God Is Continously "Creating" The World from Nothing

[Linux]

God is not the God of deism. It is also a mistake to think of Gods creative act and his sustaining act as two distinct acts. They are only differentiated by the fact that creation ex nihilo is generally meant to mean the creation of a nature from nothing proceeding no prior instant of actuality, while God’s sustenance means the actualization of a natures potency, according to its nature, from nothing. They both involve creation ex nihilo, but divine sustenance is about creating more of whats already there existentially speaking. Things, although they appear to exist continuously, are in fact in a continuous state of becoming actual. A nature is never actual in the sense of a once and for all event. God actualizes all potential and thus every instant of change concerning created beings.is made actual by God.

For those Catholics who think that creation is a “one time event” somewhere in the past and don’t respond well to Rational Demonstrations that are contrary to what they think is the opinion of their favorite philosopher, i present to you the following.

Aquinas: A Beginners Guide/Edward Feser. Page 88

“As Peter Geach puts it, for Aquinas the claim that God made the world is more like the minstrel made music rather than the blacksmith made a shoe; that is to say, creation is an ongoing activity rather than a once and for all event. While the shoe might continue to exist even after the shoemaker has died, the music necessarily stops when the minstrel stops playing, and the world would necessarily go out of existence* if God stopped creating it. ***”

 

[Beryllos]

This view attempts to understand God as acting in sequential time, i.e., progressing from moment to moment. There are alternative views in which God is outside of time. As such, he must have created time, and could have created the entire timeline of the universe in one act. To us humans, restricted as we are to the sequential perception of time, this would be indistinguishable from creation followed by sustenance, and so I believe I agree with you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is not the God of deism. It is also a mistake to think of Gods creative act and his sustaining act as two distinct acts. They are only differentiated by the fact that creation ex nihilo is generally meant to mean the creation of a nature from nothing proceeding no prior instant of actuality, while God’s sustenance means the actualization of a natures potency, according to its nature, from nothing. They both involve creation ex nihilo, but divine sustenance is about creating more of whats already there existentially speaking. Things, although they appear to exist continuously, are in fact in a continuous state of becoming actual. A nature is never actual in the sense of a once and for all event. God actualizes all potential and thus every instant of change concerning created beings.is made actual by God.

For those Catholics who think that creation is a “one time event” somewhere in the past and don’t respond well to Rational Demonstrations that are contrary to what they think is the opinion of their favorite philosopher, i present to you the following.

Aquinas: A Beginners Guide/Edward Feser. Page 88

“As Peter Geach puts it, for Aquinas the claim that God made the world is more like the minstrel made music rather than the blacksmith made a shoe; that is to say, creation is an ongoing activity rather than a once and for all event. While the shoe might continue to exist even after the shoemaker has died, the music necessarily stops when the minstrel stops playing, and the world would necessarily go out of existence** if God stopped creating it. **”

Why you are zeroing in on Catholics is a mystery. However, the Church certainly does not teach that God is continually creating new creatures. All it says is that which is found in Phil 2: 13. " For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. "

I certainly would disagree with Geach and Feser if he agrees ( and I’m not sure he does). All Thomas says in that regard is that God’s sustaining action is a continuation of His creative act. That is a far cry from the the continuous creation of new beings. Indeed, this novel idea would contradict Thomas argument that creatures ( secondary causes ) cause the coming to be of new creatures or of new accidents in them. From the way Thomas discusses God’s continued action in His creatures, this action is limited in sustaining in existence His creation ( except in miraculous events). It is presumed that all forms, matter, and existence was created at once in the creative event.

Why you feel complled to continually insult those who may disagree with you is a mystery.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Why you are zeroing in on Catholics is a mystery. However, the Church certainly does not teach that God is continually creating new creatures. All it says is that which is found in Phil 2: 13. " For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. "

I certainly would disagree with Geach and Feser if he agrees ( and I’m not sure he does). All Thomas says in that regard is that God’s sustaining action is a continuation of His creative act. That is a far cry from the the continuous creation of new beings. Indeed, this novel idea would contradict Thomas argument that creatures ( secondary causes ) cause the coming to be of new creatures or of new accidents in them. From the way Thomas discusses God’s continued action in His creatures, this action is limited in sustaining in existence His creation ( except in miraculous events). It is presumed that all forms, matter, and existence was created at once in the creative event.

