How does God create "the act of existing" out of nothing?

[Linusthe2nd]

I admit to being guilty of unclear writing, which misled you to equivocate my actual position. I did post:

“If there is no ‘substance’ then there is no existence outside of God.”

What that proposition meant to convey is:

“If there is no ‘substance’ then there is no existence, except for the existence of God.” I wasn’t commenting on how created being participates with God’s existence. I only meant to demonstrate that the formula from the First Vatican Council does apply to all created being.

I see. Thank you for the clarification. I agree that created things must participate in existence. This thread then seems to have evolved into the question of how created being participates in existence vis a vis God. There is an active thread in this forum where I posted what I believe is Aquinas’ answer to this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10989243&postcount=85

I believe that God is the ever-present continuous cause of all created being, which is how it participates in God’s existence. A causal explanation avoids the problem of created being becoming “part” of God, yet still preserves the participation of all created things with existence.

You must keep in mind that no thing is a substance unless it has or is existence. There is no room for equivocating, finessing or disguising the fact that unless a substance has its own act of existence, it is not a created being. As Thomas says, God creates substances, whole and entire, including their act of existence. Now how in the world can God create His own act of existence? For that is what He would have to do if the act of existence of created substances, which He created, was His own act of existence? !!!

As Thomas says in S.T. 1, 45, 4 " God is the cause of created substances, which includes existence. And to be created, means also to be absolutely other than God, even in their " act of existence. "

Again, in 45, 5 he states, " Among all effects the most universal is existence itself…"

and further on he says, " Now God’s proper effect is that which is presupposed to any other, namely existence tout court ( simply ). "

And again in S.C.G., Book 1, ch 26 Thomas says: "… Chapter 26

THAT GOD IS NOT THE FORMAL BEING OF ALL THINGS

[1] We are now able to refute the error of certain persons who said that God is nothing other than the formal being of each thing.

[2] This being is divided into the being of substance and the being of accident. Now, we have proved that the divine being is neither the being of substance nor that of accident. God, therefore, cannot be that being by which each thing formally is…"
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#26

Or again, in 1 Sentences, Distinction 37, Ques 1, Thomas says : " 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…"
www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/lo…ntd37q1a1.html

So when Thomas says created beings " share " in existence, he means they share in the common note or perfection of existence God has given to each created extent. They are said to " share " or " participate, " not because they share in God’s own Existence, but becuase they each have a limited or imperfect existence, which is the same type of " act " that each other created being has been given, but differing in its perfection, as determined by the limiting potency of their respective forms.

Now since they each have the same perfection, differing only in perfection, none can have caused that perfection. It can only be caused by that Being who is Perfect Existence. But this applies to their entire substances and all that goes into the make up of their substances, includling matter, form, and existence, their whole and entire being. They " share " nothing with God. But they do have a real Realation with God, as effects which are caused by Him.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your interpretation of this verse is a good reminder of why we have a Magisterium. The Church definitively teaches (as the passage from the Catehcism I quoted previously illustrates) that this union is one of grace, not nature.

This, to be sure, is one of the major appeals of this argument and one I gave ample consideration as I pondered this perspective. But I think there’s a simple solution to this question which could be summed up in a few points:

a) our esses are contingent, relying on God’s sustaining power.
b) we are only united to God insofar as we are like Him; this is accomplished to a lesser degree by the exercise of virtue and the avoidance of sin (which diminishes our own “degrees of perfection”), and to the greatest extent by grace. This is why Jesus says we must be “perfect as our Heavenly father is perfect,” and also explains the necessity of purgatory: “nothing unclean (imperfect) may enter heaven.”

Now, on the other hand, if God’s esse were our esse, then we would already be perfect. The very paper you cited said as much: to paraphrase, “wherever the Divine Esse is found, so is His infinite goodness, truth, etc.” Insofar as a being is a composite of esse/essence, it necessarily follows that anything which truly possesses the Divine Esse would manifest, to an unrestricted degree, the perfection of God. Only one such creature has ever existed: Jesus Christ.

“Participation” does not mean “possession.” In this sense, it is more akin to emulation.

God does make us real and actual, but not by conjoining our essences to his esse. We exist in Him, inasmuch as He is everywhere, but our being is not his being. Really, you raise an interesting point here, because, in fact, if God were our esse, sin would not simply separate us from God, it would totally annihilate us. Separation from one’s esse results in nonexistence.

