God cause existence in creatures but He is not their existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
Solution: I answer that it should be said that God is essentially in all things, not nonetheless so that he is mixed together with things as if he were a part of any thing. To make this evident, it is necessary to note three points. First, it is necessary that a mover and a thing moved and an operating agent and a thing made exist simultaneously, as is proven in Book 7 of the Physics. But this occurs in a different way in corporeal things and spiritual things. For, because a body by its essence, which is circumscribed by the boundaries of quantity, is determined to some position, it cannot be that a moving body and a moved body are in the same position. Hence, it is necessary that they exist simultaneously by contact, and in this way, a body causes change by its own power, because by all means it can, up to some point, change another thing which is unchanged that is immediately united to it. However, a spiritual substance—the essence of which is wholly independent of quantity or position and, consequently, a place—is not separated from that which it moves by place or position. But where the thing that is moved is, there is the mover itself. The soul, for instance, is in the body, and the power that moves the heavens is said to be on the right side of the sphere that it moves—motion begins from this point, as is established in Book 8 of the Physics.
Secundum est, quod esse cujuslibet rei et cujuslibet partis ejus est immediate a Deo, eo quod non ponimus, secundum fidem, aliquem creare nisi Deum. Creare autem est dare esse. Tertium est, quod illud quod est causa esse, non potest cessare ab operatione qua esse datur, quin ipsa res etiam esse cesset. Sicut enim dicit Avicenna, lib. I Sufficientiae, cap. XI, haec est differentia inter agens divinum et agens naturale, quod agens naturale est tantum causa motus, et agens divinum est causa esse. Unde, juxta ipsum, qualibet causa efficiente remota, removetur effectus suus; et ideo, remoto aedificatore, non tollitur esse domus, cujus causa est gravitas lapidum quae manet; sed fieri domus cujus causa erat; et similiter, remota causa essendi, tollitur esse. Unde dicit Gregorius, lib. XVI Moral., c. XXXVII, quod omnia in nihilum deciderent, nisi ea manus omnipotentis contineret. Unde oportet quod operatio ipsius, qua dat esse, non sit intercisa, sed continua; unde dicitur Joan. V, 17: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor. Ex quibus omnibus aperte colligitur quod Deus est unicuique intimus, sicut esse proprium rei est intimum ipsi rei, quae nec incipere nec durare posset, nisi per operationem Dei, per quam suo operi conjungitur ut in eo sit. The second point is that the being of any thing and of any part of it comes immediately from God, because, according to faith, we maintain that only God creates. To create, however, is to give being. The third point is that that which is the cause of being cannot desist from the operation by which being is given without the thing itself also ceasing to be. For, as Avicenna says in Book 1, Chapter 11 of the Physics, the difference between the divine agent and a natural agent is that a natural agent is only a cause of motion, and the divine agent is the cause of being. Hence, according to him, when any efficient cause is withdrawn, its effect is removed, and therefore, when a builder is withdrawn, a house’s being is not destroyed—the being whose cause is the weight of the stones that remains—but the house’s becoming is destroyed—the becoming whose cause was the builder. And similarly, when the cause of being is withdrawn, being is destroyed. For this reason, Gregory says in Book 16, Chapter 37 of Morals that all things would fall into nothingness if the hand of the omnipotent one were not preserving them. Hence, it is necessary that his operation by which he gives being be not intermittent but continuous, and for this reason, it is said in John 5:17, My father is at work until now, and I am at work. From all these points, it is plainly inferred that God is most intimate to every thing just as the being that is proper to a thing is most intimate to the thing itself, which can neither begin nor last except by God’s operation through which he is united to his work so that he is in it.

www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

Linus2nd
 
Similarly, we find the following in S.T. Q8, art 1

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.

newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

This thread was prompted because an adament poster insisted that the Existence of God was also the existence of creatures and that there was only one being and that was the Being of God. Since this is a Catholic site I wanted all who viewed it to know that God’s Bing and the being of creatures are entirely separate and distinct but that God, does indeed, operate in and is most intimately present in all creatures. This is the teaching of St. Thomas and the teaching of the Church.

