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

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Here is the original interchange: Originally Posted by JDaniel
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.

And I responded that I never said anything to the contrary, since the last sentence implied that there was something I didn’t understand. Well, I think you were reacting to something I said and I still don’t know what that is. Perhaps you just read something I said incorrectly. If you still have a question about something I said, please say what it is. Othewise, I won’t worry about it.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

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.

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.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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]

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.

Nonsense. Just because an idea originates from somebody does not mean I have to abide by the conditions for which he or she uses those terms. Neither do I have to refute anybody. I simply have to show that refuting my argument is metaphysically impossible and therefore any interpretation to the contrary is necessarily false by default.

And neither is there any distinction between esse and essence in God.

Agreed. Esse is Gods essence. In otherwords the “act of existing” is Gods “nature” or “essence” if you prefer. God is not two distinct things conjoined together one being his nature and one being his esse. That is false.

Ergo, anything which has God’s esse has his essence.

Ergo, anything which has God’s esse is God.

False; You are ignoring the real distinction between God’s esse (which is his essence) and the essence of creatures which are not identical to esse even after being conjoined. Your argument is purely semantic.

Continuously asserting that this is not pantheism is not going to make it so.

I have not asserted anything, I have proven my point time and time again, and all you have in your defence is straw-men and semantics. Other people like Linus might find your debating style intellectually impressive, but I do not and for good reason.

What other reason do you have for rejecting my argument accept for the misguided fear that it contradicts your faith. You are like the young earth creationists of the metaphysics world.

 

[Linux]

So, by your logic, essences cannot be created either.

Created essences are not in and of themselves the opposite of nothing. I also explained how it is possible for God to create an essence that is not itself an esse.

You can go and find it if you want. If it is not on here it is certainly on the thread “God is the esse of contingent essences”.

 

[utunumsint]

False; You are ignoring the real distinction between God’s esse (which is his essence) and the essence of creatures which are not identical to esse even after being conjoined. Your argument is purely semantic.

I think this is a real problem for your argument. I mean, if it is a constituent aspect of my essence that I exist, and God is that existence, then God is a part of me. In fact, he is a part of every single aspect of me. Being is assumed in every part of my essence. So when I am good, God is good. When I sin, God sins. When I die…??? God dies? It just doesn’t make sense!

What makes much more sense to me, is that I am truly dependent on the will of God for my very existence.

In any event, I would like a better explanation of why you think the two are distinct, yet conjoined… Maybe you have already explained it in another thread?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Interesting quote from Rikaby in SCG.

[60] If all things agreed in being – and that the divine being – all things would agree also in nature, since the being of God is simply identical with His nature. Agreeing at once in being and in nature, they would agree all over, all would be absolutely one, and one great and sole Reality would pervade and constitute the universe. To erect such a Reality,' or Idea,’ or `Absolute,’ and then to proclaim it God, is pantheism. St Thomas argues that this all-pervading entity is not the universe, still less is it God: it has no concrete existence whatever: it is the shallowest, poorest and barest of the mind’s reations, extending to and denoting everything, and therefore meaning and comprehending next to nothing. In its fourth canon, De Deo Creatore, the Vatican Council anathematises any who say that “God is a universal or indefinite being, which by self-determination constitutes the universe.”

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

I think this is a real problem for your argument. I mean, if it is a constituent aspect of my essence that I exist, and God is that existence, then God is a part of me.
Ut

Well that really depends on what you mean by constituents of my essence doesn’t it. I never said that esse is what constitutes my essence. I have explained that being conjoined to esse is not the same thing as being identical to esse. I don’t see how it follows that God becomes identical to my “essence” (my nature) by being the esse (act of existence) of my essence. Esse and essence in created things are not identical in act. You would have to deny the esse and essence distinction in-order to come to that conclusion. I have explained why denying a real distinction between esse and essence leads to contradictions, but you will ignore that too. If esse is not identical to my essence then it is not a “part” of my essence. The fact that essences pass in and out of existence is evidence of that fact.

