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

[utunumsint]

You seem to be agreeing that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures.

No. I’m not.

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 actual substance 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 involves God in a contradiction.- it appears that God is creating Himself.

I am not saying this. Linux seems to be saying that God has no essence. Only esse.

On the other hand, " 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 "

And the clincher, " 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. "

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

I hope I what I was saying did not seem to deny this.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

" 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. "

Does Thomas really say this word for word as you presented it? Because if what he means by causing their existence is that he creates a species of esse, then he is wrong.

 

[Linux]

Have you ever heard of the principle that you cannot give what you don’t have?

What, like out of nothing comes nothing, so you can’t create an act of existing out of nothing.

If God is only esse and in no way related to our essence, then God cannot create essences.

I don’t see how that follows. So if God is not a perfect piece of cheese then he cannot create a piece of cheese. Is that what you are saying?

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

I did not deny that God has an essence; I denied that God is made up of two things, one being his essence and one being his esse. God’s nature is the act of existing. There is no logical possibility of differentiation in esse, and so there cannot be more than one; as such there cannot be more than one God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Does Thomas really say this word for word as you presented it? Because if what he means by causing their existence is that he creates a species of esse, then he is wrong.

You mean he disagrees with you. No he doesn’t say that word for word. I modified the post after you responded. I don’t see how you could be thinking these things through if you feel compelled to respond so quickly. And he would not be creating different species of esse. There is uncreated ESSE and created esse. God gives to each substance he creates the degree of existence demanded by its essence. At least, that is how I see it.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

You seem to be agreeing that the Esse of God is the esse of creatures.

I see how you would come to that conclusion. When I said the following:

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.

I did not mean to imply that God’s esse was in all created essences, just that God’s essence is the perfection of all created essences in the sense that in God’s essence is perfection and includes the perfections of all created essences.

Hope this clarifies my position…
God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

You mean he disagrees with you. No he doesn’t say that word for word.

So why did you present it like he did?

And he would not be creating different species of esse. There is uncreated ESSE and created esse. God gives to each substance he creates the degree of existence demanded by its essence. At least, that is how I see it.

Esse is esse. The act of existing is the act of existing regardless of whether you want to call it finite or infinite. To create a finite existing is to create a different “kind” of “the act of existing”, which means that existence becomes a genus comprised of species. Simply saying that its “finite” doesn’t solve the problem or make it something different to esse; it just means that you are trying to avoid recognising a very obvious problem for anybody who fully grasps what is meant for a thing to have an act of existing.

The only opposite to existing is not existing. There are no other distinctions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see how you would come to that conclusion. When I said the following:

I did not mean to imply that God’s esse was in all created essences, just that God’s essence is the perfection of all created essences in the sense that in God’s essence is perfection and includes the perfections of all created essences.

Hope this clarifies my position…
God bless,
Ut

No, the underlined section of your statement is what concerns me : 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.

You are saying here that the esse of creatures is the Esse of God ( or just simply God as I pointed out).

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

No, the underlined section of your statement is what concerns me : 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.

You are saying here that the esse of creatures is the Esse of God ( or just simply God as I pointed out).

Linus2nd

That was Linux’s statement in post 346. I did not say that.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So why did you present it like he did?

I think that if you would wait until the " edit " button has vanished, there would be less confusion.

Esse is esse. The act of existing is the act of existing regardless of whether you want to call it finite or infinite. To create a finite existing is to create a different "kind

 

[utunumsint]

What, like out of nothing comes nothing

I happen to agree with this statement.

so you can’t create an act of existing out of nothing.

God can create something out of his power where there had been nothing before.

I don’t see how that follows. So if God is not a perfect piece of cheese then he cannot create a piece of cheese. Is that what you are saying?

Hahahaha.

No, what I’m saying is that God is most perfect. The source of all created perfections, just like he is the source of all created beings. Within his essence, he must contain all that which he creates as exemplars. God, as Aquinas and Aristotle state, is not material. The things that most closely resemble His likeness are spiritual beings, like Angels and human beings (who are composites of mater and spirit). Cheese reflects God’s being in a less real way that Angels and Human beings do. As I tried to point out, a person can make a chair, that that might give you clues about the person who made that chair, but if a person painted a self portrait, there you have likeness of that person. So the portrait more closely resembles its creator than the chair does.

