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

[Linux]

Of course the Act of Existing which is God is not created. But the " act of existing " of creatures is created.

God does not give created beings His being - or a bit of it so as to say that they " share " in God’s own existence. That is Pantheism. It is also a violation of the Principle of Contradiction, for a thing cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. So if their being is God’s being, they are not real created beings, they are " One " with God. And that is Pantheism.

Pantheism does not make a real distinction between esse and essence.

When you make that real distinction, it is logically possible for God’s esse to be conjoined to a potential essence without being identical with it, since the two remain distinct even after being conjoined. For example the essence of a dog is not the esse of God since the nature of a created thing is not the esse of a created thing. The two are not identical and therefore it is not pantheism even if the argument itself is wrong.

 

[eggsbenedictine]

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

I believe that such an act would violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing, and therefore I would say that it is metaphysically impossible; no more rational than saying the universe popped out of nothing.

That being said I agree with creatio ex nihilo if by that it is meant that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials. But I reject what I would call “the rabbit out of the hat interpretation” of creation. I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.

We cannot comprehend it, that’s why we have “faith.” our finite human reason and logic cannot comprehend His infinite wisdom and power.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pantheism does not make a real distinction between esse and essence.

When you make that real distinction, it is logically possible for God’s esse to be conjoined to a potential essence without being identical with it, since the two remain distinct even after being conjoined. For example the essence of a dog is not the esse of God since the nature of a created thing is not the esse of a created thing. The two are not identical and therefore it is not pantheism even if the argument itself is wrong.

For the convenience of the readers, this topic has been the topic of debate on three or four threads. It always boils down to the paragraph above. Everyone should read all my posts on this thread to understand what is going on.

The basic error is that if God " conjoined His Esse with a potential essence, " God would be simply be creating another " God. " It is the basic error of all Pantheism. A thing cannot be and not be the same thing at the same time. He cannot be " conjoined " to another being and not be that other being at the same time.

The dog in the example will not be a real being if its essence does not have an " act of existing " of its own. But if that " act of existing " is God’s " act of existing, " then the dog does not have an " act of existing " of its own, so it cannot exist as a dog. This kind of thinking would make the dog just an " emanition " of God, which is Pantheism.

There is no " nature " of a created being without an " act of existence " of its very own, which God creates as the first act of its substance. As I pointed out in one of my posts above, when God creates, he creates substances, whole and entire. And the most important aspect of that creation is " existence, " without which no substnace can exist. And that " existence " is nothing other than the " actuality " given by God to the potential essence, which makes it a real substance. But that " actuality " is a " act of existence, " which belongs to the substance, it does not belong to God, it is not God’s
" act of existing, " period.

See all my posts on this thread to see what I am saying.

We are either entirely other than God, or we are not. If we are not, then we are God. And that is Pantheism and heresy.

P.S. When you say Pantheism does not make a real distinction between essence and esse, you are evading the obvious. Pantheists are not philosophers, and certainly not of the Thomistic sort who would even understand what you mean by those two terms. Any time you mix God and reality together in any manner, in the same essence or substance or being, that is Pantheism.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For the convenience of the readers, this topic has been the topic of debate on three or four threads. It always boils down to the paragraph above. Everyone should read all my posts on this thread to understand what is going on.

The basic error is that if God " conjoined His Esse with a potential essence, " God would be simply be creating another " God. " It is the basic error of all Pantheism. A thing cannot be and not be the same thing at the same time. He cannot be " conjoined " to another being and not be that other being at the same time.

The dog in the example will not be a real being if its essence does not have an " act of existing " of its own. But if that " act of existing " is God’s " act of existing, " then the dog does not have an " act of existing " of its own, so it cannot exist as a dog. This kind of thinking would make the dog just an " emanition " of God, which is Pantheism.

There is no " nature " of a created being without an " act of existence " of its very own, which God creates as the first act of its substance. As I pointed out in one of my posts above, when God creates, he creates substances, whole and entire. And the most important aspect of that creation is " existence, " without which no substnace can exist. And that " existence " is nothing other than the " actuality " given by God to the potential essence, which makes it a real substance. But that " actuality " is a " act of existence, " which belongs to the substance, it does not belong to God, it is not God’s
" act of existing, " period.

See all my posts on this thread to see what I am saying.

We are either entirely other than God, or we are not. If we are not, then we are God. And that is Pantheism and heresy.

P.S. When you say Pantheism does not make a real distinction between essence and esse, you are evading the obvious. Pantheists are not philosophers, and certainly not of the Thomistic sort who would even understand what you mean by those two terms. Any time you mix God and reality together in any manner, in the same essence or substance or being, that is Pantheism.

