God as Ground of Being

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve encountered this idea among some liberal religionists. It seems to be from some of the writings of Paul Tillich and John Shelby Spong. I have been unable to get a clear definition or explanation of what it means, that is, God is the ground of being. Does anyone here know what is meant by that expression and how, if anyway, does it relate to other conceptions of God?

 

[JohnDamian]

What does “Ground of Being” mean?

If it means first in the heirachy of existence this would be incorrect. Catholic theologians (starting with Proclus) predicate being as the first in the heiracy of existence. There is no “ground” as being is a per se predicate.

 

[Tuno]

This is a good question and cannot be answered in words other than as an intellectual assertion not necessarily referring to the actual denotation of that phrase. That is because “God as the Ground of Being” is a mystically arrived at Understanding and is more of a hindrance as a concept than a help in such comprehension as may be had. Suffice it to say that in Western minds, save for the few who have an experiential clarity through diligent effort or through Grace, there is a grammatical inability to grasp the import of this Idea. English is inherently an ideological filter in this case that does not allow an easy grasp, as wonderfully useful as it normally is!

If the OP is sincerely interested in a dairy of someone who arrived at such a Realization, or in an exegesis of that experience in scholarly terms, may I recommend them to the following, both by Franklin Merrell-Wolff: there are many others, but these are likely the most thorough and succinct.

Pathways Through to Space and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object.

Though it may be a term bandied or even correctly used by some contemporary liberal religionists, the Understanding that prompts those words is the single consistent Insight that has appeared throughout history without regard to time, place, culture, gender, intellect, or any other factor, including the birth religion of the one realizing. On inspection it is even congruent with the words of the Bible, in particular those having to do with Identity.

That being the case, the referent experience is much maligned in the Christian world and the world in general due to its esoteric nature. Christianity is for the most part exoteric, and therefor unfriendly to this avenue of Understanding, though it is easy to see that most Christian mystics factor heavily in this expression, though in their own language.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Does anyone here know what is meant by that expression and how, if anyway, does it relate to other conceptions of God?

I to have used such a phrase before in order to illustrate Gods sovereignty over all creation. However, it is the context in which it is used that gives the sentence its full meaning. It appears to me that by saying that God is the ground of all being, this is meant in the context of ontological authority. God being a foundation; in other-words, God is that which is most fundamental to all reality in general. This means only that in order for there to be any kind of contingent reality at all, their must first be that which is a necessary reality. An analogy is thus used to describe the fundamental source of reality as being that which is holding everything up. Hence God is the ground of all being.

I don’t think that the person intends to place God outside of the concept or predicate of being, as if to say that God is something more than being. That’s logically impossible. If God is anything at all, God is necessary being. However, I am perhaps assuming to much and reading my Thomistic outlook in to it.

 

[Soulewolf]

From my own understanding of divinity, everything that is is a direct result of the ebb and flow of Divine Love that is God. It is Divinity that connects everything, and even though things are viewed as spatially separated, it is at its basic most innermost nature that everything is one through the Divine.

Wow language really is bad at describing this kinda thing.

 

[Gregory_I]

It’s ridiculous. God is the Originator and creator of all beings, but he is not their deepest being, or the ground of being. If he is the Ground of being, and you build from the Ground up, then all beings are God. Pantheism in its ugly little language games once again.

However, “In Him we live, move, and have our being.” Paul means here that it is God who is the Sustainer of the universe, not the Organic Foundation of it, as though it grew out of him and was a part of Him. He created all, thus he transcends all.

 

[Tuno]

Wow language really is bad at describing this kinda thing.

Yes, that is succinctly and accurately stated. And such flip remarks as someone else made on here reveal an ignorance both of this fact and of the depth of their own presumption that they have a corner on Truth just by dint of claiming one particular faith among many that makes similar claims.

Even novelists know the inadequacy of our language in dealing with this particular aspect of philosophical perception. EG, RA Heinlein stated that “In English only the first person singular present tense is true to fact.” Another English speaker was accosted by a teacher of Eastern religion asking “How are you able to enunciate with such accuracy this point when it is said to be impossible to do so in English?” Indeed, because our language is founded on notions rooted in dualism, unless we have a second and different grammar at our disposal, the fact that English is nearly useless in explicating such an idea as “God is the Ground of Being”

This explains in part why Catholic (well, Christian) English speakers in general have such a damned (advisedly used) time with the ideas of non-dualism whether or not they agree with them. It is indeed arguable that the language itself is the blockage that causes the disagreement because just as some ideas in other languages are untranslatable, so is the accurate understanding of non-dualism. That is why the only adequate understanding of that idea of God as Ground of Being is arrived at by mystical experience, regardless of one’s religion.

