How can an Immaterial, Purely actual being (God) create a material world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious_Hobbit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious_Hobbit

Guest
I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (it’s a great read!) and he’s been going through Aquinas’ 5 ways and Aquinas’ method of describing some attributes of God. My question is basically, given the Thomistic principle “What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”, How can God (who is immaterial) have created a material world?

Change = the transition from potentiality to actuality. Nothing can change itself, everything relies on something exterior to itself to change it. Therefore the source of all of this change must be “unchangeable”, it must not be subject to the same rules as everything else. The universe is being held into existence at every instance by God, who has no unrealized potentiality (for that would make God subject to change), and is Purely Actual. Several things follow from this, here are a few

There can only be one purely actual being (God), for if there were more than one then there would have to be a way of distinguishing them. The only way there could be a difference between them is if one had a feature that the other didn’t have. But if one had a feature that the other one didn’t have, then that would be an unrealized potentiality, and therefore that being wouldn’t be “purely actual”

This purely actual being must be immaterial. For all matter is subject to change, constantly changing from one thing to another and also changing from gas, liquid, to solid as well. Since this purely actual being is "unchangeable’, it must be immaterial.

My problem is that if the effect can only have what was already present in the cause (either directly or indirectly), then how can an immaterial being create a material world? I hope I’ve articulated my question effectively, thanks for any comments.
 
We don’t know! We would have to be divine to understand divine creativity…
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (it’s a great read!) and he’s been going through Aquinas’ 5 ways and Aquinas’ method of describing some attributes of God. My question is basically, given the Thomistic principle “What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”, How can God (who is immaterial) have created a material world?

Change = the transition from potentiality to actuality. Nothing can change itself, everything relies on something exterior to itself to change it. Therefore the source of all of this change must be “unchangeable”, it must not be subject to the same rules as everything else. The universe is being held into existence at every instance by God, who has no unrealized potentiality (for that would make God subject to change), and is Purely Actual. Several things follow from this, here are a few

There can only be one purely actual being (God), for if there were more than one then there would have to be a way of distinguishing them. The only way there could be a difference between them is if one had a feature that the other didn’t have. But if one had a feature that the other one didn’t have, then that would be an unrealized potentiality, and therefore that being wouldn’t be “purely actual”

This purely actual being must be immaterial. For all matter is subject to change, constantly changing from one thing to another and also changing from gas, liquid, to solid as well. Since this purely actual being is "unchangeable’, it must be immaterial.

My problem is that if the effect can only have what was already present in the cause (either directly or indirectly), then how can an immaterial being create a material world? I hope I’ve articulated my question effectively, thanks for any comments.
Click to expand...
My dear friend,

I’ll offer my own thoughts on this in brief if you like : matter is just a different type and varying degree of the spiritual throughout creation. God and all creation is made of love , thought , dream , prayer and music ,but further : love , thoughts of love , dreams of love , prayer is love and love music , so all is love , and all this is spiritual. God can change too , but the thing with God is there is no time , so take away the start and the beginning , and now take away the middle of the concept of time that bogs us down , and there is just blah " now " , and God can change as much as He wants because He is just " now " and all change that occurs in " now " is not really change because it has always been , it’s the mystery of bein eternal. Indeed all change in our world is an illusion, God must do all His creativity " now " and not over time as we think. We experience this change gradually unfiolding but it is an illusion, all change has already occured in " now ". We must experience the change gradually unfold forever as how could we be here , in purgatory and heaven all at once – for instance ? We couldn’t. These are my thoughts on this. Hopeit helps.

God bless and Love you 👍🙂

John
 
This can get very confusing and roundabout. Remember that St. Thomas’ Summa SUMMArises theology in steps, starting generally and getting more specific. He does not treat of the material Creation until quite a while after the articles on God. In a sense, the 5 proofs for God are just the beginning of the proofs of God, because they are recalled and elaborated on much later, in questions 44-46 of the First Part (on Creation).

Now, God is the very state of completion, calm, and rest that is actuality. Since He is so totally in act, we can truly say that He is perfect - for the actuality is the perfection of the potentiality. A specific thing is said to be good only in so far as it has reached the perfection (actuality) of its possibilities - but just because a thing hasn’t reached total perfect doesn’t mean it is entirely lacking GOODNESS! Why, it’s a state of slight perfection and goodness just to exist at all, even if you’re imperfect. 🙂 Remember that in Question 5 of Part I, Thomas goes into the very definition of “good” and “being”. You need to read Questions 5 and 6 before you can even come close to Question 2 (God’s existence), ironically!