 

[utunumsint]

Well that really depends on what you mean by constituents of my essence doesn’t it. I never said that esse is what constitutes my essence. I have explained that being conjoined to esse is not the same thing as being identical to esse. I don’t see how it follows that God becomes identical to my “essence” (my nature) by being the esse (act of existence) of my essence.

Maybe I need a better definition of what an essence is then from you. As far as I can tell, essence is simply the concept or definition of a being. The essence is an idea that gets actualized when an substantial form combines with prime matter. Being is part of that definition. I would say, and essential part.

Esse and essence in created things are not identical in act. You would have to deny the esse and essence distinction in-order to come to that conclusion.

I just did. I’m not sure how denying the distinction is a mark against my argument.

I have explained why denying a real distinction between esse and essence leads to contradictions, but you will ignore that too.

No, I won’t ignore you. I just want to know what you think the contradictions are. I may have missed where you pointed that out.

If esse is not identical to my essence then it is not a “part” of my essence.

I don’t follow… perhaps this is stemming from the fact that we are using different definitions for essence.

The fact that essences pass in and out of existence is evidence of that fact.

I see. But all things that are part of my essence as a human being will pass out of existence… when I die. I’m still not sure where the problem lies.

By the way, I want to thank you for this really fun topic. I am learning a great deal.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I was reading a little more on what Thomas meant by God being his own essence. He had to say this in order to preserve the idea of God’s unity. If God is not his own essence, then he would be composite: the merger of essence with something else. All other beings are composite, where essence, what defines a thing, must merge with something else in order to be. Something like prime matter. So being, although part of the definition of the essence, can only come into existence through a composite of form and matter. Being is not some third thing that exists on top of the composite. It just needs the composite in order to move from potentiality to actuality. But in God, there is only actuality. So by definition, God’s being must be his essence.

… to late to try to figure out how this applies to the current discussion. I’ll think about it some more tomorrow. Hopefully others can help too.

It is interesting… this idea that God is perfectly simple. But how does this jive with the concept of Trinity. What a wonderful revelation! It adds a twist to the discussion that reason could not have predicted…

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Interesting quote from Rikaby in SCG.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Maybe I need a better definition of what an essence is then from you. As far as I can tell, essence is simply the concept or definition of a being. The essence is an idea that gets actualized when an substantial form combines with prime matter. Being is part of that definition. I would say, and essential part.

I just did. I’m not sure how denying the distinction is a mark against my argument.

No, I won’t ignore you. I just want to know what you think the contradictions are. I may have missed where you pointed that out.

I don’t follow… perhaps this is stemming from the fact that we are using different definitions for essence.

I see. But all things that are part of my essence as a human being will pass out of existence… when I die. I’m still not sure where the problem lies.

By the way, I want to thank you for this really fun topic. I am learning a great deal.

God bless,
Ut

He is violating the principle of non-contradiction. He thinks that by saying that our essence exists using the esse of God that our essence is a real being. But that cannot be. An essence either has its own esse or not, if it does not then it is not a real being, it is at best a mere concept. In other words an essence cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect.

Personally, I think he has introduced this strange notion of the application of the " act of existence " as a Trojan Horse to lead the uninformed into Pantheism.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was reading a little more on what Thomas meant by God being his own essence. He had to say this in order to preserve the idea of God’s unity. If God is not his own essence, then he would be composite: the merger of essence with something else. All other beings are composite, where essence, what defines a thing, must merge with something else in order to be. Something like prime matter. So being, although part of the definition of the essence, can only come into existence through a composite of form and matter. Being is not some third thing that exists on top of the composite. It just needs the composite in order to move from potentiality to actuality. But in God, there is only actuality. So by definition, God’s being must be his essence.

… to late to try to figure out how this applies to the current discussion. I’ll think about it some more tomorrow. Hopefully others can help too.

It is interesting… this idea that God is perfectly simple. But how does this jive with the concept of Trinity. What a wonderful revelation! It adds a twist to the discussion that reason could not have predicted…

God bless,
Ut

See my posts 123 & 138 again.

He is treating our objections and answers as he is treating yours.