Linus2nd

Time expired before I had a chance to add a closing thought. If Thomas really taught that the " actus essendi of created substances is really the " actus essendi of God, then we have to reject Thomas on this point, as Scotus did, and simply say, " Thomas is simply incoherent on this point. "

And indeed, there is nothing in Catholic Doctrine which prohibits us from doing so. The Church says absolutely nothing beyond the fact that God created the heavens and the earth and the entire range of creatures therein, in time out of absolutely nothing. And it says nothing at all about either the actus essendi of creatures or of God. In fact, it does not even teach that God is Pure Act. That is a philosophical definition. All the Church teaches is that God is One, and that God is utterly Simple.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

What is the soul’s dream but to contemplate and dissolve into the infinite brilliance of Being, like a droplet into the ocean, alternately in adoration of and in union with the ultimate fulfillment of all its desires. You must be separate to relate and to love.

 

[openmind77]

For the convenience of the readers, this topic has been the topic of debate on three or four threads. It always boils down to the paragraph above. Everyone should read all my posts on this thread to understand what is going on.

The basic error is that if God " conjoined His Esse with a potential essence, " God would be simply be creating another " God. " It is the basic error of all Pantheism. A thing cannot be and not be the same thing at the same time. He cannot be " conjoined " to another being and not be that other being at the same time.

The dog in the example will not be a real being if its essence does not have an " act of existing " of its own. But if that " act of existing " is God’s " act of existing, " then the dog does not have an " act of existing " of its own, so it cannot exist as a dog. This kind of thinking would make the dog just an " emanition " of God, which is Pantheism.

There is no " nature " of a created being without an " act of existence " of its very own, which God creates as the first act of its substance. As I pointed out in one of my posts above, when God creates, he creates substances, whole and entire. And the most important aspect of that creation is " existence, " without which no substnace can exist. And that " existence " is nothing other than the " actuality " given by God to the potential essence, which makes it a real substance. But that " actuality " is a " act of existence, " which belongs to the substance, it does not belong to God, it is not God’s
" act of existing, " period.

See all my posts on this thread to see what I am saying.

We are either entirely other than God, or we are not. If we are not, then we are God. And that is Pantheism and heresy.

P.S. When you say Pantheism does not make a real distinction between essence and esse, you are evading the obvious. Pantheists are not philosophers, and certainly not of the Thomistic sort who would even understand what you mean by those two terms. Any time you mix God and reality together in any manner, in the same essence or substance or being, that is Pantheism.

Linus2nd

It is not necessarily Pantheism. In the Hindu way of of looking at things, it would be Panentheism - the belief hat God is within us but also exists apart from us and beyond his Creation. Of course according the Church this would be heresy too, but that does not mean it is not true.

According to Hinduism, the only thing that exists eternally is Brahman, which is impersonal and unknowable, something which we can not relate to or love. At the beginning of the Universe, the Trinity emerges from this substance (Brahman) and creates the physical Universe (again out of the same substance). While the Trinity creates and sustains the Universe, Brahman still exists apart and beyond both the three Gods and the their Creation. At the end of the Universe, the Creation is destroyed and the Trinity dissolves back into Brahman.

When the time comes for the creation of a new Universe, another Trinity emerges from it. This also means there can be multiple Universes existing at the same time (with their own Trinities or who knows - some other combination)…

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is not necessarily Pantheism. In the Hindu way of of looking at things, it would be Panentheism - the belief hat God is within us but also exists apart from us and beyond his Creation. Of course according the Church this would be heresy too, but that does not mean it is not true.

According to Hinduism, the only thing that exists eternally is Brahman, which is impersonal and unknowable, something which we can not relate to or love. At the beginning of the Universe, the Trinity emerges from this substance (Brahman) and creates the physical Universe (again out of the same substance). While the Trinity creates and sustains the Universe, Brahman still exists apart and beyond both the three Gods and the their Creation. At the end of the Universe, the Creation is destroyed and the Trinity dissolves back into Brahman.

When the time comes for the creation of a new Universe, another Trinity emerges from it. This also means there can be multiple Universes existing at the same time (with their own Trinities or who knows - some other combination)…

Which makes me wonder if even one planet is like ours in the universe that we are not aware of yet, another Goldilocks- then would Jesus have to be born again and die again on each planet like that in the universe?

 

[inocente]

Then nothing exists but geometry and numbers? Fantastic, we live in a dream world then, nothings is real, we are not real! This idealism gone wild. No Christian, no reasonable person can agree to that.