The false claim is that “good” and “being” are separate, but Thomas shows that “good” and “being” are exactly the same. Goodness is full being, and full being is the ultimate goodness. Why? “Good” is what is desirable, and “being” is actuality; therefore, since all being is actually 1%, 5%, 33%, or 90% perfected according to its goal (getting better and better until it reaches 100%), it is respectively 1%, 5%, 33%, or 90% “good”, depending on how close it is to that goal of perfection. For example, the perfection of heat is to be on fire, because fire is the height and perfection of heat… but that doesn’t mean that non-fiery heat isn’t hot - only that it is 20% or 50% actually fire, and only 80% or 50% potentially fire.

If that isn’t too confusing :), let’s proceed to your question: “since God is perfect actual being, how could He impart only imperfect potential being to other things?” Well, interestingly, the answer to your question is in one of your own statements from Thomas: “what is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”. Now, it is true that nothing created has perfection or complete actuality, but relies on God for its actuality; however, the fact that created things even exist means they are better than nothing - so they are “good”, like God. It is also true that since things other than God exist, they also have “being” (which is what makes them good), like God. We can already point to two things of God that we DO have: goodness and being. How, then, can you say that we (the effect) do not have anything that is present in God (the cause)? We manifestly do have at least those two things! 🙂
 
How can an Immaterial, Purely actual being (God) create a material world?

I agree with the abovementioned answers but my response is really quite simple…

How, well this Immaterial, the Uncreated God of the Universe can create as He wishes, what He wishes, because He can. And with God all things are possible. If you read Genesis 1 - 2:4 you see unfold the hand of the Almighty during creation, it is a beautiful account especially the fact that man and woman are made in His divine image. How special is that. The mechanics of God’s creation, only He knows, we are blessed to know that our Master is in charge.

Peace
 
John and Glorious,

I am a newbee to this sight and was delighted to initially encounter a great question and, in my estimation, a quite serviceable answer. Not being a summatheologian (although I am intrigued enough to consider reading it), it just seems logical to me that a perfected or fully actualized being would be able to do anything it/he/she wanted to do. This would include creating a lesser (greater would be impossible) being. But why do such a thing? If God is Love, it seems to me that would be the answer. He released his love to form a different dimension of being. Us. And maybe a lot of other beings in other dimensions. Sometimes I think we tend to be self-centered in thinking we are the only center of God’s universe. He certainly would have the ability to multi-task. And Jesus, his Son would have the same ability. Hopefully He didn’t have to go through the same trouble to save others as He did to save us. But if He did, He would.

This all leads to Pentecost and the Holy Spirit. What a fantastic gift Jesus sent us. Do you think I would even have encounted you two if the Holy Spirit hadn’t pushed you my way? I praise God for the two of you and for sending your thoughts through the Spirit to me. Thanks guys and may the Spirit continue to bring you truth and understanding and the willingness to share.
 
djbrayer said:
I am a newbee to this sight and was delighted to initially encounter a great question and, in my estimation, a quite serviceable answer. Not being a summatheologian (although I am intrigued enough to consider reading it), it just seems logical to me that a perfected or fully actualized being would be able to do anything it/he/she wanted to do. This would include creating a lesser (greater would be impossible) being. But why do such a thing? If God is Love, it seems to me that would be the answer.
Click to expand...
For a newbie, you have an awfully excellent understanding of God. 😃

You’re right, of course. This was a simple approach I had not considered taking. Since all being replicates itself either by nature (star → nova → interstellar dust clouds → star; pollen) or by choice (man + wife, stone → chisel → statue), we can say that an essential operation of being is reproduction. Now, if God is the perfectly-actualised (at rest, no need of change, complete) being, He ought to be able to perfectly-actualise any thought or notion; that is, He ought to be able to reproduce being itself, and since He’s perfectly-actual, He can reproduce being itself on any level. 🙂
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (it’s a great read!) and he’s been going through Aquinas’ 5 ways and Aquinas’ method of describing some attributes of God. My question is basically, given the Thomistic principle “What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”, How can God (who is immaterial) have created a material world?