I did not deny that God has an essence; I denied that God is made up of two things, one being his essence and one being his esse. God’s nature is the act of existing. There is no logical possibility of differentiation in esse, and so there cannot be more than one; as such there cannot be more than one God.

OK. We agree on this then.

God bless,
Ut

 

[prodigalson2011]

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

Linux, what arguments from authority I have presented have been directed solely at your claim that your argument doesn’t contradict Catholic doctrine. I have provided plenty of positive counterarguments of my own.

Am i

Yes, you are.

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?

No. What you are describing are accidental similarities (though I would point out that dogs actually are wolves; they comprise a subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) ) but our likeness to God is through a limited possession of the transcendentals (oneness, goodness, truth), which are the properties of being itself.

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?

Precisely what I said above: to possess degrees of the transcendentals, the perfections of which are found in God.

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.

This is very similar to Richard Dawkins’ terribly misconstrued analysis of the argument from degrees of perfection (in which he suggested that this argument implied that God possessed the perfect smelliness.) The degrees of perfection deal solely with the transcendental properties of beings, not the formal.

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.

This is a non sequitur. As I already explained in a previous post:

*As I see it, an act of existence can be separate from God only insofar as it has its own essence. The essence is what distinguishes that act of existence from God. As I have been repeating throughout this thread, an esse is shaped (limited) by its essence.

It is, of course, meaningless to speak of an independent act of existence without an essence. In such a case, yes, it is a logical absurdity. God is pure existence (having no parts or potency or limitations) and thus any other pure existence would be indistinguishable from God. But an act of existence that is limited (shaped) by an essence is not pure existence. It exists, but only to the degree that its essence permits. This does not mean that it is one and the same with God; it does mean that if stripped of its essence it would cease to exist.

I believe the mistake being made here is to imagine the conjunction of essence and esse in created things to be a temporal act, as though there is at one time this esse and this act of existence independent of one another which are then conjoined. But that is not the case. The essence is prior, not temporally but ontologically, to the esse. The limitations set by an essence allow for the creation of separate esse. These matters always elude perfect expression, but for lack of a better phrase, you might say that an esse is generated within an essence. Or, better yet, God infuses an essence with its own existence.*

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.

No, I’m not saying that at all. The conjunction of essence and esse creates species of beings. As I already said above, an esse (besides God) without its own essence cannot exist precisely because it would be identical to God.

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.

No, it is not what I’m saying. I am saying that an essence constricts an esse. That is what gives it form (distinction). So on the contrary, what you are saying is that other essences can change (speciate) God’s esse, because the esse takes on the form of the essence.

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

Thus there is only one kind of esse.

 

[prodigalson2011]

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.

Another non sequitur. Created esses are not existence itself because they are created in conjunction with an essence. Existence itself is subsistent esse, or as Aquinas and others have oft been wont to express it, Esse with a capital E.

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.

Yes, they do. Degrees are comparative measurements. Two people possess different degrees of wealth. This doesn’t mean they possess different degrees of the same dollar bills. In the same way, things possess different degrees of existence/perfection. Creation’s relation to God is one of contingency and sustenance. All that we possess is a gift from God, modeled, in some degree, on his very Existence. That is how we “share” in his perfection, to a lesser degree. The other (and greater) way in which we share in the divine nature is through the supernatural gift of grace. Anyway, it is in this sense that created things are “like” God. And angels (to a greater extent) and human beings (to a lesser extent) possess the highest degree of that likeness, by the possession of (limited) intellect.

In any case, to refer to anything as “our own” is ultimately false. Everything comes from, belongs to and depends upon God. We share in his perfections in so much as he has created us to be like him. “Let us make man in our image.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That was Linux’s statement in post 346. I did not say that.

God bless,
Ut

I see .

Here is another good quote: S.T. Ques 45 , art 5 " Reply…Among all effects the most universal is existence itself…which should accordingly be the proper effect of the first and most universal cause, which is God…Now God’s Proper effect in creating is that which is presupposed to any other , namely existence tout court ( or simply ). "

This makes it pretty clear that the esse of creatres is their own and is not the Esse of God. For if the esse of creatures is the effect of creation then it cannot be the Esse of God.

Linus2nd

 

[tdgesq]

You must keep in mind that no thing is a substance unless it has or is existence.