To say that the Being of God is the being of creatures is identical or that there exists only one Being is a type of Pantheism, which is condemned by the Church.

Linus2nd
 
Solution: I answer that it should be said that God is essentially in all things, not nonetheless so that he is mixed together with things as if he were a part of any thing. To make this evident, it is necessary to note three points. First, it is necessary that a mover and a thing moved and an operating agent and a thing made exist simultaneously, as is proven in Book 7 of the Physics. But this occurs in a different way in corporeal things and spiritual things. For, because a body by its essence, which is circumscribed by the boundaries of quantity, is determined to some position, it cannot be that a moving body and a moved body are in the same position. Hence, it is necessary that they exist simultaneously by contact, and in this way, a body causes change by its own power, because by all means it can, up to some point, change another thing which is unchanged that is immediately united to it. However, a spiritual substance—the essence of which is wholly independent of quantity or position and, consequently, a place—is not separated from that which it moves by place or position. But where the thing that is moved is, there is the mover itself. The soul, for instance, is in the body, and the power that moves the heavens is said to be on the right side of the sphere that it moves—motion begins from this point, as is established in Book 8 of the Physics.

The second point is that the being of any thing and of any part of it comes immediately from God, because, according to faith, we maintain that only God creates. To create, however, is to give being. The third point is that that which is the cause of being cannot desist from the operation by which being is given without the thing itself also ceasing to be. For, as Avicenna says in Book 1, Chapter 11 of the Physics, the difference between the divine agent and a natural agent is that a natural agent is only a cause of motion, and the divine agent is the cause of being. Hence, according to him, when any efficient cause is withdrawn, its effect is removed, and therefore, when a builder is withdrawn, a house’s being is not destroyed—the being whose cause is the weight of the stones that remains—but the house’s becoming is destroyed—the becoming whose cause was the builder. And similarly, when the cause of being is withdrawn, being is destroyed. For this reason, Gregory says in Book 16, Chapter 37 of Morals that all things would fall into nothingness if the hand of the omnipotent one were not preserving them. Hence, it is necessary that his operation by which he gives being be not intermittent but continuous, and for this reason, it is said in John 5:17, My father is at work until now, and I am at work. From all these points, it is plainly inferred that God is most intimate to every thing just as the being that is proper to a thing is most intimate to the thing itself, which can neither begin nor last except by God’s operation through which he is united to his work so that he is in it.

www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

Linus2nd
Removed the Latin from the quote in the first post because it is not needed and it was inserted by accident.

Linus2nd
 
You really need to break up your thoughts better, also, I don’t think you understand how to use some of the words you’re using to attempt to prove whatever your point may be… and your sentence structure needs works… you don’t really seem to have one.

Basically, what I’m getting at it, unless you make your posts meaningful and capable of being understood (which, you really don’t), you’re wasting your time.

Also, if you’re trying to prove a point, it’s good to actually start with an explanation of the point you’re trying to prove, rather than your “proof.”

Just some friendly pointers.
 
You really need to break up your thoughts better, also, I don’t think you understand how to use some of the words you’re using to attempt to prove whatever your point may be… and your sentence structure needs works… you don’t really seem to have one.

Basically, what I’m getting at it, unless you make your posts meaningful and capable of being understood (which, you really don’t), you’re wasting your time.

Also, if you’re trying to prove a point, it’s good to actually start with an explanation of the point you’re trying to prove, rather than your “proof.”

Just some friendly pointers.
Thank you. They were quotes from Thomas Aquinas. They were given to show that Thomas demonstrated the truth and/or the reasonableness of several teachings of the Catholic Church.
  1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
  2. God operates/works most intimately in all his creatures; he causes them to be and to act, he sustains them in existence, he directs them to their proper ends.
  3. Although God works in his creatures this way, He is absolutely other than and outside of them. He is not a part of them and they are not a part of Him.
  4. The Church condemns Pantheism which holds that God is either identified with creatures, or is part of them, or they are part of Him, or that they will " evolve " into Him.
The references I used were not my personal " proofs " but rather those of Thomas Aquinas.
In regard to Pantheism, Thomas did not raise that issue but he did show that God and His creatures are absolutely different from eachother. They are not mixed together in any way. I wanted to show that God and His creatures are absolutely different so I could show why the Church condemned Pantheism.