Change = the transition from potentiality to actuality. Nothing can change itself, everything relies on something exterior to itself to change it. Therefore the source of all of this change must be “unchangeable”, it must not be subject to the same rules as everything else. The universe is being held into existence at every instance by God, who has no unrealized potentiality (for that would make God subject to change), and is Purely Actual. Several things follow from this, here are a few

There can only be one purely actual being (God), for if there were more than one then there would have to be a way of distinguishing them. The only way there could be a difference between them is if one had a feature that the other didn’t have. But if one had a feature that the other one didn’t have, then that would be an unrealized potentiality, and therefore that being wouldn’t be “purely actual”

This purely actual being must be immaterial. For all matter is subject to change, constantly changing from one thing to another and also changing from gas, liquid, to solid as well. Since this purely actual being is "unchangeable’, it must be immaterial.

My problem is that if the effect can only have what was already present in the cause (either directly or indirectly), then how can an immaterial being create a material world? I hope I’ve articulated my question effectively, thanks for any comments.
Click to expand...
Because the immaterial is greater than the material. That which is finite can take on dimensions. The physical world is possible if you consider the fact that firstly it is an expression of finite limitations; this is to say that creation is a manifestation of an underlying mathematical construct. It is rooted first and foremost in mathematical abstractions which are then given qualitative features when actualized. God has no dimension because his being transcends the finite limits of mathematical truths; and god is able to manifests these abstract truths through knowledge of his own perfection. Through knowledge if his perfection, he is able to have knowledge of what he is not. This is knowledge of the finite. The principle is existential. You can’t get something out of nothing, but you can get an essence out of an idea. You can get new essences out of finite dimensions coupled with qualitative attributes.
 
MindoverMatter,

I think I understand what you’re saying. Are you’re saying that because God knows what he is not, that knowledge of what he is not counts as being present in the cause so that it can also be present in the effect? It makes sense, but is “knowledge” of what he is not (in this case material) the same as having “matter” in the cause so that it can also be present in the effect?
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (it’s a great read!) and he’s been going through Aquinas’ 5 ways and Aquinas’ method of describing some attributes of God. My question is basically, given the Thomistic principle “What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”, How can God (who is immaterial) have created a material world?
.
Click to expand...
God is present everywhere ; we are present only in some places and ways. The latter we call being material ; you can’t be material if you are omnipresent.

So limited presence is present in God’s omnipresence. Consistent.
 
Psi,
I guess if we define material as, " finite and limited presence" and God as, “Immaterial, lacking finitude, and omnipresent” Then that could make sense. If materiality is a limited, sub category of the immaterial then just because God is immaterial that wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of him creating matter.

I’d just like to try and get a good solid understanding of this. For instance, Thomists argue that since the effect can only have what is present in the cause, and we humans have an intellect, a will, and so on, then the first cause of the universe must have an intellect and a will (analogically). I think that makes pretty good sense until I think about immaterial/ material, then it sounds a bit fuzzy.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
Psi,
I guess if we define material as, " finite and limited presence" and God as, “Immaterial, lacking finitude, and omnipresent” Then that could make sense. If materiality is a limited, sub category of the immaterial then just because God is immaterial that wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of him creating matter.
Click to expand...
Precisely. To be finite is to necessarily take on dimensions; that is why God does not have any material parts. Therefore not having parts does not preclude him from creating physical dimensions, since physics is not “more” than God, but rather it is essentially and existentially less than God; even though it is quantitatively more. To be finite is necessarily to be a certain size, shape, or quantity. God does not have a physical quantity, shape, or size. When somebody says that the effect cannot have more than the cause, they usually mean that it cannot be its own source of reality. What ever nature the effect has, it only has it because of that which ultimately preceded and transcends it in being. Thus when we see that a cause is essentially less than the nature of its effect, then we know that this kind of cause is merely secondary in nature in regards to the effect and is not the ultimate root or source of its reality. We can also know that what ever the ultimate cause is it cannot have the attributes of that which is either less than the effect or is in principle synonymous in nature to the potential nature of the effect. The only thing that can cause finiteness, is that which is greater than finity, and that thing is infinity.Timeless, immaterial, absolute power, absolute reality.