PS2011,

Thank you for your well-considered and carefully worded post. I appreciate the time and effort you have spent trying to defend your understanding of the truth. Your points are valid and lead me to want to understand Aquinas more than I do. I will not be responding to any more posts on this thread for a few days, at least. I want to take some time to read Aquinas on this issue along with other Thomists and the teaching of the Church through relevant documents. Ultimately, you are correct about the Magisterium. Thanks again for your contributions to this topic and the respectful way that you respond.

The Peace of Christ go with you!

PP

 

[Peter_Plato]

I admit to being guilty of unclear writing, which misled you to equivocate my actual position. I did post:

“If there is no ‘substance’ then there is no existence outside of God.”

What that proposition meant to convey is:

“If there is no ‘substance’ then there is no existence, except for the existence of God.” I wasn’t commenting on how created being participates with God’s existence. I only meant to demonstrate that the formula from the First Vatican Council does apply to all created being.

I see. Thank you for the clarification. I agree that created things must participate in existence. This thread then seems to have evolved into the question of how created being participates in existence vis a vis God. There is an active thread in this forum where I posted what I believe is Aquinas’ answer to this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10989243&postcount=85

I believe that God is the ever-present continuous cause of all created being, which is how it participates in God’s existence. A causal explanation avoids the problem of created being becoming “part” of God, yet still preserves the participation of all created things with existence.

Thanks for your clarity.

 

[prodigalson2011]

PS2011,

Thank you for your well-considered and carefully worded post. I appreciate the time and effort you have spent trying to defend your understanding of the truth. Your points are valid and lead me to want to understand Aquinas more than I do. I will not be responding to any more posts on this thread for a few days, at least. I want to take some time to read Aquinas on this issue along with other Thomists and the teaching of the Church through relevant documents. Ultimately, you are correct about the Magisterium. Thanks again for your contributions to this topic and the respectful way that you respond.

The Peace of Christ go with you!

PP

And also with you! I hope my comment about the Magisterium didn’t cause any offense; after posting I began to think the wording may have sounded a bit condescending. In any case, I meant the remark to apply as much to myself as anyone else. Lord knows the Church has put me in my place many a time.

Anyway, enjoy your studies! And, before I sign off, I must say that I take it as no small compliment that I’ve played any part in stoking the curiosity of someone as erudite as yourself.

God bless.

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks again for your contributions to this topic and the respectful way that you respond.

Whenever respect and charity is maintained in debates, it is a victory for truth itself (and therefore gives glory to God), regardless of how correct one’s arguments end up being.

I have in mind Plato’s description of Socrates’ discussions in the Republic. Pretty much everyone had a healthy respect for everyone’s point of view in that discussion (with the possible exception of Thrasymachus ).

I also love Thomas’ way of presenting objections to his arguments first. He at least attempts to give the arguments the clearest possible expression before providing his responses, and he rarely resorts to ad hominems.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

And that is absolutely wrong.
Linus2nd

According to you.

 

[yppop]

Yes, they have a mind of their own, but they are not supposed to prefer their " philosophical or scientific " speculations to the obedience of faith and mind they owe to the Truth of Divine Revelation as revealed to the Church through the Holy Spirit and determined and enuciated by the Church in her Defined and Ordinary teaching. In other words, they are not allowed to nuance their Faith.

You cannot make " plausible " and " understandable " that which only God can know, and which has not been revealed to the Church.

Is the true understanding of the Faith restricted to a highly technical, special understanding, available only to a very few highly educated elite, from which are excluded the masses in the pews? This sounds a lot like some kind of Gnosticism.

And in my view and in the view of the Church, for learned men and women to broadcast nuanced arguments far and wide amongst the general population ( and I include in such forums as this) not only causes confusion in their minds but it shows a certain disloyalty to the Church who has repeatedly said that such notions should be debated within the lawful confines of Church administrative bodies and structures.

Sure mathematics has explicative value. But we are talking here about " theories " only a handful of people understand or claim to understand. Shall we place our Faith in this special elite rather than the Church?

I mean that God created the universe from no prior existing beings or substances, not even out of God’s own substance. And that is exactly what the Church means, for we cannot assume that the Church is hiding some nuanced meaning. For if that were so, the Church cannot claim to be passing on the unadulerated, unvarnished Word of God, which God promised was available only through the teaching of the Magisterium.