In fact, given a reasonable understanding of God as the Ground of Being, much that is opaque about the Gospels, especially statements pertinent to Identity in both OT and NT texts becomes translucent and magnifies the importance of Jesus Christ. That magnification is on the order of the mind boggling discovery that some of those “stars” out there are galaxies! Or that the Sun doesn’t go around the Earth.* This same applies to much of what we know about such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, and others, all stellar examples of Catholicism. All because of the a**-umptions inherent in our grammar.

*this is an example in physics of the magnitude of perceptual change it takes to make fundamental spiritual progress by internal birthing as distinct from merely accepting a faith, especially by habit of birth. This is said not as a value judgement, but as an encouragement to effort in discovery if there is the will for it, or the desire.

 

[chaunceygardner]

From my understanding of what Paul Tillich meant by “Ground of Being” he was not saying that God is composed of matter or is a material “being”, but that God is the basis or source for the existence of all things and is beyond the “finite realm”.

“Nothing else can come to be without God’s will or thought, and since there can’t even be a potential for any being without God’s thought, all potentialities for being arise in the ‘mind of God’ than in the sense that God is actually Being Itself.”

MindOverMatter2 gives a good explanation of the concept in the first paragraph of his post.

If you think of the meaning as “source of all being” or “basis of all that is”, you will have a clearer idea of what the term is intended to convey. Others have used the phrase and given it a different meaning than how Tillich was using it.

 

[Gregory_I]

Then just say God is the origin of all things. TO put another “spin” on it is to simply make an excuse to re-work our conception of something that is very established. Closed-minded, yes. Wrong? Nope.

These people who waste their time in semantics obviously have no knowledge of christian mystical theology or history, otherwise they would hold their tongue in a profound silence.

 

[Soulewolf]

Yes, that is succinctly and accurately stated. And such flip remarks as someone else made on here reveal an ignorance both of this fact and of the depth of their own presumption that they have a corner on Truth just by dint of claiming one particular faith among many that makes similar claims.

Even novelists know the inadequacy of our language in dealing with this particular aspect of philosophical perception. EG, RA Heinlein stated that “In English only the first person singular present tense is true to fact.” Another English speaker was accosted by a teacher of Eastern religion asking “How are you able to enunciate with such accuracy this point when it is said to be impossible to do so in English?” Indeed, because our language is founded on notions rooted in dualism, unless we have a second and different grammar at our disposal, the fact that English is nearly useless in explicating such an idea as “God is the Ground of Being”

This explains in part why Catholic (well, Christian) English speakers in general have such a damned (advisedly used) time with the ideas of non-dualism whether or not they agree with them. It is indeed arguable that the language itself is the blockage that causes the disagreement because just as some ideas in other languages are untranslatable, so is the accurate understanding of non-dualism. That is why the only adequate understanding of that idea of God as Ground of Being is arrived at by mystical experience, regardless of one’s religion.

In fact, given a reasonable understanding of God as the Ground of Being, much that is opaque about the Gospels, especially statements pertinent to Identity in both OT and NT texts becomes translucent and magnifies the importance of Jesus Christ. That magnification is on the order of the mind boggling discovery that some of those “stars” out there are galaxies! Or that the Sun doesn’t go around the Earth.* This same applies to much of what we know about such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, and others, all stellar examples of Catholicism. All because of the a**-umptions inherent in our grammar.

*this is an example in physics of the magnitude of perceptual change it takes to make fundamental spiritual progress by internal birthing as distinct from merely accepting a faith, especially by habit of birth. This is said not as a value judgement, but as an encouragement to effort in discovery if there is the will for it, or the desire.

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao”

 

[Soulewolf]

If he is the Ground of being, and you build from the Ground up, then all beings are God.

and why isnt that possible?

 

[Tuno]

Well said, Soulewolf.

If he is the Ground of being, and you build from the Ground up, then all beings are God.

Closer than the gnose (sic) on your face! But that is not necessarily pantheism or panentheism unless you make it so for your end. “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” But it isn’t Taoism either, is it.

“These people who waste their time in semantics obviously have no knowledge of christian mystical theology or history, otherwise they would hold their tongue in a profound silence.” Yes, exactly like Teresa of Avila, St Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Sienna, or St John of the Cross, St Francis of Assisi, etc, any of whose poetry would make a Lover of God weep with their beauty.

BTW, there is a jewel of a little book used in many comparative religion classes, even Catholic ones, that has an elementary introduction to General Semantics and its application to religious studies. I will refer you to it if you like, Gregory I. But first, find How to Read a Book by Mortimer J Adler, and then other books might be of use to you.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi ChristIsTheWay,

As others have mentioned, God being the “Ground of all Being” is usually said in reference to God being the efficient cause of all contingent being. Everything that exists is dependent on God, and nothing exists that is independent of Him. In short, God created and sustains the universe.

