How Do We Know God's Essence?

[fakename]

So if His essence is His existence then if we know either then we know both right?

Wrong, for Thomas Aquinas says that the existence, “to be” can be interpreted in two ways. Either as a verbal proposition, which is true about God (namely, that His existence is His essence) or as the act of essence, in which case we don’t know about God.

My question is then, what does the above mean for it still seems plainly true that by forming a true verbal proposition that God is His existence, we are implicitly admitting that we now know His essence and yet this false but how?

Any help forthcoming would be great so thank you before hand!

 

[tonyrey]

So if His essence is His existence then if we know either then we know both right?

Wrong, for Thomas Aquinas says that the existence, “to be” can be interpreted in two ways. Either as a verbal proposition, which is true about God (namely, that His existence is His essence) or as the act of essence, in which case we don’t know about God.

My question is then, what does the above mean for it still seems plainly true that by forming a true verbal proposition that God is His existence, we are implicitly admitting that we now know His essence and yet this false but how?

Any help forthcoming would be great so thank you before hand!

We do not know, we believe…

 

[Royael]

So if His essence is His existence then if we know either then we know both right?

Wrong, for Thomas Aquinas says that the existence, “to be” can be interpreted in two ways. Either as a verbal proposition, which is true about God (namely, that His existence is His essence) or as the act of essence, in which case we don’t know about God.

My question is then, what does the above mean for it still seems plainly true that by forming a true verbal proposition that God is His existence, we are implicitly admitting that we now know His essence and yet this false but how?

Any help forthcoming would be great so thank you before hand!

*All this talk about existence and essense. Look, if you want to know the Holy Spirit, simply spend time in prayer and fasting and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Surely He will. Read the book of Joel. God said, that in the last days He will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. This is not rocket science. It is very simple. Once you get to know Him personally, you will have your answer.

No one can completely explain God’s presense. We know that He is omnipresent and we know that He is more than willing to communicate with His children. So speak to Him about this. (smiles) I’m not kidding. Speak to Him about this.

And remember, God is a real live person.Not a philisophical subject.*

 

[lemondiesel]

We do not know, we believe…

As a believer, how does one acknowledge the existence of other religions? At what point does someone say, “they are wrong and I am right?”

 

[fakename]

Thanks for the responses.

I would fast and pray for this (I’ve already prayed) but If some human already knows the answer to my question, and indeed some human does know the answer, then I figured the most profitable way of receiving an answer would be through these forums.

The idea of believing is interesting, I suppose that our knowledge of God’s essence is a matter of true and only partially justified belief? That is a fascinating option I had not explored.

In the meantime though, I’ve wondered, is St. Thomas saying that we know God’s essence in our minds, through images, and so, incompletely( the verbal propositions he speaks of, in comparison to the fullest knowledge that only God has of Himself) whereas God knows His own essence perfectly in a way that man can never know (the act of his essence).
Is this a correct interpretation?

Again, the question is, If we know of God’s existence than how can we not know God’s essence since the two are the same?

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Well first off, we cannot know God’s essence here.

His essence is incorporeal and thus cannot be sensed in a corporeal way.

Secondly, the bible has a couple passages which may be helpful.

1 Timothy 6:16
Who only hath immortality, and inhabiteth light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and empire everlasting. Amen.
Exodus 34;33-34
And having done speaking, he put a veil upon his face.But when he went in to the Lord, and spoke with him, he took it away until he came forth

God’s very essence is an unaccesible light to mortals and we shall see it after we die. In the Old Testament, Moses’s face had to be covered with a veil in order to speak to God, becuase Moses would have died had he saw the essence of God, God’s essence is so powerful, we cannot bear it in our mortal bodies. That is why we cannot know or see his essence in this life.

We cannot know that God exists in a scientific manner. We need to have faith and hope in Him as He wills. We hope for things that we do not see, because we will have a much greater joy in attaining it.

As for,"As a believer, how does one acknowledge the existence of other religions? At what point does someone say, ‘they are wrong and I am right?’ ".

I can say as a person who walked a very awkward path to Catholicism, i beleive and hold with my heart that the Catholic Church posesses the fullness of divine revelation on the planet. I have gone from evangelicism, new age beliefs, Islam/Judaism, to Catholicsm. I examined each of these systems for their own sake and followed the evidence to the Catholic Church. It did involve much prayer and contemplation, but my mind also played a large part in my conversion as I am a natural skeptic who exmaines everything,

 

[fakename]

On the contrary though, it seems that we can know God’s existence in a scientific manner, namely the 5 ways of Aquinas.