Linus2nd

If we dismiss something of which we’re ignorant out of hand with ad hominem, we’ll never be anything other than ignorant will we?

According to well-tested quantum theory an atom is 99.99999999% empty space. That means you are almost all empty space. You only feel solid because of the electromagnetic force between the atoms.

So only 0.00000001% of you (the quarks and electrons) could be made of any kind of substance, but even that is probably space-time wound up in different ways.

Turns out electromagnetism fooled philosophers into thinking there are substances and essences and such, but they were wrong and wasted a lot of peoples’ time.

 

[Ion]

Originally Posted by inocente
imho there are no physical materials. Particles are just different geometric configurations (not necessarily strings), at base there are no substances.

Then nothing exists but geometry and numbers? Fantastic, we live in a dream world then, nothings is real, we are not real! This idealism gone wild. No Christian, no reasonable person can agree to that.

Linus2nd

Can you please elaborate a little bit?
I was thinking kind of the same way, that what we call matter are actually formes made of nothing; but not always closed geometric formes, like rectangles, but waves etc.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by inocente
imho there are no physical materials. Particles are just different geometric configurations (not necessarily strings), at base there are no substances.

Can you please elaborate a little bit?
I was thinking kind of the same way, that what we call matter are actually formes made of nothing; but not always closed geometric formes, like rectangles, but waves etc.

I was being facetious. We live in a real world and we know it is real. The real things we know are indeed composed physically of matter which can be broken down into " particles, waves, etc. - that is their " scientific " identity, so to speak. But their philosophical composition is as substances, essences, or beings composed of matter and form. This composition we know as " this " horse, " this " man, etc. Or you could say we know them as functioning individuals of reality - this chair, my neighbor John Brown, my mother Mrs. Thompson, etc. In other words we live in a real world of real individual things, persons, animals, plants, etc.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I was being facetious. We live in a real world and we know it is real. The real things we know are indeed composed physically of matter which can be broken down into " particles, waves, etc. - that is their " scientific " identity, so to speak. But their philosophical composition is as substances, essences, or beings composed of matter and form. This composition we know as " this " horse, " this " man, etc. Or you could say we know them as functioning individuals of reality - this chair, my neighbor John Brown, my mother Mrs. Thompson, etc. In other words we live in a real world of real individual things, persons, animals, plants, etc.

Linus2nd

But “philosophical composition” is just how some (by no means all) philosophers saw the world, and their conclusions only tell us about how they saw the world, not about the world itself.

But that’s a little off-topic, the OP is about physical materials, and if physical materials are substance-free then they don’t “violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing”.

 

[hicetnunc]

Well actually your rebuttal does not work because you haven’t shown me why adding the word eternal to the mix should make it anymore logical. Why am i suppose to think that it is now possible merely because words like eternal and God are thrown about? Like i said, merely replacing the word magician with God still does not make any rational sense of the idea of creating an act of existing from nothing.

I haven’t added the word eternal to any mix. Rather, I was trying to assist you in refining your argument by pointing out to you that your argument unequivocally contains a faulty parallel. One could not, for example, draw a comparison between the number one and a cucumber, as they are of different ontological orders. Whether or not you add the qualification eternal to either of these terms has no bearing on the fact that one could not substitute one term for the other in a valid argument. Certainly you could try to argue that an uncaused, necessary being is illogical and you will find many people willing to engage you on that score. But you cannot swap it for a contingent term, such as a magician, as this results in a faulty parallel.

 

[JDaniel]

That is contrary to Catholic Doctrine. No Catholic, no one who believes in a Divine Revelation can hold that. It is also contrary to the truth of our natures, it means that God has lied to us. Is there anything in Scripture or in Catholic Doctrine that says God created a fantasy world? I’m very disappointed that you should take such jibberish seriously.

Every day I am more and more convinced that ordinary people should leave philosophy alone and stick simply to Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd
f

Linus:

Do you have a valid argument, or do you simply like to hurl insults? If you have a valid argument, point it out. Otherwise, save me the time having to read your thoughtless replies.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

Do you have a valid argument, or do you simply like to hurl insults? If you have a valid argument, point it out. Otherwise, save me the time having to read your thoughtless replies.

God bless,
jd

Yes it does, albeit a bit different than one might expect. Recall: “God is in everything.” Recall also that God is “infinite.” This means that no part of Him is displacable. He need only supply our senses with configurations of particles, lattices if you will, embed them in continuous space, essentially segregate such configurations from continuous space by our minds, thereby rendering them discrete, then adjusting our senses to sense them as individual things. Essentially: holograms, with infinitely more resolution than humans can muster.