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nonsense. Just because an idea originates from somebody does not mean I have to abide by the conditions for which he or she uses those terms. Neither do I have to refute anybody. I simply have to show that refuting my argument is metaphysically impossible and therefore any interpretation to the contrary is necessarily false by default.

You must have missed the part where I said that Aquinas has already made counterarguments to your argument.

Agreed. Esse is Gods essence. In otherwords the “act of existing” is Gods “nature” or “essence” if you prefer. God is not two distinct things conjoined together one being his nature and one being his esse. That is false.

False; You are ignoring the real distinction between God’s esse (which is his essence) and the essence of creatures which are not identical to esse even after being conjoined. Your argument is purely semantic.

No, I’m not ignoring that distinction. You seem to be ignoring the fact that if something is conjoined to God’s esse, it is also conjoined to his essence, since the two are inseparable. There is no getting around that. So if your argument is true, then everything is God plus another essence. While the essence of a creature is not identical to its esse, essence and esse are both fully part of the creature.

But yet, not even this can be because God is perfect being. Any contingent thing, essence or otherwise, would necessarily be consumed by his perfection. For example, God and sin cannot coexist, ergo God and sinful creatures cannot share in the same existence. Perfection cannot contain imperfection.

I have not asserted anything, I have proven my point time and time again, and all you have in your defence is straw-men and semantics.

You have not proven your point. You keep saying that the creation of an act of existing is logically impossible but have failed to substantiate that claim. Your entire argument hinges upon that point. In your last response to me, you claimed that my summation of your argument was not what you were saying at all, but I would be glad to go through that particular argument of yours word for word, point by point and show how it amounts to exactly what I said.

Other people like Linus might find your debating style intellectually impressive, but I do not and for good reason.

I’m not here to impress anybody, and your need to constantly turn a debate into a series of insults and intellectual posturing is quite unbecoming.

What other reason do you have for rejecting my argument accept for the misguided fear that it contradicts your faith. You are like the young earth creationists of the metaphysics world.

And the (false) ad hominems continue. I do not reject your argument because I’m “afraid” it contradicts my faith. I reject it because I think it is both unsubstantiated and logically inconsistent, for reasons I have repeatedly lain out. Reasons, many of which, you have failed to adequately address.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

And that is incorrect. Please read the Catechism, paragraphs 325-367 here : vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1A.HTM

Human knowledge must always be guided by Faith. We live in a real world. That is what God has Revealed and that is what the Church teaches.

Linus2nd

I didn’t say it wasn’t real. I said it adds up to nothing. A balloon would look substantial, especially if you are a microbe living just under it’s surface. Compared to the universe, we’re less signifiant physically than a bacterial under the surface of a balloon.

But prick the balloon, and see what happens. It disintegrates. It only stays as it is because of tension between the balloon’s elasticity and the air pressure.

In the same way, the universe exists in a state of tension between gravity and everything else.

But it adds up to nothing. It started as “nothing” ie. formless and empty -

Genesis 1:1 NIV “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

And it will go to nothing -

Revelation 6:14 - English Standard Version - “The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.”

As for whether it’s “zero sum energy” or not, you’ll have to argue with the physicists.

 

[Linux]

No, I’m not ignoring that distinction. You seem to be ignoring the fact that if something is conjoined to God’s esse, it is also conjoined to his essence, since the two are inseparable.

Esse is Gods essence. The “act of existing”* is* Gods “nature”.

In other-words the act of existing is a nature in and of its self. Thus when a created essence is conjoined to God it is simply conjoined to the act of existing as opposed to being conjoined to an act of existing plus an essence.

God is not two distinct things joined together, one being his nature and one being his esse. That is false. God is simply the act of existing. God is simply esse. You cannot duplicate what God is (the act of existing), and thus it makes no logical sense to say that God creates a distinct act of existing.

 

[Linux]

As for whether it’s “zero sum energy” or not, you’ll have to argue with the physicists.

In other words you don’t really understand what scientists mean by zero sum energy.