Specifically we know God exists through the existence of other things not God. But I suppose we cannot know the mode of God’s being as it is in-itself unless we were dead. Do we see God’s essence in the New Jerusalem?

 

[PeteZ28]

Science tells us that matter an energy cannot be created or destroyed, according to the laws of physics. Yet we are surrounded by unimaginable amounts of both, in an equally unimaginably large universe.

So if neither matter nor energy can be created by the laws that exist in our dimension, some greater being must have created all of what surrounds us.

Isn’t that, by its very definition, what a God is? A supreme creator?

Proof enough for me.

 

[Kelly1601]

As a believer, how does one acknowledge the existence of other religions? At what point does someone say, “they are wrong and I am right?”

Lemondiesel,

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says “Whoever is not against us is for us.” [Mark 9:40, NRSV].

Also, from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church: "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.” " [CCC: 843]

I’m not going to interpret those for you because I’m not reallyqualified, but it might help.

 

[Kelly1601]

Science tells us that matter an energy cannot be created or destroyed, according to the laws of physics. Yet we are surrounded by unimaginable amounts of both, in an equally unimaginably large universe.

So if neither matter nor energy can be created by the laws that exist in our dimension, some greater being must have created all of what surrounds us.

Isn’t that, by its very definition, what a God is? A supreme creator?

Proof enough for me.

Except that energy can be created by destroying matter.

Not that that negates your point. Just saying.

 

[lemondiesel]

Lemondiesel,

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says “Whoever is not against us is for us.” [Mark 9:40, NRSV].

Also, from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church: "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.” " [CCC: 843]

I’m not going to interpret those for you because I’m not reallyqualified, but it might help.

No worries. Thank you. I get the point you were trying to make.

 

[JohnDamian]

If the essence is prior to the existence, then it is not true that existence alone being known is enough to know essence;

However, if essence is posterior to the existence, and also a contingent factor in the revelation of God then one could hold that the knowlege of existence assumes that of the essence.

Yet; if one holds that ad infinitum essence and existence are only distinct in a formal or conceptual sense; then it may be sensible to formulate that one nessecarily requires (not follows) another for the a complete understanding.

My question is then, what does the above mean for it still seems plainly true that by forming a true verbal proposition that God is His existence, we are implicitly admitting that we now know His essence and yet this false but how?

Only if we hold that existence is posterior to essence, or that we formulate the lack of a real distinction; and claim that we know one of the contingent factors wholly (or to the degree we claim we hold knowlege of the other).

For myself, the existence and essence of God are essentially only distinct in a formal sense, and their priority inconsequental; I can only claim that whole certitude of one would imply whole certitude of the other; for the knowledge of what exists is prior to the knowlege of potential existents – and likewise my knowlege of God’s existence is prior to any conception I may have of his essence (aforementioned); for my conceptions extension is not so to the infinitude of their extension to (tantamount) indistinguisability.

I hope that helped

 

[lemondiesel]

So if His essence is His existence then if we know either then we know both right?

The Spirit comes directly from the essence of God, it is what truly makes us “in Gods image”, as God is infinite and has no form. I think this is the reason so many people have the idea that God is some Ultimate man or woman sitting outside the universe controlling everything, which is rather silly and childish to think. Though you will see many aspects of mans body that is analogous to the workings of the manifestation of the Universe. There is a reason we have 10 fingers and 10 toes, 5 extremities from the torso, why the brain, lungs, stomach and flesh/bones have the purpose they do. It is all analogous to the various principles of the Macrocosm. As above, so below, As below, so above. The microcosm is similar to the macrocosm, and the macrocosm is similar to the microcosm.

 

[fakename]

So to John Damian, is it possible, by what you have said, that God’s existence can be known if and only if, His essence could be known?

Secondly, your second statement, that “if essence if posterior to existence…etc.” what do you mean by the word “posterior”, and is its meaning the opposite of the meaning of the word “prior” in your first post?

Thirdly, if I take your statements to mean If essence is known, then existence is known and if existence is known then essence is known, then can I say that the first statement is the contra-positive of the first statement?