Why you feel complled to continually insult those who may disagree with you is a mystery.

Linus2nd

Just a matter of time before you disagree with Aquinas himself and throw in the towel.

Secondary causes have nothing to do with positively causing actuality. Rather a nature simply behaves according to its nature when actual; thats what secondary causality is. Secondary causes are simply the particular interactions between created natures and how they effect other natures they come into contact with. That type of causality has nothing to do with the general actualization of potency. God moves all potency to act, otherwise the universe cannot have any existence at all.

Ps.

Feser clearly agrees with Geach

 

[ventura2323]

God is not the God of deism. It is also a mistake to think of Gods creative act and his sustaining act as two distinct acts. They are only differentiated by the fact that creation ex nihilo is generally meant to mean the creation of a nature from nothing proceeding no prior instant of actuality, while God’s sustenance means the actualization of a natures potency, according to its nature, from nothing. They both involve creation ex nihilo, but divine sustenance is about creating more of whats already there existentially speaking. Things, although they appear to exist continuously, are in fact in a continuous state of becoming actual. A nature is never actual in the sense of a once and for all event. God actualizes all potential and thus every instant of change concerning created beings.is made actual by God.

For those Catholics who think that creation is a “one time event” somewhere in the past and don’t respond well to Rational Demonstrations that are contrary to what they think is the opinion of their favorite philosopher, i present to you the following.

Aquinas: A Beginners Guide/Edward Feser. Page 88

“As Peter Geach puts it, for Aquinas the claim that God made the world is more like the minstrel made music rather than the blacksmith made a shoe; that is to say, creation is an ongoing activity rather than a once and for all event. While the shoe might continue to exist even after the shoemaker has died, the music necessarily stops when the minstrel stops playing, and the world would necessarily go out of existence** if God stopped creating it. **”

It seems that is where Oboma comes in, to undo what god has created.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just a matter of time before you disagree with Aquinas himself and throw in the towel.

Secondary causes have nothing to do with positively causing actuality. Rather a nature simply behaves according to its nature when actual; thats what secondary causality is. Secondary causes are simply the particular interactions between created natures and how they effect other natures they come into contact with. That type of causality has nothing to do with the general actualization of potency. God moves all potency to act, otherwise the universe cannot have any existence at all.

Ps.

Feser clearly agrees with Geach

Thomas never teaches any thing like that, period. You have misinterpreted what Feser said and what Thomas says.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Thomas never teaches any thing like that, period. You have misinterpreted what Feser said and what Thomas says.

Linus2nd

The quote is there for all to see. If you want to interpret it as meaning something else and assert your superiority on the matter, thats fine. But your interpretation is not rational, and neither does it honestly reflect what is clearly being said in the quote/OP, that **creation **is a continuous activity done by God and by God alone. If you want to deny the fact that things are in a constant state of becoming, that is entirely up to you, but at the end of the day your asserted statements above hold no intellectual value.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The quote is there for all to see. If you want to interpret it as meaning something else and assert your superiority on the matter, thats fine. But your interpretation is not rational, and neither does it honestly reflect what is clearly being said in the quote/OP, that **creation **is a continuous activity done by God and by God alone. If you want to deny the fact that things are in a constant state of becoming, that is entirely up to you, but at the end of the day your asserted statements above hold no intellectual value.

Fiddle sticks! You don’t understand what you are saying. You have glommed onto a misinterpretation of what Thomas said and taught ( and indeed what the Church teaches). In the paragraph previous to the one you quoted Feser says, " …the way in which philosophy can reveal to us the existence of a divine creator is not by proving that God must have caused the world to exist at some point in the past…but rather by proving that God must be sustaining the world in being here and now, and at any moment in which we are considering the question of his existence. " I don’t care what he and Geach say in the next paragraph. This is Thomas’ key idea, God sustains existence. And as I said, Thomas says this a continuation of God’s creative act but it is not a new creation, it is a sustaining act of what already exists.

Futher, we have this from the S.T., Ques 105, art 5, " Thus then does God work in every every single active cause ( I have used the Dominican Blackfriars translation of operante operatur { worker which works } ), according to these three things.