You seemed to be pointing to something existing prior to the creation event which was definable by mathematics. And since it was definable by mathematics, it would have to have been based on some type of matter ( no matter how undefinable or inaccessable ) which was assumed to exist, based on some mathematical theory. If I am wrong, say so plainly, just say you are not implying any prior existing being of any kind, not even the being of God. And if that is the case, why all the mathematical rigmarole?

I think I have adequately explained my objection above. And I’m afraid I will always be ignorant of your : " mathematical " explanation. If it amounts to what I have explained by creation ex nihilo, then just say so. And if it does, your attempt, no matter how laudable, will certainly cause confusion among the masses in the pews. So it is best unsaid.

If the universe was created from the Substance of God, wouldn’t that mean the universe was God? No, the universe was not created from the Substance of God. Don’t you think that if that was the case the Church would have said so in its solemn Definitions from Vatican 1?

The universe was created by the Will of God from no prior existing substance or being of any sort. That is what from ex nihilo means. If it meant anything else, the Church would have made that clear in its Definitions.

The substance of God is not divisible. This is also the Defined Dogma of the Church. That is what the Church meant when it Defined the nature of God as " Simple. " And there are ample references in Scriptures for this and for all the Church’s Definitions. God told Moses, " I am. " By which the Church understands that God is utterly simple and thus undivisable.

End of Part 1 of Response

Linus2nd

Linus
I have done some really silly things in my life, but none as silly as arguing with a guy that admits not understanding mathematics but is dogmatically certain that what I’ve written about a mathematical description of creatio ex nihilo is not only wrong but is in fact a danger to the simpletons in the pews. I can forgive your misinterpretations because the volume of posts that you contribute to this forum cannot leave any time for insightful thought. On the other hand, your sanctimonious attitude that you are absolutely right and know without doubt the “Defined Dogma of the Catholic Church” better than anyone else has finally tired me out. Goodbye.
Yppop

 

[Linux]

No, I don’t believe it does. I already understand that, and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

It has everything to do with the discussion. Which you have successfully avoided with charges of heresy and arguments from authority.

No, it is not. You are equivocating specific definitions of “sharing” and “participation” with metaphysical senses of the words to which they do not apply.

Am i

"Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness."

So according to you this means that participating in God’s perfection is merely to have a likeness to God like how a wolf looks like a dog or the patterns in a wall look like a face? Well since the fundamental thing that makes God a perfect being is the fact that his esse is identical to God, let me ask you, what does it mean to be like God in a metaphysical sense?

Let me tell you something, their likeness to God has nothing to do with the essences of created things for God is not a perfect unicorn or a perfect spider or a perfect universe for which we are only a finite comparison. But God is identical to his esse, which is the fundamental metaphysical definition of his perfection, and of course existence is not a real genus. So we can only meaningfully have a degree of perfection or an imperfect likeness to God insofar as our essence is conjoined to an esse which is not our own.

If you or Aquinas continue to argue that God creates new esse, then what you are in fact saying is that there can be species of esse; which is false since esse is not a genus; and since God is esse he is not a genus either.

Aquinas never said that that God can create new species of esse, that there can be difference in esse, which is precisely what you are saying. Aquinas only argued that there can be a real distinction in essences (there can be more then one essence and thus a species) precisely because it is not identical to esse.

Thus there is only one esse

The only metaphysical conclusion that can be logically drawn from this fact is my conclusion, and that is the fact that God is the esse of all contingent essences.

aquinas.wjduquette.com/?p=26

"We go on to show that God cannot be a genus. What a thing is, but not that it is, comes from its genus; the thing is established in its proper existence by specific differences. But that which God is, is very existence itself. Therefore He cannot be a genus.

Moreover, every genus is divided by some differences. But no differences can be apprehended in very existence itself. For differences do not share in genus except indirectly, so far as the species that are constituted by differences share in a genus. But there cannot be any difference that does not share in existence, since non-being is not the specific difference of anything. Accordingly God cannot be a genus predicated of a number of species."

Thus there cannot be different esse.

Perhaps you should follow Duns Scotus and reject the concept of existence.

No, it is not. The reason we say that they have a limited participation in the perfection of God is because the essences of all created beings possess degrees of the perfections found in God. Per Aquinas:

God is perfect only because his nature is his esse, which is his power which is his will, which is his love. In that respect having degrees of perfection is only ontologically meaningful insofar as an essences relationship to esse is concerned. If this esse is their own esse, then they do not have degrees of Gods perfection, but rather they have degrees of their own esse which is ridiculous and doesn’t reflect any perfection in God in a metaphysical sense.