Yes, that’s what I just wrote to Peter above.

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. "

While I agree with this, it cannot mean that God doesn’t have anything more to do with the existence of substances once they are created. Per the Vatican I Council:

“Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well.”

And from Aquinas:

“Reply to Objection 4. The preservation of things by God is a continuation of that action whereby He gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the preservation of light in the air is by the continual influence of the sun.” newadvent.org/summa/1104.htm#article1

THAT GOD IS NOT THE FORMAL BEING OF ALL THINGS

I agree, of course. But what is the relationship between God’s existence and our existence? Clearly we are not the source of our own existence. God’s essence is His existence. Our essence is not our existence. The essences of things need to participate in someway with God’s Existence in order to exist. And these essences must continue to participate in God’s existence, because otherwise they would no longer exist.

I reject the notion that God is the formal being of all things, but I also reject the idea that created being can continue to “be” without God’s continuous presence. It is the relationship between God’s existence and our existence that is at issue. And I think that Aquinas describes that relationship here:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.
newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

 

[Linusthe2nd]

According to you.

S.T. Ques 8, art 3, an to obj 1 " Reply to Objection 1. God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence;because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being ( essendi, or of [their] existing] ). "

I could site many such instances but this is good enough.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
You must keep in mind that no thing is a substance unless it has or is existence.

Yes, that’s what I just wrote to Peter above.

Quote:
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. "

(Your comment)
While I agree with this, it cannot mean that God doesn’t have anything more to do with the existence of substances once they are created. Per the Vatican I Council:

“Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well.”

( My answer )
Of course not. God works in all things causing their existence,etc. as long as they exist.

And from Aquinas:
“Reply to Objection 4. The preservation of things by God is a continuation of that action whereby He gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the preservation of light in the air is by the continual influence of the sun.” newadvent.org/summa/1104.htm#article1

Quote:
THAT GOD IS NOT THE FORMAL BEING OF ALL THINGS

I agree, of course. But what is the relationship between God’s existence and our existence? Clearly we are not the source of our own existence. God’s essence is His existence. Our essence is not our existence. The essences of things need to participate in someway with God’s Existence in order to exist. And these essences must continue to participate in God’s existence, because otherwise they would no longer exist.

I reject the notion that God is the formal being of all things, but I also reject the idea that created being can continue to “be” without God’s continuous presence. It is the relationship between God’s existence and our existence that is at issue. And I think that Aquinas describes that relationship here:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.
newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
You must keep in mind that no thing is a substance unless it has or is existence.

Yes, that’s what I just wrote to Peter above.

Good.

:
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. "

While I agree with this, it cannot mean that God doesn’t have anything more to do with the existence of substances once they are created. Per the Vatican I Council:

“Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well.”

Correct, God works intimately in all His creation, causing their existence, directing them to their proper ends, etc., yet not so as to mix their being with His.

And from Aquinas:

“Reply to Objection 4. The preservation of things by God is a continuation of that action whereby He gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the preservation of light in the air is by the continual influence of the sun.” newadvent.org/summa/1104.htm#article1

Quote:
THAT GOD IS NOT THE FORMAL BEING OF ALL THINGS

I agree, of course. But what is the relationship between God’s existence and our existence? Clearly we are not the source of our own existence. God’s essence is His existence. Our essence is not our existence. The essences of things need to participate in someway with God’s Existence in order to exist. And these essences must continue to participate in God’s existence, because otherwise they would no longer exist.

This is where we disagree. The meaning of " participate " does not mean that God’s existence is the existence of creatures. If that were true, then creatures would be God, or they would be nothing because essenses must have an act of existence.
As Thomas explains here:
S.T. Ques 45 , art 5 " Reply…Among all effects the most universal is existence itself…which should accordingly be the proper effect of the first and most universal cause, which is God…Now God’s Proper effect in creating is that which is presupposed to any other , namely existence tout court ( or simply ). "

And again: 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. "

And Etienne Gilson has this to say on pg 177 of " Elements of Christian Philosophy. " He says in part, “…The only things that can properly be created are those of which it has previously been said that they are capable of having an act of being of their own. These are substances…” Obviously, Gilson is convinced that the esse of creatures is their own and that God creates it along with the entire substance. It is an effect of God’s creative act to give created beings an act of existence of their very own.