First as an end. For since every operation is for the sake of some good, real or apparent; and nothing is good either really or apparently, except in as far as it participates in a likeness to the Supreme Good, which is God; it follows that God Himself is the cause of every operation as its end.

Again it is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first; for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent.

Thirdly, we must observe that God not only moves things to operated, as it were applying their forms and powers to operation, just as the workman applies the axe to cut, who nevertheless at times does not give the axe its form; but He also gives created agents their forms and preserves them in being. Therefore He is the cause of action not only by giving the form which is the principle of action, as the generator is said to be the cause of movement in things heavy and light; but also as preserving the forms and powers of things; just as the sun is said to be the cause of the manifestation of colors, inasmuch as it gives and preserves the light by which colors are made manifest. And since the form of a thing is within the thing, and all the more, as it approaches nearer to the First and Universal Cause; and because in all things God Himself is properly the cause of universal being which is innermost in all things; it follows that in all things God works intimately. "

This makes it absolutely clear that no matter what you have said above, God could not be creating new beings at every instantiation of movement/change by a secondary cause but sustains the matter and new form in existence. There is a difference between creation from nothing and God’s sustaining action, though it is similar to His creative activity.

But I know from experience, you either do not believe what you read with your own eyes or you reject it as being based on authority.

Linus2nd

 

[StrawberryJam]

It seems that is where Oboma comes in, to undo what god has created.

Reported.

 

[ventura2323]

Reported.

Oh no?
Wait and see.

 

[Bahman]

God is not the God of deism. It is also a mistake to think of Gods creative act and his sustaining act as two distinct acts. They are only differentiated by the fact that creation ex nihilo is generally meant to mean the creation of a nature from nothing proceeding no prior instant of actuality, while God’s sustenance means the actualization of a natures potency, according to its nature, from nothing. They both involve creation ex nihilo, but divine sustenance is about creating more of whats already there existentially speaking. Things, although they appear to exist continuously, are in fact in a continuous state of becoming actual. A nature is never actual in the sense of a once and for all event. God actualizes all potential and thus every instant of change concerning created beings.is made actual by God.

For those Catholics who think that creation is a “one time event” somewhere in the past and don’t respond well to Rational Demonstrations that are contrary to what they think is the opinion of their favorite philosopher, i present to you the following.

Aquinas: A Beginners Guide/Edward Feser. Page 88

“As Peter Geach puts it, for Aquinas the claim that God made the world is more like the minstrel made music rather than the blacksmith made a shoe; that is to say, creation is an ongoing activity rather than a once and for all event. While the shoe might continue to exist even after the shoemaker has died, the music necessarily stops when the minstrel stops playing, and the world would necessarily go out of existence** if God stopped creating it. **”

There is one God and one creation (infinite in all possible forms) which is the result of whole potential of God. Either God is in the state of time, which means that it can constantly create the universes or in state of timeless, which means that it can create one creation (the whole) at one point no more.

 

[Linux]

Fiddle sticks! You don’t understand what you are saying. You have glommed onto a misinterpretation of what Thomas said and taught ( and indeed what the Church teaches). Linus2nd

Of course you are going to say that.

In the paragraph previous to the one you quoted Feser says, " …the way in which philosophy can reveal to us the existence of a divine creator is not by proving that God must have caused the world to exist at some point in the past…but rather by proving that God must be sustaining the world in being here and now, and at any moment in which we are considering the question of his existence. "Linus2nd

Yeah so?

I don’t care what he and Geach say in the next paragraph. This is Thomas’ key idea, God sustains existence. And as I said, Thomas says this a continuation of God’s creative act but it is not a new creation, it is a sustaining act of what already exists.Linus2nd

Of course you don’t care. But it is clear what the Quote says. It explains clearly what it means for God to sustain existence. It is clear what the analogy of the minstrel compared to the shoe maker represents. It is clear that when it speaks of God creating the existence of the universe, that he is creating it in the here and now, actualising a natures potency. It is the same act. No distinction is made between Creating point A and sustaining point B accept that God continues to actualise the existence of any one particular essence in regards to sustenance; but it is still creation from nothing. You are just ignoring the obvious for reasons that are not at all clear and misrepresenting what it means for God to sustain creation.