 

[utunumsint]

Let me tell you something, their likeness to God has nothing to do with the essences of created things for God is not a perfect unicorn or a perfect spider or a perfect universe for which we are only a finite comparison. But God is identical to his esse, which is the fundamental metaphysical definition of his perfection, and of course existence is not a real genus. So we can only have a degree of perfection or an imperfect likeness to God insofar as our essence is conjoined to an esse which is not our own.

Esse alone is nothing. God’s esse is the perfection of all created essences, and goes far beyond all created essences, because He is infinite and the universe is finite. In a sense, his esse is the perfect essence.

We only share in that perfection to the extent that he has created us to share in that perfection and permits us by grace. So our likeness to God has everything to do with our essence, both that received by nature, and that received in a more perfect way in our immaterial nature - the spiritual soul. In fact, only spiritual creatures are truly created in the image of God, specifically in his ability to will, to love, and to know. This is an insight that the Bible provides. A chair reflects something of its maker, but a portrait of a painter, or a statue representing a sculptor is an intentional likeness. In the same way, our very essence, our nature, is a reflection of the essence of God.

By focusing on esse alone, you are losing sight of the essence part of this idea.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

We only share in that perfection to the extent that he has created us to share in that perfection and permits us by grace. So our likeness to God has everything to do with our essence, both that received by nature, and that received in a more perfect way in our immaterial nature - the spiritual soul. In fact, only spiritual creatures are truly created in the image of God, specifically in his ability to will, to love, and to know. This is an insight that the Bible provides. A chair reflects something of its maker, but a portrait of a painter, or a statue representing a sculptor is an intentional likeness. In the same way, our very essence, our nature, is a reflection of the essence of God.

Ut

God is not a perfect universe, and so obviously it has nothing to do with created essences, and everything to do with **esse ** and the degree to which we participate in it.

 

[utunumsint]

If you or Aquinas continue to argue that God creates new esse, then what you are in fact saying is that there can be species of esse; which is false since esse is not a genus; and since God is esse he is not a genus either.

Aquinas never said that that God can create new species of esse, that there can be difference in esse, which is precisely what you are saying. Aquinas only argued that there can be a real distinction in essences (there can be more then one essence and thus a species) precisely because it is not identical to esse.

Thus there is only one esse

The only metaphysical conclusion that can be logically drawn from this fact is my conclusion, and that is the fact that God is the esse of all contingent essences.

So I participate in God’s perfection to the same degree that a dog, or cat, or hunk of cheese to, since they exist?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

So I participate in God’s perfection to the same degree that a dog, or cat, or hunk of cheese to, since they exist?

God bless,
Ut

Are you going to address my argument or not?

 

[Linux]

So I participate in God’s perfection to the same degree that a dog, or cat, or hunk of cheese to, since they exist?

God bless,
Ut

You are ignoring and evading the argument.

Your argument that esse is nothing without essence in a metaphysical context is logically false. In creatures, esse is that which is most fundamental to the actuality of an essence. The esse is distinct from essence even after being conjoined and the essence has no causal power over esse whatsoever since it is the esse that makes it real. God is not an esse and an essence. God is the act of existing. In other-words the act of existing is a nature in and of its self. God is not two things spliced together.

 

[utunumsint]

Are you going to address my argument or not?

I am not ignoring your arguments, just trying to draw out its implications.

But you changed your original post, so I’ll take a look at it again.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

I am not ignoring your arguments, just trying to draw out its implications.

But you changed your original post, so I’ll take a look at it again.

God bless,
Ut

If you are going to disprove the argument, you have to show it to be logically false. Implications to ones beliefs is irrelevant.

 

[utunumsint]

If you are going to disprove the argument, you have to show it to be logically false. Implications to ones beliefs is irrelevant.

Well, if the argument leads to ridiculous conclusions, then …

I don’t think this is a fallacious method of reasoning.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

Well, if the argument leads to ridiculous conclusions, then …

I don’t think this is a fallacious method of reasoning.

