God is being itself

[Linusthe2nd]

If “existence has no essence” then absence of essence is a property of existence. But whence the properties of a thing? Is it not from its essence?

The absence of something is not a property. Indeed, the properties of a being comes from its essence. But in created beings essence is distinct from their acts of existence. The act of existence makes an essence a really existing being. Existence in created beings has no properties other than to cause a being to exist.

Existence’s introspection begot His self-knowledge. This self-knowledge of existence is the essence of existence. This self-knowledge is a concept, literally the son of God for, after all, what does concept mean? Existence is an object.

Are you Linux in disguise, his doppelganger perhaps? If you are limiting your questions to God, you should say so at the outset. Even where God is concerned, the phrase
" essence of existence " is completely incoherent. God the Son is indeed the Father’s self - knowledge. Why are you talking about " concept " now. There are three Persons in God, they have the same nature, they differ as Persons. They are one in existence because they have one nature. This is an article of Faith, it is not something which can be proven or disproven. Why don’t you settle on one topic!!!

Existence precedes, logically, His essence, being the father of it. It follows that existence is in the essence of existence. God is the necessary being. But the essence of existence is in the existence itself because existence begot it in His wisdom.

Absolute nonesense, God is One, Perfect, having no potential to be more or less. There is no before with God. He has no separate essence. His existence is his essence. Yes, he is the one absolutely necessary bing, Thomas calls him Purus Esse Subsistens. Perfectly Subsistent Being ( Existence ). Your last sentence is absolute nonesense.

Existence is the Father, the essence of existence is His Son. Existence is an object i.e., the Rock while the essence of existence is a concept. Therefore the Father is not = to the Son for a concept is not an object.

Now I know you are Linux. There is only one person in the world who could be so far off base. What you say here is absolute nonesense. Where in the world are you getting it???

I know, you and Linux must be going to the same strange church, some offbeat cult.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s what I mean persons know and love, but persons aren’t “being” they have being.

If you are speaking of God, God is Being ( Existence ), the One Perfect Being. He does not have Being, He is Being.

Created creatures have being or existence, given to them by God as their own.

I would suggest you begin reading some Thomistic philosophy. You can read Aquinas by Edward Feser, reasonably priced. Right now you are making a mess of philosophy and Theology both.

Linus2nd

 

[Perplexity]

If you are speaking of God, God is Being ( Existence ), the One Perfect Being. He does not have Being, He is Being.

Created creatures have being or existence, given to them by God as their own.

I would suggest you begin reading some Thomistic philosophy. You can read Aquinas by Edward Feser, reasonably priced. Right now you are making a mess of philosophy and Theology both.

Linus2nd

Not only does this ignore the problem I raised by repeating the troublesome claim, but you’re assuming God exists. You’re telling me someone is existence…and I’m doing messy philosophy? This is one reason I love Naturalism: we’re not committed to bizarre, extravagant claims like this.

 

[Qoeleth]

If you are speaking of God, God is Being ( Existence ), the One Perfect Being. He does not have Being, He is Being.

With all respect, that statement, if you preached it to an average congregation, wouldn’t register as meaninful. ‘Being’ can’t do anything, love anything, or redeem anything. God alone truly IS, but God is not ‘Being’. God is God. It is false to equate Him with anything else.

Thomas was talking poetically. Taking him literally runs into the danger of what the Pope has recently condemned as ‘decadent Thomism’.

 

[tobias]

One can conceive of a world in which there is solely one being. For this to be possible this being has to be complete or whole, for if this being has a lack of anything, then there must exist something other (ie. if he were to lack understanding-then understanding must exist elsewhere).
Now try to qualify this completeness. ‘A world where there exists solely one being’, the only way to qualify this completeness is in existence. This being does not have, he is existence (I Am Who Am).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

With all respect, that statement, if you preached it to an average congregation, wouldn’t register as meaninful. ‘Being’ can’t do anything, love anything, or redeem anything. God alone truly IS, but God is not ‘Being’. God is God. It is false to equate Him with anything else.

Thomas was talking poetically. Taking him literally runs into the danger of what the Pope has recently condemned as ‘decadent Thomism’.

