselves to be?

When a carpenter makes a table, he is the efficient cause of the table’s coming to be. But this does not imply that the table’s esse is the carpenter’s esse. The table stands on its own (but without being self-caused).

There is a big difference between the carpenter and God. But the world still has been given (by God) a relatively independent existence (in some respects like the table).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Assume for the sake of argument that God creates both essence and esse out of nothing. Why is that a logical impossibility?

1. An existent “no-thing” is a logical contradiction and thus an impossibility. 2. If there is G-d, there is not “no-thing”.

 

[levinas12]

I’d be the first to admit that the question of “esse” is difficult.

Finite esse is not a form that things share in common.

Form is part of finite essence (the other part is matter).

Finite esse is distinct from finite essence.

Every finite being (entity) has its own finite esse which is incommunicable. Each entity exercises its own “act to be”. In this sense, finite esse is a singularity. Contrary to Parmendies, “esse” is not one.

Finite esse allows an entity to be part of reality (understood as the world of entities).

Reality is one in a relative way (“relative” because of the Christian distinction). So Parmendies was not completely wrong.

None of this applies to God’s esse.

Because God is not an entity. God is not a piece of the world, or the whole world. He is absolutely transcendent. He can be totally God without there being a world at all.

This explains why Aquinas says that God does not have a “real” relation to His Creation. Only entities can have “real” relations.

 

[levinas12]

typo!

Parmenides … not Parmendies

 

[levinas12]

1. An existent “no-thing” is a logical contradiction and thus an impossibility. 2. If there is G-d, there is not “no-thing”.

Well, God is not a thing. Yet He exists. So He is an existent “no-thing”.

“No-thing” does not mean “nothing”.

I guess we need to ask: “What is a thing?”

Heidegger has a nice book precisely on this question.

 

[levinas12]

… Parmendies

yikes, a typo!

**Parmenides **… not Parmendies

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well…

An existent nothing is a flat out logical contradiction. Heidegger ain’t got the cure for that.

 

[levinas12]

An existent nothing is a flat out logical contradiction. Heidegger ain’t got the cure for that.

The world is not a thing. Language is not a thing. Time and space are not things.

So they are no-things. But they are not nothing.

Again, we need to clarify what a thing is and what a no-thing is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The world is not a thing. Language is not a thing. Time and space are not things.

So they are no-things. But they are not nothing.

Again, we need to clarify what a thing is and what a no-thing is.

Nothing your saying here leads me to believe that an existent nothing is anything less than a logical contradiction. In fact, I only see you asserting A=notA. I don’t know what kind of clarification can change that state of affairs.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The world is not a thing. Language is not a thing. Time and space are not things.

So they are no-things. But they are not nothing.

Again, we need to clarify what a thing is and what a no-thing is.

That takes an expert. Who do you suggest? A theologian or scientist?

 

[rel1]

*Here is some thoughts that you can rip apart if you would like. I thought I would interject a bit of reality to the previous posts. I’d be interested to know of which statements you agree or disagree with.

Something did not come from nothing.

Everything in existence is interrelated and dependent on something else.

There cannot be anything in existence that is truly independent of space, matter and energy
.
There is nothing of substance that is truly infinite.

Only the CYCLE of life and death is perpetual/ infinite.

All that exist will eventually die and recycle or be reabsorbed into other matter and energy.

Even matter and energy gets recycled.

A cause is not independent of an effect. Inner and outer energy/motion, matter and space is the dna of a cause.

A cause by itself does not and cannot exist in reality.

The concept of God is ALL encompassing! :cool*

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The world is not a thing.

This is an assertion without an explanation.What do you mean by “things”. We mean things in the sense of having an act of reality; being real as opposed to being absolutely nothing. The world is a thing in the sense that it is not a nothing. We both know that this is the sense and the context in which the word was and is being used. Its not difficult to see, and playing around with words will not change the fact that you are dealing in a logical contradiction.

Language is not a thing.

.

The meaning that we apply to sounds and words are things. Concepts are things. Thus language is a thing, its just not a physical thing.

Time and space are not things. .

They are things insofar as they are not no-things.

So they are no-things. But they are not nothing…

The words no-thing is the same as the word nothing. Perhaps you are using the word “things” in a sense that doesn’t apply to the ontological context of this debate?

I thought so.

Again, we need to clarify what a thing is and what a no-thing is.

It was clarified by the context of the debate and you knew that the only way you could preserve an appearance of reason was to play around with the meanings of words and create confusion. You did that because you know that something out of nothing,* in the ontological context that we were using the word*, leads to a logical contradiction. If you truly wasn’t sure about what we mean, then why would you not just give your rebuttal by first establishing what you mean by the word nothing and also the word things, rather than giving out weak assertions, which you obviously cannot back up. You have wasted every-bodies time with your ridiculous display of semantics which has only served to anger me. Perhaps this was your goal?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That takes an expert.

All it takes is the ability to think rationally.

Who do you suggest? A theologian or scientist?

I suggest somebody who understands the epistemological place and limitations of science, a philosopher in fact, who knows that science first requires rational member’s of the human species in order to function reasonably since science prepossesses the objectivity of a rational reality given that science and true knowledge is of course first and foremost dependent on rational thinking. Otherwise people will interpret the data in all kinds of irrational manners that have no objective meaning; such as the idea that a thing can come from nothing. While this may please peoples own desire to recreate reality as they see fit, it will not lead us to true knowledge if we cannot interpret things rationally. In other words, i would not choose science for the job and i wouldn’t choose you.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Again, we need to clarify what a thing is and what a no-thing is.

Wouldn’t a statement such as “that which has no definable attributes” suffice for no-thing?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Wouldn’t a statement such as “that which has no definable attributes” suffice for no-thing?

It is simply that which does not have either esse or essence/ reality or natures. The problem with your statement is that there maybe things beyond our comprehension that we cannot define because its beyond our epistemological reach. So you will have to further explain the context in which you use the word define. Is it ontological or epistemological. You could say that it is that which has no ontological attributes. But they will not be satisfied with that either. You will keep having to give definitions until you get tired of the game.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

"Soldier Of God:

Wouldn’t a statement such as “that which has no definable attributes” suffice for no-thing?

It is simply that which does not have either esse or essence/ reality or natures.

Then I’ll accept this definition of no-thing.