 

[utunumsint]

You cannot duplicate what God is (the act of existing), and thus it makes no logical sense to say that God creates a distinct act of existing.

A rock exists.
A plant exists.
A dog exists.
A person exists.

They each have their own mode of being. God’s mode of being is to exist as well, yes, but his mode of existence is pure actuality with no possibility of potentiality. Thus God has a different mode of being than a rock, plan, dog, or person has. Therefore they are not the same thing.

I would venture to say that God cannot duplicate his act of existing because then there would be two Gods. I would also venture to say that the act of existing of rocks, plants, dogs, and persons cannot be the same act of existing as God’s because it moves from being via its form, to non-being via corruption. But God’s esse can suffer no corruptions.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

A rock exists.
A plant exists.
A dog exists.
A person exists.

In a purely analogous sense I would agree. But in a purely literal sense it is wrong since they are not identical with the act of existing (esse), otherwise they would not begin to exist or cease to exist since they would be identical with the act of existing. Existing would be their essence.

They each have their own mode of being.

They have their own natures but it makes no logical sense to speak of them as having their own distinct act of existing for reasons I have given and you have ignored. There is no such thing as a different kind of existing. A thing is either the act of existing or it is not the act of existing at all; for existence is not a genus. There are different kinds of contingent natures, but there are no different kinds of existence accept in a purely analogous sense.

God’s mode of being is to exist as well, yes, but his mode of existence is pure actuality
Ut

God is pure actuality only in the respect that he is identical to the act of existing and thus is not himself a conjoining of esse and essence or potency and act (as is the case with creatures). That is what pure actuality means. Any other sense of pure actuality is logically meaningless.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In a purely analogous sense I would agree. But in a purely literal sense it is wrong since they are not identical with the act of existing (esse), otherwise they would not begin to exist or cease to exist since they would be identical with the act of existing. Existing would be their essence.

They have their own natures but it makes no logical sense to speak of them as having their own distinct act of existing for reasons I have given and you have ignored. There is no such thing as a different kind of existing. A thing is either the act of existing or it is not the act of existing at all; for existence is not a genus. There are different kinds of contingent natures, but there are no different kinds of existence accept in a purely analogous sense.

God is pure actuality only in the respect that he is identical to the act of existing and thus is not himself a conjoining of esse and essence or potency and act (as is the case with creatures). That is what pure actuality means. Any other sense of pure actuality is logically meaningless.

Phuwee! Pure fantasy. You have glommd onto this notion as a Trojan Horse to gull the gullible into Pantheism. Created beings cannot share an " act of existence " with God. That makes them God. You say that makes them real beings distinct from God. That is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. A being cannot be real and distinct form God and not be real and distinct from God at the same time.

On the other hand, since God is His own esse and since His esse is His essence, the essence you say is created being cannot exist outside the Mind of God. For you say it shares the esse of God, and to share the esse of God is to share in the essence of God. The best one could say of such an essence as you propose is that it is nothing but an Idea existing in the Mind of God.

So your " created " essences are either Ideas in the Mind of God and thus have no separate existence of their own or you are proposing a back door argument for Pantheism, but just not calling it that.

In either case you are proposing something contrary to the Defined Dogmas of the Catholic Church. You may hold onto such an idea if you wish, but no Catholic, in good standing, can. And I might add, no faithful Jew or Muslim can believe such things are true either.Indeed no believer in the One True God can hold such views.

The great Jewish and Muslim philosophers of the past would view such notions very dimly to say the very least. Indeed, one who held them would face most severe penalties. And I have pointed out to you many times that Thomas Aquinas and two thousand years of Catholic Philosophers and Theologians have rejectecd such notions - right up to the present day.

You claim to have proved your case, You have not done so. Indeed, you cannot do so. It is contrary to reason; thus, it cannot be proven.

My posts #'s 17 and 125 detail the arguments against your concept. You have ignored them. But if you hope to be taken seriously as a philosopher. you cannot ignore such arguments, especially as they represent the thought of one of the most brilliant minds of Christianity. And of course, there are the megre offerings of my own thoughts above and elsewhere.
Linus2nd