Sounds like fantasy to me. " Essentially: holograms…" Didn’t intend to " insult " anyone. antisy is fantasy. And, try to prove that paragraph, it should be fun to see you do it.

Don’t take things so personally.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But “philosophical composition” is just how some (by no means all) philosophers saw the world, and their conclusions only tell us about how they saw the world, not about the world itself.

But that’s a little off-topic, the OP is about physical materials, and if physical materials are substance-free then they don’t “violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing”.

When the O.P. is talking about " the act of existing, " he is speaking philosophically, not scientifically, not even colloquially. And it is my view that the real world is indeed composed of matter and form, as an essence or substance that actually exists. If that were not so, you cannot resolve the problem of the " One and the Many " at any level - the existential, the essential, or the individual. As both Aristotle and Thomas demonstrated. And those who reject their thought are left with a universe that is inexplicable. However, these are off topic and we have discussed them before, so has Linux.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[openmind77]

Which makes me wonder if even one planet is like ours in the universe that we are not aware of yet, another Goldilocks- then would Jesus have to be born again and die again on each planet like that in the universe?

I am not sure if this is off-topic, but this is indeed something to think about.

I personally think Jesus is both Son of God as well as Son of Man - divine as well as human, but he is not Son of ET.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is not necessarily Pantheism. In the Hindu way of of looking at things, it would be Panentheism - the belief hat God is within us but also exists apart from us and beyond his Creation. Of course according the Church this would be heresy too, but that does not mean it is not true.

According to Hinduism, the only thing that exists eternally is Brahman, which is impersonal and unknowable, something which we can not relate to or love. At the beginning of the Universe, the Trinity emerges from this substance (Brahman) and creates the physical Universe (again out of the same substance). While the Trinity creates and sustains the Universe, Brahman still exists apart and beyond both the three Gods and the their Creation. At the end of the Universe, the Creation is destroyed and the Trinity dissolves back into Brahman.

When the time comes for the creation of a new Universe, another Trinity emerges from it. This also means there can be multiple Universes existing at the same time (with their own Trinities or who knows - some other combination)…

And that is Pantheism. I like our God much better, He loves us and wants us to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If we dismiss something of which we’re ignorant out of hand with ad hominem, we’ll never be anything other than ignorant will we?

According to well-tested quantum theory an atom is 99.99999999% empty space. That means you are almost all empty space. You only feel solid because of the electromagnetic force between the atoms.

So only 0.00000001% of you (the quarks and electrons) could be made of any kind of substance, but even that is probably space-time wound up in different ways.

Turns out electromagnetism fooled philosophers into thinking there are substances and essences and such, but they were wrong and wasted a lot of peoples’ time.

To call that an " ad hominem " is a bit of a stretch. The O. P. now is an expert at ad hominems, and can provide you with some really good examples.

Pax

Linus2nd

 

[openmind77]

And that is Pantheism. I like our God much better, He loves us and wants us to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

Linus2nd

You still don’t seem to appreciate the difference between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The difference is that we have a loving Trinity as well as the all pervading Brahman. The Trinity emerges from this impersonal being.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe, the universe will adjust to your preferences

 

[yppop]

That is contrary to Catholic Doctrine. No Catholic, no one who believes in a Divine Revelation can hold that. It is also contrary to the truth of our natures, it means that God has lied to us. Is there anything in Scripture or in Catholic Doctrine that says God created a fantasy world? I’m very disappointed that you should take such jibberish seriously.

Every day I am more and more convinced that ordinary people should leave philosophy alone and stick simply to Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd
f

Linus
Just what jibberish are you referring to? Could you explain your reason for thinking it such, because I just might be the author of the jibberish JD is referring to and I don’t want to lose my standing in the Catholic Church. I gather from the tone of your pontification that you have the authority of the Holy See to denounce anyone that strays from your very narrow interpretation of God’s word.

I take it that in rejecting JD’s brief description about the possible nature of reality that you, wholeheartedly, buy into the scientific view of reality, you know the one that is dripping with the implication that there is no God?

Theology is losing big time to science in the battle for the minds of men. To win the battle we must undercut the current materialistic scientific view that excludes God by supplementing the materialists’ view with a metaphysical view that offers a more comprehensive and plausible view of HOW God created and sustains reality at a deeper level than the one science refuses to depart from. It can, with the aid of the Holy Spirit" , in accordance with *Fides et ratio, *, and without ignoring modern science, be done.

JD welcome back.
Yppop