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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
utunumsint said:
Thinking out loud:

The key to Linux’s objections though is his concept that it is logically impossible for God to create something out of nothing.
Click to expand...
The key to my objection is…
  1. God cannot create that which is the opposite of nothing.
  2. An act of existing is essentially and intrinsically the opposite of nothing.
  3. It would not make any rational sense to create that which is the “act of existing” because an act of existing is the opposite of nothing and thus cannot have a beginning; otherwise one would be saying that an act of existing can be other than the act of existing which contradicts the fact that it is act of existing.
  4. Finally, out of nothing comes nothing.
So he resorts to the idea that God creates something out of himself.
Click to expand...
I never said that God creates something out of himself
Even if that part of himself is only being itself.
Click to expand...
I never said that either.
So he is trying to move the argument from analogy to identity.
Click to expand...
An essence is either essentially an act of existing or its essence is not an act of existing at all. If it is not, than it can only be actual by being** conjoined** to an act of existing which does not come from its own essence. Otherwise it is nothing at all since you cannot have an act of existing that is not an act of existing; that is illogical

In this respect it makes sense to say that a created essence is analogously real because it is not a real being in and of its own nature but has an act nonetheless which is given to it (not created) by God. When two things are conjoined it does not make them essentially identical. For example, a handle that is conjoined to a brush does not make the handle identical to the brush, even though out of convenience we just call it a brush instead of a handle and a brush. The brush is not made out of the handle but rather it is merely conjoined to it so that the brush can function as a brush just like a potential essence is conjoined to the act of existence so that it can function as a being. When esse is conjoined to a potential essence; the two remain distinct and are not made out of each other…
I think my main objections to this are:
Click to expand...
You objections are based on an argument that I never made. That’s called a straw-man an so I am not going to respond to them.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You are wrong J.D… The Holy Spirit is not part of your soul. That is Pantheism. Your soul is a created spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Eternal, Uncreated Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, Who is Eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

You really do need to read the Catechism and thoroughly!!! Where did you ever get such ideas???

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Linusthe:

Please re-read what I wrote. Your strawman, intentional or not, is not what I said. I wrote it in English. Please, my man, re-read it.

God bless,
jd
 
Linux said:
An essence is either essentially an act of existing or its essence is not an act of existing at all. If it is not, than it can only be actual by being** conjoined** to an act of existing which does not come from its own essence. Otherwise it is nothing at all since you cannot have an act of existing that is not an act of existing; that is illogical

In this respect it makes sense to say that a created essence is analogously real because it is not a real being in and of its own nature but has an act nonetheless which is given to it (not created) by God. When two things are conjoined it does not make them essentially identical. For example, a handle that is conjoined to a brush does not make the handle identical to the brush, even though out of convenience we just call it a brush instead of a handle and a brush. The brush is not made out of the handle but rather it is merely conjoined to it so that the brush can function as a brush just like a potential essence is conjoined to the act of existence so that it can function as a being. When esse is conjoined to a potential essence; the two remain distinct and are not made out of each other.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the straw man. I will try again.

Are you saying this?

1-Every being in any way existing is from God.
2-Whatever is found in anything by participation, must be caused in it by that to which it belongs essentially.
3-God is the essentially self-subsisting Being.
4-God is one;
5-Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation in God’s being.
6-Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation in God’s being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, who possesses being most perfectly.

God bless,
Ut
 
JDaniel said:
Linusthe:

Please re-read what I wrote. Your strawman, intentional or not, is not what I said. I wrote it in English. Please, my man, re-read it.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Well, excuse me. You’re right, you were responding to David. He was confused, not you.

Linus2nd
 
utunumsint said:
Sorry for the straw man. I will try again.

Are you saying this?

1-Every being in any way existing is from God.
2-Whatever is found in anything by participation, must be caused in it by that to which it belongs essentially.
3-God is the essentially self-subsisting Being.
4-God is one;
5-Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation in God’s being.
6-Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation in God’s being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, who possesses being most perfectly.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Linus is wrong. My post # 17 : 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.

( I have added this: S.T. 1,8,1, " 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. " underline is mine]

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.

If you read the above carefully, you will see that God creates the act of existence of creatures along with their substance or being. It would be helpful to read the entire sources that I have quoted. Linux is wrong! But he is fixated on his own opinion. It certainly is not what Thomas taught.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Linus is wrong. My post # 17 : 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.

( I have added this: S.T. 1,8,1, " 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. " underline is mine]

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.

If you read the above carefully, you will see that God creates the act of existence of creatures along with their substance or being. It would be helpful to read the entire sources that I have quoted. Linux is wrong! But he is fixated on his own opinion. It certainly is not what Thomas taught.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
OK. I will read through the sources you have provided. My knowledge of the summa is limited.

The quote I provided in my previous post was adapted from 44.1. His On the contrary statement. It seems to correspond to what Linux is saying, but there are many other points, such as those you mention, where Thomas clarifies his meaning. For example, what he meant from participation.

God bless,
Ut
 
Linus is wrong. My post # 17 : Of course the Act of Existing which is God is not created. But the " act of existing " of creatures is created.