 

[Qoeleth]

Hmm. It is possible, but not likely. Remember Genesis 6:
"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course you are going to say that.

Yeah so?

Of course you don’t care. But it is clear what the Quote says. It explains clearly what it means for God to sustain existence. It is clear what the analogy of the minstrel compared to the shoe maker represents. It is clear that when it speaks of God creating the existence of the universe, that he is creating it in the here and now, actualising a natures potency. It is the same act. No distinction is made between Creating point A and sustaining point B accept that God continues to actualise the existence of any one particular essence in regards to sustenance; but it is still creation from nothing. You are just ignoring the obvious for reasons that are not at all clear and misrepresenting what it means for God to sustain creation.

You just believe what you want to believe. Either that or you are unable to make fine distinctions. God’s sustaining action is not a creative act in the sense of causing the existence of a new being ex nihilo but the sustaining in existence of a being which has come to be through the action of a secondary cause. Your explanation would render the action of secondary causes useless and meaningless.

I really can’t defend what Geach and Feser say in your quotation, except to say they are experience the same problem you are. This does not mean that I lack a deep appreciation for Feser. On the contrary, I think he has done an excellent job of explaning Thomas. I don’t know Geach, so I can’t comment on him.

Linus2nd

 

[ventura2323]

Of course you are going to say that.

Yeah so?

Of course you don’t care. But it is clear what the Quote says. It explains clearly what it means for God to sustain existence. It is clear what the analogy of the minstrel compared to the shoe maker represents. It is clear that when it speaks of God creating the existence of the universe, that he is creating it in the here and now, actualising a natures potency. It is the same act. No distinction is made between Creating point A and sustaining point B accept that God continues to actualise the existence of any one particular essence in regards to sustenance; but it is still creation from nothing. You are just ignoring the obvious for reasons that are not at all clear and misrepresenting what it means for God to sustain creation.

Two intellects going on and on about something they know about only intellectually, while bypassing the soul.
“Be still and know”.psalm

 

[empther]

So either God created everything one time or he’s still creating.

We can’t know which is the case.

Who cares? It makes no difference at all.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

I am not sure of the phrase “God is continuously creating the world”,
but that “God creates the world”, this feels right. (I hold feelings higher that ideas since I am not an angel but a unity of spirit and body.)

It feels right because it describes God’s presence here and now.
He creates all this.
From the Ground of His eternal Now, this finite now of my present moment is created, as it was when I was conceived and will be on my death bed.
Here with me always.

Besides it feeling right, it also makes sense:
God in eternity creates the universe and time.
The laws that govern the cosmos had a beginning with His Word. That Word is present everywhere and in every time, because it defines/creates that place and time.
The beingness of all creation is caused by Him who is Being itself. (Please don’t nit pick my use of words; if you must, please contribute a better description or wording.)
In maintaining the being of all creation, He perpetually, from eternity, causes (creates) its existence.

Does God continuously create the world? I would not use that terminology because He does so from outside of time. “Continuously Creating” to me suggests He does so in time.

Does God bring the universe, in every here and now, into existence? I would say yes.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course you are going to say that.

Yeah so?

Of course you don’t care. But it is clear what the Quote says. It explains clearly what it means for God to sustain existence. It is clear what the analogy of the minstrel compared to the shoe maker represents. It is clear that when it speaks of God creating the existence of the universe, that he is creating it in the here and now, actualising a natures potency. It is the same act. No distinction is made between Creating point A and sustaining point B accept that God continues to actualise the existence of any one particular essence in regards to sustenance; but it is still creation from nothing. You are just ignoring the obvious for reasons that are not at all clear and misrepresenting what it means for God to sustain creation.

Just to put a little more coal on the fire Aquinas says, " God does not maintain things in existence by any new action, but by the continuation of the act whereby he bestows esse; an act subject neither to change nor time. An example is the light being maintained in the atmosphere by the sun’s continuous shining. " ( S.T., Part 1, ques 104, art 1, resps 4)

And again, " His ( God’s ) communicating existence to creatures, then depends on his will, and, as shown, he upholds them in existence in no other way than by the continuous bestowal of existence on them. ( ques 105, art 3, reply ).

So to sustain things in existence means, not a new creation, but a continual bestowal of existence on creatures.

Linus2nd