One can get a fuller flavor by reading pg 176 and all of 177. But his position is clear. Creatures have their own esse which is not God’s Esse or a part thereof. So whatever it means to say that they participate in esse, it does not mean their esse is that of God’s. Thomas you see never defines what he means by participating and sharing. And even Gilson is rather vague most of the time. Although at one point he does say that to participate means to be caused by something else or it may mean just they participate in the cause in the sense of resembling it…

I reject the notion that God is the formal being of all things, but I also reject the idea that created being can continue to “be” without God’s continuous presence. It is the relationship between God’s existence and our existence that is at issue. And I think that Aquinas describes that relationship here:

And I agree. But did you notice what you said, " our existence. " Don’t you see that if the Esse of God is the esse of creatures, we cannot say, " our existence ," because the only existence we would be have is that of God. And that is why I say and Gilson says that God creates an " act of existence " and gives it to creatures as their own. They have their very own existence given to them by God and it is their own and it is not His existence. Don’t you see you cannot separate God’s Act of Existence from His very Being because He is Pure Existence.If what you say is true, the esse of creatures would be God Himself. Now does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that our esse is God Himself?

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works… (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly.
newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

tdgesq

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well folks, I have said all I can say on these subjects for this round. I think I have made a good case. I just don’t think saying any more would change anyone’s mind. I will just close with this one last comment.

If the Esse of God is the esse of creatures, then their esse is God, period. There is no way to get out of that. Creatures either have their own existence given to them by God as their own, or their act of existence is God Himself. And that seems to say that they are God.

And we do not exist in the Mind of God except as Ideas. If we existed in the Mind of God as substances, God would be divided and wouldn’t be God.

And no one can explain how God creates, all we can say is that He created all things from absolutely nothing, out of no prior existing being, including His own Being. Nothing, zero, zilch, nada. It cannot be finessed in any way.

Linus2nd

 

[openmind77]

Well folks, I have said all I can say on these subjects for this round. I think I have made a good case. I just don’t think saying any more would change anyone’s mind. I will just close with this one last comment.

If the Esse of God is the esse of creatures, then their esse is God, period. There is no way to get out of that. Creatures either have their own existence given to them by God as their own, or their act of existence is God Himself. And that seems to say that they are God.

Linus2nd

I reluctantly agree with Linus2nd (reluctantly because he has not always been very polite to Linux).

This belief that All is God is actually the central theme of Hinduism (if you should know anything about Hinduism, this should be it): I also believe that it is incompatible with teachings of the Church that God is separate from his Creation

The central idea of Hinduism is that: ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ . This is Sanskrit for ‘Thou Art That’, meaning at the inner most being, all of us are identical with God. It also follows that all of us are then identical to each other, meaning the universe is just a multiplicity of creatures(human and animal) that are essentially One - a single impersonal being. (this Being also exists apart from the physical Universe, so the belief is not the same as pantheism). The Church has never understood the relationship of God with his Creation very well.

I think this essential difference in Eastern and Western beliefs will only be resolved when the Christ returns and explains to all of us more of the truth than he did last time. Actually I expect this return to occur pretty soon (less than a couple of years). This will definitely not be the end of the world or anything like that (that is another misunderstanding by the Church and by Christianity in general that his Return would mean the end of the world).

 

[tdgesq]

And I agree. But did you notice what you said, " our existence. " Don’t you see that if the Esse of God is the esse of creatures, we cannot say, " our existence ," because the only existence we would be have is that of God. And that is why I say and Gilson says that God creates an " act of existence " and gives it to creatures as their own. They have their very own existence given to them by God and it is their own and it is not His existence. Don’t you see you cannot separate God’s Act of Existence from His very Being because He is Pure Existence.If what you say is true, the esse of creatures would be God Himself. Now does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that our esse is God Himself?

Linus,

It is difficult to interact with you. I wouldn’t speak to my 15 year old daughter the way you have done here, with a series of trite rhetorical questions - most of which I’ve already addressed. I obviously understand the issue.

And that is why I say and Gilson says that God creates an " act of existence " and gives it to creatures as their own.

How does God give existence to his creatures as their own? Nobody really cares about your conclusions or Gilson’s, they care about the “how” this happens. Please feel free to cite to my quotes from Aquinas, as apparently you did in response to Linux. You are welcome for those, by the way.