God bless,
Ut

You haven’t show this to be true. What you are saying here is just a red herring and the fallacy of begging the qeustion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

"Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, “circle in proving”) or circular reasoning. Were it not begging the question, the missing premise would render the argument viciously circular, and while never persuasive, arguments of the form “A therefore A” are logically valid[1][2][3] because asserting the premise while denying the self-same conclusion is a direct contradiction. In addition “A therefore A” is an extension of the Law of Identity. In general, validity only guarantees the conclusion must follow given the truth of the premises. Absent that, a valid argument proves nothing: the conclusion may or may not follow from faulty premises—although in this particular example, it’s self-evident that the conclusion is false if and only if the premise is false (see logical equivalence and logical equality).[4]

 

[utunumsint]

You haven’t show this to be true. What you are saying here is just a red herring and the fallacy of begging the qeustion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

"Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, “circle in proving”) or circular reasoning. Were it not begging the question, the missing premise would render the argument viciously circular, and while never persuasive, arguments of the form “A therefore A” are logically valid[1][2][3] because asserting the premise while denying the self-same conclusion is a direct contradiction. In addition “A therefore A” is an extension of the Law of Identity. In general, validity only guarantees the conclusion must follow given the truth of the premises. Absent that, a valid argument proves nothing: the conclusion may or may not follow from faulty premises—although in this particular example, it’s self-evident that the conclusion is false if and only if the premise is false (see logical equivalence and logical equality).[4]

How am I begging the question? You say everything that exists shares in God’s esse. I asked you if everything shared in that esse equally. You ignored my question. I was not begging anything.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Esse alone is nothing. God’s esse is the perfection of all created essences, and goes far beyond all created essences, because He is infinite and the universe is finite. In a sense, his esse is the perfect essence.

We only share in that perfection to the extent that he has created us to share in that perfection and permits us by grace. So our likeness to God has everything to do with our essence, both that received by nature, and that received in a more perfect way in our immaterial nature - the spiritual soul. In fact, only spiritual creatures are truly created in the image of God, specifically in his ability to will, to love, and to know. This is an insight that the Bible provides. A chair reflects something of its maker, but a portrait of a painter, or a statue representing a sculptor is an intentional likeness. In the same way, our very essence, our nature, is a reflection of the essence of God.

By focusing on esse alone, you are losing sight of the essence part of this idea.

God bless,
Ut

You seem to be agreeing that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures.
Now the Esse of God is the act of existence of God, which is God. So we could just as well say that God is the esse of creatures. So God would then be the esse or the to be or the act which makes an essence to be a being and a substance. Now, though essence and esse are distinct in creatures, esse is inner most in them and is composed with the essence as the principle by which the essence becomes a being and a substance (this is the teaching of Thomas ).

So we now have the situation that God is mixed with the substance of created beings ( where as Thomas says the two are not mixed just because God is present to His creation.) In other words, now we have a situation in which created substances are God!
And this involves God in a contradiction.- it appears that God is creating Himself !

On the other hand, in 1 Sentences, Distinction 37, Ques 1( begin at Solution ) , Thomas says , " 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…"
www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/lo…ntd37q1a1.html "

And the clincher, as Thomas says in S.T. 1, 45, 4 " On the contrary, It is said (Genesis 1:1): “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” But heaven and earth are subsisting composite things. Therefore creation belongs to them.

I answer that, To be created is, in a manner, to be made, as was shown above (44, 2, ad 2,3). Now, to be made is directed to the being of a thing. Hence to be made and to be created properly belong to whatever being belongs; which, indeed, belongs properly to subsisting things, whether they are simple things, as in the case of separate substances, or composite, as in the case of material substances. For being belongs to that which has being–that is, to what subsists in its own being. "

So God, does indeed, create an act of existence for creatures which is their own.
We cannot confuse God’s presence and activity by Grace with His presence as a cause of esse, etc.

If God creates, he creates actual beings, He is not creating an illusion.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

In creatures, esse is that which is most fundamental to the actuality of an essence.

Have you ever heard of the principle that you cannot give what you don’t have? If God is only esse and in no way related to our essence, then God cannot create essences. Therefore esse would be all that exists. But since essences do exist, they must also exist in God, at least as exemplars, since nothing partial or imperfect can exist in God.

The esse is distinct from essence even after being conjoined and the essence has no causal power over esse whatsoever since it is the esse that makes it real. God is not an esse and an essence. God is the act of existing. In other-words the act of existing is a nature in and of its self. God is not two things spliced together.

Nature and essence mean the same thing. You can’t say esse is a nature, then deny that God has an essence.

God bless,
Ut