Feel free to search the links I gave, since they are interesting. Linus2nd
 
Thank you. They were quotes from Thomas Aquinas. They were given to show that Thomas demonstrated the truth and/or the reasonableness of several teachings of the Catholic Church.
  1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
  2. God operates/works most intimately in all his creatures; he causes them to be and to act, he sustains them in existence, he directs them to their proper ends.
  3. Although God works in his creatures this way, He is absolutely other than and outside of them. He is not a part of them and they are not a part of Him.
  4. The Church condemns Pantheism which holds that God is either identified with creatures, or is part of them, or they are part of Him, or that they will " evolve " into Him.
The references I used were not my personal " proofs " but rather those of Thomas Aquinas.
In regard to Pantheism, Thomas did not raise that issue but he did show that God and His creatures are absolutely different from eachother. They are not mixed together in any way. I wanted to show that God and His creatures are absolutely different so I could show why the Church condemned Pantheism.

Feel free to search the links I gave, since they are interesting. Linus2nd
Yeah, directly translating and quoting St. Thomas Aquinas is… difficult… or, rather, is difficult to understand without sitting down and reading through it for a while XD
 
Yes, it is a job at first. It takes awhile to get used to the meaning of the terms, etc. Actually it would be better to start with something simple like " Aquinas " by Edwad Feser.

Linus2nd
 
Aquinas had to write extensively about this subject because that was his job,
but we don’t have to worry about it.

Anybody can easily understand that God is not the universe and the universe is not God.
 
Aquinas had to write extensively about this subject because that was his job,
but we don’t have to worry about it.

Anybody can easily understand that God is not the universe and the universe is not God.
You would be surprised. There are people on this forum who constantly challenge the obvious. And since the whole world can read what is discussed here it is good for the world not to hold any illusions where we stand and that there are reasonable explanations why we stand where we do. And Thomas is the best source of those reasons. So, while he is difficult to read and understand, it is worth while to make the effort.

Thanks for reading. Linus2bd
 
Separately, God gave mankind dominion over all (non-human) creatures on Earth.
 
Separately, God gave mankind dominion over all (non-human) creatures on Earth.
True. Thomas’ thinking above helps us to understand how your statement is true. Faith is what we live by. However, it is good to show how that Faith has a reasonable basis even if that " reasonableness " does not always constitute a strict proof that cannot be denied absolutely.

Linus2nd
 
Linus did you know that there are different schools of thomistic thought such as Transcendental Thomism and Existential Thomism?
 
Linus did you know that there are different schools of thomistic thought such as Transcendental Thomism and Existential Thomism?
Yes, but no true Thomistic school would say that there is only " one being " or that the esse of God was the esse of created substances. Nor would they say that the esse of created creatures was not a principle of the created creature, nor would they deny that the esse of the created creature was not concreated with the creation of the creature. Nor would they deny that the esse of the created creature was entirely other than and separate from the esse of God. All true Thomists would agree that the Being of God and the being of the created creature are not " fused, " or " mixed " in any way, which would be Pantheistic.

The quotes I supplied are Thomas’ own words, and are summarized in post #5 repeated here:

Thank you. They were quotes from Thomas Aquinas. They were given to show that Thomas demonstrated the truth and/or the reasonableness of several teachings of the Catholic Church.
  1. God created the universe and all that is in it.
  2. God operates/works most intimately in all his creatures; he causes them to be and to act, he sustains them in existence, he directs them to their proper ends.
  3. Although God works in his creatures this way, He is absolutely other than and outside of them. He is not a part of them and they are not a part of Him.
  4. The Church condemns Pantheism which holds that God is either identified with creatures, or is part of them, or they are part of Him, or that they will " evolve " into Him.
Linus2nd
 
Yes, but no true Thomistic school would say that there is only " one being ".
Perhaps. But its not really relevant, since i don’t assume that Aquinas had all the correct answers. A true philosopher never does that. I would rather be wrong or even be a bad philosopher than follow something out of being a fan based on a positive image or paranoid fear of being in the wrong.