 

[JohnDamian]

So to John Damian, is it possible, by what you have said, that God’s existence can be known if and only if, His essence could be known?

Secondly, your second statement, that “if essence if posterior to existence…etc.” what do you mean by the word “posterior”, and is its meaning the opposite of the meaning of the word “prior” in your first post?

Thirdly, if I take your statements to mean If essence is known, then existence is known and if existence is known then essence is known, then can I say that the first statement is the contra-positive of the first statement?

Firstly; In my first paragraph I outlined that we can percieve one as prior or posterior, but that this distinction is rather meaningless in that ad infinitum they are only distinct formally. In that one cannot be fully known without the other, and the latter so by accident.

Secondly, I use posterior as the opposite of prior in this context.

Thirdly, if existence is known fully, then it is by accident that essence is known, and vise versa. But, this inherantly implies that our conception is omniscient.

Therein, as my conception is not omniscient, I am forced to learn one or the other, but as one is revealed it accidentally reveals the other; for they are only formally distinct. In reality, Existence is accidental to essence and posterior to it - yet, in conception this is not the case, as one may learn Existence prior, or posterior to essence; but in doing so it is accidental that the other one is conceived, and by consequence all conception instantaneous and indistinct. For myself then, existence was prior, but essentially instantaneous to essence in conception.

For, knowing if something exists is nessecarily requires an understanding of what exists.

 

[mosher]

To contribute to what has already been said it is necessary to know of what we are speaking. When confronted with some notion about something that is perceived we ask a few fundamental questions:

1. Is it? If this question is affirmed then we ask:
2. What is it?

The first question is concerning the fundamental existence of a thing. (does it ‘be’ or not)
The second question is about the essence of the existent thing.

When it comes to God we can know that he exists however we can never know fully the divine essence. This is not peculiar to God. We cannot know any essences in a complete way. This is the reason why Thomas answers the second question by saying:

Deus sit ipsum esse subsistens

Probably the best contemporary english translation of this because of the use of ‘sit’ instead of ‘est’ is: ‘If we can say anything about God then he is that which is to be subsisting.’ Though even this is almost to declarative a statement.

One of the problems is that since we are contingent rational beings the way our own minds work is that we proceed from that which is seen to that which is unseen - from senses knowledge to non-sense knowledge (so to speak). But, since God is completely immaterial we have no direct sense knowledge of him. However, the way we know material creatures is by first discerning their existence and then speaking about the way in which it exists. This is because for all contingent beings their existence is prior to their essence in our way of coming to know them. However, God is not a contingent being nor is he, for Thomas, a being (as such). Rather, even attributing being to God, for Thomas, is not fully correct. This is the general critique of the commentators. They constantly get the “analogy of being” wrong because they make God a being - though a super-emminent being. This is more akin to the thought of Bonaventure and Scotus. This is also, I believe, where we get the notion that ‘God is the fullness of being’ which is a helpful statement but not a correct statement about God according to Thomas’ thinking. No place in the corpus of his work does he call God ‘being,’ ‘a being,’ ‘the being,’ ‘the fullness of being,’ etc.

So, effectively what is being said about God is that while we distinguish between his essence and his existence so that we, as contingent beings, can speak about him; we must assert that there is no division in God and thus it is his very essence to exist as the originator and cause of all that exists.

Put simply in God there is no essence, properly speaking; rather God simply exists.

 

[tonyrey]

As a believer, how does one acknowledge the existence of other religions? At what point does someone say, “they are wrong and I am right?”

By using our power of reason and our conscience. We are not infallible but the truth shines by its own light. Any sect or religion that promotes intolerance or violence is opposed to the teaching of Jesus who showed us that love is more important than anything else.

 

[Love_Incarnate]

We do not know, we believe…

Dear Tonyrey, I can just imagine how God is amused by those who try to accommodate the infiniteness of His essence into such limited minds. Well, for those who have experienced God in their lives and for those who have been revealed the essence of who truly He is, He is found to be far different from how He is being described in books, etc…

One needs only to be silent and emptied of all logic and mental forms that one can see who He truly is. First, He must be experienced before He may be described. That must be very basic to every Theologian and Philosopher. If they have such conviction of His Essence and Existence, then they are easily understood and believable even in the soul level.