Your pulling my leg, right? I can’t help it if you don’t appreciate Thomas. There is a difference between philosophy and the Church’s doctrine. Philosophy is speculative and non-binding, the Church’s doctrine is authoritive and binding.

Philosophy is not a topic of sermons at Mass. Have you read any of Thomas’ works?

Thomas was not talking " poetically " and I don’t know what the Pope meant, he didn’t specify.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

 

[Regency]

The absence of something is not a property. Indeed, the properties of a being comes from its essence. But in created beings essence is distinct from their acts of existence. The act of existence makes an essence a really existing being. Existence in created beings has no properties other than to cause a being to exist.

Are you Linux in disguise, his doppelganger perhaps? If you are limiting your questions to God, you should say so at the outset. Even where God is concerned, the phrase
" essence of existence " is completely incoherent. God the Son is indeed the Father’s self - knowledge. Why are you talking about " concept " now. There are three Persons in God, they have the same nature, they differ as Persons. They are one in existence because they have one nature. This is an article of Faith, it is not something which can be proven or disproven. Why don’t you settle on one topic!!!

Absolute nonesense, God is One, Perfect, having no potential to be more or less. There is no before with God. He has no separate essence. His existence is his essence. Yes, he is the one absolutely necessary bing, Thomas calls him Purus Esse Subsistens. Perfectly Subsistent Being ( Existence ). Your last sentence is absolute nonesense.

Now I know you are Linux. There is only one person in the world who could be so far off base. What you say here is absolute nonesense. Where in the world are you getting it???

I know, you and Linux must be going to the same strange church, some offbeat cult.

Linus2nd

No, I’m not Linux. I’m 17 Gen r among others. All (including this one) are banned. Here is my credo.

You are saying a lot of things about existence. Where are your propositions coming from? From existence Himself, an object? Should they not, rather, follow from a concept, something of the same kind, being “meaningual”? Can a concept come out of an object, seeing that object is the contradiction of concept? If yes then that object has to beget that concept by introspection.

I am not talking about chronological precedence, but logical. Axiom precedes theorem. Is mathematics or logic concerned with the chronological? What is the meaning of concept? Is it not analogous to son?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I’m not Linux. I’m 17 Gen r among others. All (including this one) are banned. Here is my credo.

You are saying a lot of things about existence. Where are your propositions coming from? From existence Himself, an object? Should they not, rather, follow from a concept, something of the same kind, being “meaningual”? Can a concept come out of an object, seeing that object is the contradiction of concept? If yes then that object has to beget that concept by introspection.

I am not talking about chronological precedence, but logical. Axiom precedes theorem. Is mathematics or logic concerned with the chronological? What is the meaning of concept? Is it not analogous to son?

Well, all that means is that no one can communicate with you. You are past that point.
Good luck at whatever you do. I just hope you don’t hope for a career in philosophy., I think you would find it tough sledding.

Linus2nd

 

[wittgenstein]

If God is Being (pure being without predicates) how can you differentiate God’s being from ours? Luke 17:21
Without predicates there is no differentiation. *

• The identity of indiscernibles.
  PS: I’m from Michigan. I love tough sledding!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If God is Being (pure being without predicates) how can you differentiate God’s being from ours? Luke 17:21
Without predicates there is no differentiation. *

• The identity of indiscernibles.
  PS: I’m from Michigan. I love tough sledding!

Our being is limited, that should be obvious, it is self evident. God who is Pure Being Itself, is unlimited in any way. Our being is dependent on God. The Being of God is dependent on nothing. Our being had a beginning, the Being of God always was, is , and will be. We are and will be, but by the creative and sustaining poser of God’s causality.

" Predicates " always make my head swim so I don’t use those categories.

Luke 17: 21 Comment. God is within us by his essence, since he is present by his essence wherever his power is exercised. His power is exercised in us by his sustaining act ( by which we live and move and have our being ). However, at the same time God is an entirely separate being from us. Now if we are in the state of grace, he is present in a purifying and loving way besides, as our Father.

What about the " identity of discernibles? " What are you driving at?

This thread is over a year old. You should have started a new one. The mods will probably close this.

God Bless
Linus2nd