 

[Gregory_I]

First, please do not assume I do not know what I am talking about. I have read the Tao te ching, and yes, I believe lao tzu had a profound experience of God, but simply didn’t know what or who he was, and did the best with his own philosophical presuppositions he could. He came very close too. Many of his statements sound like the paradoxical statements from Eastern Christianity, like the kontakion and troparions, etc.

But LAO TZU SAW THROUGH A DARKENED MIRROR. His mind was not illumined by grace,a nd thus he could not see clearly, and thus could not describe accurately. All the people you mentioned are not innovators of the Mystical theology, nor do they follow disparate spiritualities. They follow, ultimately in the traditions of the fathers of Christian asceticism, esp. the Carmelites, who were an Eremitic order originally in palestine.

The point is they described the same things, sometimes in different language, but also with the same idea and theological groundwork for understanding God. You can’t simply be a mystic, it is a calling, and you have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the truth of who God is to not get sucked into delusion, which is what about 75% of self-proclaimed mystics are, at least according to the standards set by the Fathers: Deluded.

For example:

"The features of the first way are these: one stands to pray by raising his hands towards the sky together with his eyes and mind. He imagines divine concepts, the good things of Heaven, the armies of the holy angels, the residences of the saints and, in short, he gathers in his mind all that he has heard from the Holy Scriptures. He recalls them in the time of his prayer looking at the sky, and he exhorts his soul to what seems to be love and eros of God. Sometimes he even has tears and cries. In this way his soul gradually becomes proud without realising it, thinking that what he does is by the grace of God’s compassion for him. Hence he pleads God to always grant him worthy of such deeds which are, however, signs of error.

A good thing ceases to be good, when it is carried out in the wrong way or at the wrong time. To such an extent this is the case here that, if this person finds perfect solitude, it will be impossible for him not to lose his mind. Should this not happen, it will still be impossible for him to acquire any virtues or detachment from the earthly. By this method are misled all those who see the Light with their bodily eyes, sense perfumes with their sense of smell, hear voices with their ears and so on. Some of them have been possessed, moving senselessly from one place to the other. Others have been misled by accepting the Devil who was transformed and appeared to them as an angel of light, and they have remained uncorrected until the very end, without wanting to hear any advice from their brothers. Some of them were even incited by the Devil and committed suicide, whilst others were crumbled and others became insane. Who can describe the various illusions of the Devil by which he misleads them!"

-St. Symeon the New Theologian- 11th Century Mystical Father.

Lao tzu can only foreshadow dimly what the christians would come to know more fully: God is above all, and can only be known by his own revelation. There really is no comparison , other than to say “good job Lao, but we already knew that, having the fullness of faith after all…”

 

[Tuno]

First, please do not assume I do not know what I am talking about. I have read the Tao te ching, and yes, I believe lao tzu had a profound experience of God, but simply didn’t know what or who he was, and did the best with his own philosophical presuppositions he could. He came very close too. Many of his statements sound like the paradoxical statements from Eastern Christianity, like the kontakion and troparions, etc.

I don’t assume you don’t know what you are talking about, because of course you do–within your own context, as do we all. But for me the biggest room in the mansions of God is the room for improvement. What I don’t assume is that I would know how to measure from His standpoint how close or not Lau Tze came to a realization of God.

And if you are basing your estimate on whether or not Lau Tze knew of Jesus, I have to question if that has any relevance to a fair assessment. And as for paradoxical statements, we only need to look to Zen koans and other mystical/philosophical material to understand that paradox is used to defeat a strictly logical approach to mystical understanding. I have heard, actually, that a student of metaphysics is at a disadvantage unless they are comfortable in a state of paradox.

But LAO TZU SAW THROUGH A DARKENED MIRROR. His mind was not illumined by grace,a nd thus he could not see clearly, and thus could not describe accurately.

And by what criteria are you judging that his perception was not illumined by grace??? I find that your presentation demonstrates arrogance, and perhaps as well you might add Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism to your list. I say this because the Tao Te Ching was even only a passing reference to what my point was, a point you did not address. You appear to have used an incidental reference as an excuse to parade wonderful but irrelevant learning, which learning does not equal wisdom, as you demonstrate. Methinks you protest too much.

 

[Soulewolf]

this thread has a lot of potential. its a shame more people aren’t posting.

 

[punkforchrist]

Let’s see if we can get the ball rolling a bit more. God, according to classical theism, is thought of as Pure Act, which means He is being-itself-subsisting. Now, what does this mean?