I meant Linux is wrong.

Linus2nd
 
Linux said:
The key to my objection is…
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you persist in this. However, you certainly have not understood Thomas.

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.

( I have added this: S.T. 1,8,1, " 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. " underline is mine]

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.

If you read the above carefully, you will see that God creates the act of existence of creatures along with their substance or being. It would be helpful to read the entire sources that I have quoted.

Linus2nd
You objections are based on an argument that I never made. That’s called a straw-man an so I am not going to respond to them.
Click to expand...
Really?

Linus2nd
 
JDaniel said:
Linus:

I have the good Father’s book and have read it several times. When the Church says, “that God created all creatures in time ex nihilo,” that does not mean that time preceded the creation. At the same instant that creation began to occur, motion, and therefore Time, began to occur. It is extraordinarily clear that prior to Creation (whatever that means) Time did not exist. Time is correlative with motion and the Creation (of mobile beings). Perhaps the foregoing clarifies it for you, if not, let me know.
Click to expand...
Of course, I don’t think I implied or said any thing different.

Linus2nd
 
yppop said:
Linus,…quote erased for brevity./]

Here is what I was responding to: Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
For Catholics, other Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
So Catholics must believe that God and His creatures are absolutely other than each other. God is no part of His creatures and they are no part of Him. God and His creatures are absolutely distinct, but His creatures are absolutely dependent upon Him for their existence, and they prosper by His Providence and Government.

This comment adds to the suspicion that you are truly a materialist. “God is no part of His creatures” . Good grief, man, what happened to the spiritual part of me that forms my soul? Isn’t that part of ME and isn’t that part of the Holy Spirit. Or do you believe that the spiritual nature of the soul is some ethereal substance other than the same substance that is the Holy Spirit, and what could that possibly be?And, “they are no part of Him”. What happened to God’s omnipresence? And have I been misunderstanding the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ". And Linus, please no name calling; no shouting “Pantheist”!

I’m very sorry you don’t understand English. The human soul is not to be identified with the Holy Spirit in any way. The human soul is a created substance entirely other than God who created the soul. St. Thomas says that God is present in man in three ways, by His Substance, by His Causality, and by His Grace. In all three modes God is still utterly transcendent to man. So eventhough he is indeed present in us, he is not a part of us.

:
*Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your love.
Heavenly King, Consoler Spirit, Spirit of Truth, filling all things present everywhere and,
treasure of all good and source of all life, come dwell in us, cleanse and save us, you who are All Good. *
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Linux said:
  1. It would not make any rational sense to create that which is the “act of existing” because an act of existing is the opposite of nothing and thus cannot have a beginning; otherwise one would be saying that an act of existing can be other than the act of existing which contradicts the fact that it is act of existing.
Click to expand...
This is completely and utterly false. An act of existing is not something else before it is created; if it were it would already be an act of existence. You are reifying the concept of nothingness, and I think you are committing this fallacy on semantic grounds. You essentially seem to be saying that if an act of existing has a beginning, it must have, prior to that beginning, been a real entity: an act of nothingness.

But the error in such an argument is pretty plain to see: nothingness is not-a-thing. There is no prior state (nothingness) out of which comes that which begins to be. There is a point at which it begins to exist, and prior to that it does not exist. But this does not mean that it underwent some change from non-being to being, it simply means that there was either a time, place or state (or any combination thereof) in which it did not exist. The phrase “created from nothing” does not mean that God took some nothingness and molded it into existence. It means that God created something without any prior materials. This simply does not entail the logical contradiction you suggest.

To take the point further, though: properly speaking, nothing is not the opposite of being, per se. Nothing is the opposite of everything. So, in an ontological sense, it is also the opposite of essence as well. So, by your logic, essences cannot be created either.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t know why you persist in this. However, you certainly have not understood Thomas.
Click to expand...
What has Thomas got to do with it? Did you not read the first paragraph of the OP? I really could not care less whether what I am saying is in line with Thomism.
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.
Click to expand...
No. Pantheism is when the esse of God and the essence of the universe is identical.
There is no real distinction between esse and essence in pantheism. Continuously asserting that it is pantheism is not going to make it so.

Conjoining does not make esse and essence identical. Have you even read Edward Fesers book on Aquinas? Even though God is my esse he is not my **nature **(essence); my essence is what defines my identity.
 
Linux said:
Nope that is not what i am saying at all.
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed in the past few threads that you’re very selective as to which points you respond. This was not even the meat of my post. You provide no response to the second paragraph wherein I have provided a counterargument for the logical consistency of the creation of an esse.

I would also be very interested to hear what you have to say about my last point:

To take the point further, though: properly speaking, nothing is not the opposite of being, per se. Nothing is the opposite of everything. So, in an ontological sense, it is also the opposite of essence as well. So, by your logic, essences cannot be created either.
 