To be conscious of ones self is essentially greater than any non-conscious material secondary cause; it has more power and thus a higher degree of reality. Thus the first cause has a mind because the first cause has absolute reality and thus it has absolute knowledge of itself. To be less than conscious is to be less than the effect. Only an infinite mind can define in to existence that which is finite. A timeless unconsciousness cannot cause anything.

Its an existential principle rather than quantitative principle; which is the sense in which you seem to think of the term. Out of nothing comes nothing, thus the effect can never out stretch the existential capacity or power of the cause.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (it’s a great read!) and he’s been going through Aquinas’ 5 ways and Aquinas’ method of describing some attributes of God. My question is basically, given the Thomistic principle “What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”, How can God (who is immaterial) have created a material world?

Change = the transition from potentiality to actuality. Nothing can change itself, everything relies on something exterior to itself to change it. Therefore the source of all of this change must be “unchangeable”, it must not be subject to the same rules as everything else. The universe is being held into existence at every instance by God, who has no unrealized potentiality (for that would make God subject to change), and is Purely Actual. Several things follow from this, here are a few

There can only be one purely actual being (God), for if there were more than one then there would have to be a way of distinguishing them. The only way there could be a difference between them is if one had a feature that the other didn’t have. But if one had a feature that the other one didn’t have, then that would be an unrealized potentiality, and therefore that being wouldn’t be “purely actual”

This purely actual being must be immaterial. For all matter is subject to change, constantly changing from one thing to another and also changing from gas, liquid, to solid as well. Since this purely actual being is "unchangeable’, it must be immaterial.

My problem is that if the effect can only have what was already present in the cause (either directly or indirectly), then how can an immaterial being create a material world? I hope I’ve articulated my question effectively, thanks for any comments.
Click to expand...
Frodo!
Excellent, thoughtful OP! Perhaps the best OP I’ve ever read on CAF, and superior to any of mine.

I’ve been anti-Thomistic for a long time, and your post (plus other hints) are telling me that I’ve not studied Aquinas thoroughly enough.

“What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect” strikes me as dead-on accurate, and solid physics, So, let’s go with it. Here’s a partial theory.
  1. The universe is constructed from a mysterious substance known to physics as energy, which follows three fundamental laws, the first of which is that it (energy) cannot be created or destroyed.
  2. Instead of arguing with that, give up the notion that God created everything (beginning with energy), and exchange it for the more interesting possibility that inherent in His nature is the ability to operate as a counterforce to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This will satisfy the Thomist principle and allow God to shape energy into the structural forms which you recognize as body, planet, universe.

Incidentally, it is the Creator’s relationship with energy, not matter, that is philosophically relevant, since matter is clearly a form of energy. Rather than worry about an “immaterial” God, consider the relationship of the creator to energy. Unless I’m badly mistaken (happened but once, when I thought I was wrong about something), God cannot Himself be a form of “energy” without violating Aquinas’ principle.

Danmed good post! BTW, have you read, Bored of the Rings? If not, beg, borrow, or steal a copy.
 
djbrayer said:
John and Glorious,

I am a newbee to this sight and was delighted to initially encounter a great question and, in my estimation, a quite serviceable answer. Not being a summatheologian (although I am intrigued enough to consider reading it), it just seems logical to me that a perfected or fully actualized being would be able to do anything it/he/she wanted to do. This would include creating a lesser (greater would be impossible) being. But why do such a thing? If God is Love, it seems to me that would be the answer. He released his love to form a different dimension of being. Us. And maybe a lot of other beings in other dimensions. Sometimes I think we tend to be self-centered in thinking we are the only center of God’s universe. He certainly would have the ability to multi-task. And Jesus, his Son would have the same ability. Hopefully He didn’t have to go through the same trouble to save others as He did to save us. But if He did, He would.

This all leads to Pentecost and the Holy Spirit. What a fantastic gift Jesus sent us. Do you think I would even have encountered you two if the Holy Spirit hadn’t pushed you my way? I praise God for the two of you and for sending your thoughts through the Spirit to me. Thanks guys and may the Spirit continue to bring you truth and understanding and the willingness to share.
Click to expand...
A warm welcome to the forum, djb! You have hit the mark with:

“It just seems logical to me that a perfected or fully actualized being would be able to do anything it/he/she wanted to do.” 🙂
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (it’s a great read!) and he’s been going through Aquinas’ 5 ways and Aquinas’ method of describing some attributes of God. My question is basically, given the Thomistic principle “What is not present in the cause cannot not be in the effect”, How can God (who is immaterial) have created a material world?