It could be that you are wrong despite your beliefs and assertions to the contrary.
Nor would they say that the esse of created creatures was not a principle of the created creature.
I disagree with this depending on what you mean. The esse and essence distinction is intended to be ontological, it is intended to imply a real ontological distinction, not just a superficial distinction between different aspects of the same thing.
 
I agree that God’s “esse” is “different” from the “esse” of creatures.

But what is the meaning of “esse” first and foremost?

Well, what is the everyday sense of “esse”?

Something that is “present”, “here”, “now”, “in our world”.

Even to put it this way is grossly inadequate. But it is a starting point.

Consider the apple over there on the table.

The apple is not simply there as an object of scientific contemplation.

It’s look delicious and I’m hungry.

So how is it “there” for us first and foremost?

Simply as food? Or is there a more primordial “thereness” at work in the apple?

These types of question must be explored before we can talk about the “esse” of God.

Obviously, God is not “there” in the same way that the apple is “there”.

That’s why Heidegger’s Being and Time is helpful. It takes us back to the beginning (although Heidegger realized later that his magisterial work was not complete).

What I’m saying is that “esse” needs to clarified.
 
Perhaps. But its not really relevant, since i don’t assume that Aquinas had all the correct answers. A true philosopher never does that. I would rather be wrong or even be a bad philosopher than follow something out of being a fan based on a positive image or paranoid fear of being in the wrong.

It could be that you are wrong despite your beliefs and assertions to the contrary.

I disagree with this depending on what you mean. The esse and essence distinction is intended to be ontological, it is intended to imply a real ontological distinction, not just a superficial distinction between different aspects of the same thing.
This thread is not about your personal philosophy, whatever that is. This is the only warning you will get. If you continue trying to push your personal philosophy on this thread I will ask the Moderator to throw you off. We are discussing the teaching of Thomas Aquinas here not debating how right or wrong he was. If you can stick to that you are welcome, otherwise you are not. Also, we are sticking to the teachings of the Catholic Church, as far as that is available on subjects touching philosophy. You are spreading your personal philosophy on two other threads, that should be sufficient. Linus2nd
 
I agree that God’s “esse” is “different” from the “esse” of creatures.

But what is the meaning of “esse” first and foremost?

Well, what is the everyday sense of “esse”?

Something that is “present”, “here”, “now”, “in our world”.

Even to put it this way is grossly inadequate. But it is a starting point.

Consider the apple over there on the table.

The apple is not simply there as an object of scientific contemplation.

It’s look delicious and I’m hungry.

So how is it “there” for us first and foremost?

Simply as food? Or is there a more primordial “thereness” at work in the apple?

These types of question must be explored before we can talk about the “esse” of God.

Obviously, God is not “there” in the same way that the apple is “there”.

That’s why Heidegger’s Being and Time is helpful. It takes us back to the beginning (although Heidegger realized later that his magisterial work was not complete).

What I’m saying is that “esse” needs to clarified.
“Esse” is just the fancy Latin word for “existence.” Nothing more or less. Linux seems to want to make it some kind of essence in itself, but it isn’t, it is just the existence of any particular thing. In God, essence and existence are one. God’s essence is to exist.
 
This thread is not about your personal philosophy, whatever that is. This is the only warning you will get. If you continue trying to push your personal philosophy on this thread I will ask the Moderator to throw you off. We are discussing the teaching of Thomas Aquinas here not debating how right or wrong he was. If you can stick to that you are welcome, otherwise you are not. Also, we are sticking to the teachings of the Catholic Church, as far as that is available on subjects touching philosophy. You are spreading your personal philosophy on two other threads, that should be sufficient. Linus2nd
I am sorry, but you where the one that brought it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top