Linux said:
What has Thomas got to do with it? Did you not read the first paragraph of the OP? I really could not care less whether what I am saying is in line with Thomism.
Click to expand...
If I may interject, what Thomas has to do with it is that you are arguing in Thomistic/Aristotelian terms and, moreover, arguing points which Thomas himself has addressed. If you’re going to play on the field that Thomas built, you’d best be able to provide a proper refutation of his terms.
No. Pantheism is when the esse of God and the essence of the universe is identical. There is no real distinction between esse and essence in pantheism. Continuously asserting that it is pantheism is not going to make it so.
Click to expand...
And neither is there any distinction between esse and essence in God. Ergo, you cannot have God’s esse without having his essence. Ergo, anything which has God’s esse has his essence. Ergo, anything which has God’s esse is God. Continuously asserting that this is not pantheism is not going to make it so.
Conjoining does not make esse and essence identical.
Click to expand...
But they are identical in God. Again, you cannot have God’s esse and not have his essence. To be conjoined to his esse is to be conjoined to his essence. God is indivisible.

Truly, your proposition is more logically contradictory than the idea of creating new esses could ever hope to be.
 
Linux said:
What has Thomas got to do with it? …
Click to expand...
Thomas has everything to do with it. Thomas originated the concept of *actus essendi ( act of existing or act of existence or act of being, all of which mean the same thing). *
No. Pantheism is when the esse of God and the essence of the universe is identical
Click to expand...
I know that is what you have said but you did not prove it.You have said that the esse of God is the esse of created essences. You have been doing so several months now. For every essence either is its own esse or it has an esse given to it by that essence which is its own esse, which is God. If an essence has no esse in either sense, then it does not actually exist, because to be an actually extent being or substance, every essence must either be esse itself ( God ) or it must have an esse given to it.

So, if neither is the case, then the essence does not actually exist, it is a mere concept. But if you say that the esse of created essences is the esse of God, then you are saying God is part of created beings or substances. And that is Pantheism.
There is no real distinction between esse and essence in pantheism. …
Click to expand...
Pantheism, and there are many varities, simply says that God is some how mixed up with or is a part of the beings or substances of this universe. And this is exactly what you have done.
Conjoining does not make esse and essence identical. Have you even read Edward Fesers book on Aquinas? Even though God is my esse he is not my **nature **(essence); my essence is what defines my identity.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But you have said that the esse of created essences is the esse of God. That is what the debate has been about for the last two months. What I have said, and what Thomas has said, and what traditional Thomists, including Feser, Etienne Gilson, etc, have said, is that the esse of created essences are distinct principles in every being or substance. And that the principle which they must have in order to exist as real beings or substances is an esse given to them by God.

Feser never said anywhere that the esse of God was your esse. You will have to provide the exact page and paragraph or you will have to admit you have either misread or fabricated that. I agree that we are defined by our nature. But we have to have an act by which our nature is an actually existing thing. It has to have a principle by which it acutally exists and that principle is given to it by God but it is not God’s own esse.

Proofs that the esse of creatures is not the esse of God.
S.T. 1,8,1, " 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…Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect… Now God causes this effect ( existence) in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being… 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…Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly. " underline is mine]

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 degree, 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
 
Linux said:
In this respect it makes sense to say that a created essence is analogously real because it is not a real being in and of its own nature but has an act nonetheless which is given to it (not created) by God. When two things are conjoined it does not make them essentially identical. For example, a handle that is conjoined to a brush does not make the handle identical to the brush, even though out of convenience we just call it a brush instead of a handle and a brush. The brush is not made out of the handle but rather it is merely conjoined to it so that the brush can function as a brush just like a potential essence is conjoined to the act of existence so that it can function as a being. When esse is conjoined to a potential essence; the two remain distinct and are not made out of each other…
Click to expand...
When he talks about the coming into being of things, Aquinas says that the form causes a being to come into being, to move from potential to actuality. But if that is the case, then it would also be calling God into being since, as you claim, God is the act of being of all things. To use your example, the form of the brush includes the handle. So if we say there is a form of a brush and that includes a handle, then you can’t separate the two. The handle becomes a constituent part of the form of brush.

So if we say that God’s being is necessary to the anything, you are saying that God is called into existence through the form of things. Therefore the form of the brush causes God’s existence… which is not something we can accept.

As you say here:
Conjoining does not make esse and essence identical. … Even though God is my esse he is not my nature (essence); my essence is what defines my identity.
Click to expand...
That is the very point that Aquinas would reject using the reasons I stated above. If Gods esse is necessary for my nature to exist, then it would be included in my form (by participation, admittedly). But this very fact involved Gods act of being in the process of coming into being and going out of being. God`s esse would still be part of my nature, essense.

You cant have your cake and eat it to. If Gods esse is necessary to our existence, then our nature (essense -form) would be part of God`s.

Also, I like the point that prodigalson2011 made such that you cant separate Gods esse from his essense. I`d also be interested in your response here. So we would have two essenses if God’s esse were necessary as our act of being - which seems to be the definition of pantheism.

God bless,
Ut
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Of course, I don’t think I implied or said any thing different.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Linus:

I took it from this statement:
"Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd:
**The Church teaches De Fide that God created all creatures in time **ex nihilo, That means from no prior existing anything, not even waves or empty space, from nothing, purely and simply.
But, perhaps, I misunderstood. 🤷

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top