Change = the transition from potentiality to actuality. Nothing can change itself, everything relies on something exterior to itself to change it. Therefore the source of all of this change must be “unchangeable”, it must not be subject to the same rules as everything else. The universe is being held into existence at every instance by God, who has no unrealized potentiality (for that would make God subject to change), and is Purely Actual. Several things follow from this, here are a few

There can only be one purely actual being (God), for if there were more than one then there would have to be a way of distinguishing them. The only way there could be a difference between them is if one had a feature that the other didn’t have. But if one had a feature that the other one didn’t have, then that would be an unrealized potentiality, and therefore that being wouldn’t be “purely actual”

This purely actual being must be immaterial. For all matter is subject to change, constantly changing from one thing to another and also changing from gas, liquid, to solid as well. Since this purely actual being is "unchangeable’, it must be immaterial.

My problem is that if the effect can only have what was already present in the cause (either directly or indirectly), then how can an immaterial being create a material world? I hope I’ve articulated my question effectively, thanks for any comments.
Click to expand...
Curious Hobbit

That’s like asking how did Jesus heal deformities of cripples by agreeing to do so. The Power of God’s Word in His Presence will be honored. The Created will honor the Creator according to His Word in His Presence. Which is not immaterial, it is actual. The same in the beginning, God came into His creation and spoke. The Word of God in the Presence of God (Jesus Christ) came into flesh and said, and it became. The power of the Word is in the Presence of God.

There seems to be a conscience, that God is not present in His Creation. The Israelites did not have to die, to be in the Presence of the Lord their God.

What is immaterial, is a lie, and what is, is the concern. If you notice, it is only mankind that can disobey His Word.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
Psi,
I guess if we define material as, " finite and limited presence" and God as, “Immaterial, lacking finitude, and omnipresent” Then that could make sense. If materiality is a limited, sub category of the immaterial then just because God is immaterial that wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of him creating matter.
Click to expand...
Material things have shape .
They have shape because they are present in some space but not others, carved out.
God is immaterial, i.e. shapeless.
God is shapeless because he is present in all space .
So the cause is present in all space; the, effect, in some space but not others.
It’s thus consistent with the thomistic principle
 
psi said:
Material things have shape .
They have shape because they are present in some space but not others, carved out.
God is immaterial, i.e. shapeless.
God is shapeless because he is present in all space .
So the cause is present in all space; the, effect, in some space but not others.
It’s thus consistent with the thomistic principle
Click to expand...
Space has shape :The universe is expanding, apparently egg shaped. Where does that leave your thinking:thumbsup:

What is the Thomistic principal ? The earth is flat or the universe is 6000 yrs old…?

Sure , there would be good inspiration from the past. But its NO GOOD…if it does not
inspire forward momentum. Gifted people would not be impressed to see their idea’s
stagnate .As a Catholic, I never thought the faith had a serious problem until reading through in this forum. Its basically organized creationism with a few twists. Stuck on ghosts in the shadows, know it alls, stubbornness, backed up by lazy recourse to the favorite cop-out…“Its a mystery”
 
…Well first of all, not Aquinas or any medieval Christians believed the world was flat.

“Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.” (S.T. Part 1, Question 1, Article 1, Reply to obj. 2) -Aquinas

Oh yes it Aquinas must have been naïve indeed to believe that “whatever is not present in the cause cannot be present in the effect” or “whatever comes into existence requires a cause” or “ The whole is greater than it’s parts”… You might as well doubt 2 + 2 = 4, the Pythagorean Theorem, or Newton’s Laws of Motion. Nobel Laureate Max Delbruck, a biophysicist, once said that they should award Aristotle a Nobel prize for discovering the principle implied in DNA.

Let’s not forget, it wasn’t Scholastic Thomism that gave us Marxism, Moral Relativism, existentialism, and the rest…

Your response to Psi about the shape of the universe is irrelevant. He was pointing out that matter is confined to a certain location by physical limits of shape and size. Thus being material would be an imperfection to God who is Omnipresent and not confined to the material form of a tree, mountain, person, molecule, planet, or the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top