Well, as it has been discussed on other threads, an attribute most existing entities have is dynamism. Things change, e.g. they are in motion from potentiality to actuality (act). An acorn, for example, is in actuality just an acorn, but in potentiality it is an oak tree. Now, nothing actualizes itself, which means that the acorn needs some thing(s) that have actuality to actualize its (the acorn’s) potentiality. For example, it needs soil, water, and sunlight, among other things.

Applied to cosmic motion, or change, we might ask: what is the cause of this motion? The gears of a watch will not move if there is no spring, even if there are infinitely-many gears. The boxcars of a train will not move if there is no engine, even if there are infinitely-many boxcars. By analogy, if the cosmos has no First Mover, then none of the heavenly bodies (stars, planets, moons, etc.) will be in motion, which is patently false. Therefore, a First Mover is needed to cause the motion of everything else.

Of course, if the First Mover were in potentiality at all, then its motion would need to be actualized by another, as we saw already. Since this is impossible, it follows that the First Mover is Pure Act. By way of summary:

1. Evident to the senses is motion. (Premise)
2. Everything in motion is moved by another. (Premise)
3. If there is no First Mover, then nothing will be in motion. (Premise)
4. Therefore, a First Mover exists. (From 1 and 3)

(2) is included because it is often asked: if everything has a mover, then what moved the First Mover? However, such a question misinterprets the causal premise. It is not that everything is moved by another, but that everything in motion is moved by another. So, the First Mover is Pure Act, and no transition from potentiality to actuality can exist apart from Pure Act.

The First Mover, or Pure Act (God), is therefore the ground (cause) of all being and becoming.

 

[Soulewolf]

Let’s see if we can get the ball rolling a bit more. God, according to classical theism, is thought of as Pure Act, which means He is being-itself-subsisting. Now, what does this mean?

Well, as it has been discussed on other threads, an attribute most existing entities have is dynamism. Things change, e.g. they are in motion from potentiality to actuality (act). An acorn, for example, is in actuality just an acorn, but in potentiality it is an oak tree. Now, nothing actualizes itself, which means that the acorn needs some thing(s) that have actuality to actualize its (the acorn’s) potentiality. For example, it needs soil, water, and sunlight, among other things.

Applied to cosmic motion, or change, we might ask: what is the cause of this motion? The gears of a watch will not move if there is no spring, even if there are infinitely-many gears. The boxcars of a train will not move if there is no engine, even if there are infinitely-many boxcars. By analogy, if the cosmos has no First Mover, then none of the heavenly bodies (stars, planets, moons, etc.) will be in motion, which is patently false. Therefore, a First Mover is needed to cause the motion of everything else.

Of course, if the First Mover were in potentiality at all, then its motion would need to be actualized by another, as we saw already. Since this is impossible, it follows that the First Mover is Pure Act. By way of summary:

1. Evident to the senses is motion. (Premise)
2. Everything in motion is moved by another. (Premise)
3. If there is no First Mover, then nothing will be in motion. (Premise)
4. Therefore, a First Mover exists. (From 1 and 3)

(2) is included because it is often asked: if everything has a mover, then what moved the First Mover? However, such a question misinterprets the causal premise. It is not that everything is moved by another, but that everything in motion is moved by another. So, the First Mover is Pure Act, and no transition from potentiality to actuality can exist apart from Pure Act.

The First Mover, or Pure Act (God), is therefore the ground (cause) of all being and becoming.

oh i dunno about that. movement is scientifically defined as possible by the 4th dimension which is time. We live in a 4 dimensional brane. God exists outside of dimensional existance and thus the definitions of the words “act” and “movement” are completely meaningless as God does not by definition participate in either. So there can not be a “first” “mover” that exists outside of time.

If there was an act of creation then that act is an infinite act which means that there was no “first mover”. It is more plausible that the universe always existed and that god is the essence through which existence is possible through the ebb and flow of Divine Love.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Soulewolf,

When we call the First Mover “first,” we aren’t necessarily implying temporal priority. Think of this way: if a watch existed eternally, then it would still need a spring in order for the motion of its gears to be sustained. So, even assuming that the universe’s motion isn’t created at some point in the finite past, its motion would still have to be sustained by a First Mover. The First Mover is causally prior, even if not temporally prior, to the universe’s motion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If there was an act of creation then that act is an infinite act which means that there was no “first mover”. It is more plausible that the universe always existed and that god is the essence through which existence is possible through the ebb and flow of Divine Love.

While I don’t thing its plausible that the universe, given its dynamism, always existed as an infinite succession of potential states, you do seem to have a good understanding of Gods causal influence.

Lets speak about this a bit more.

First of all the first mover is used to designate that which is most fundamental. We are talking about the fundamental principle of all reality.

Secondly, your last sentence captured something that allot of people don’t understand. I suspect that you probably approach this idea from the basis of some form of pantheism. I do not, but I agree with the last sentence in general.

To be continued…