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

[utunumsint]

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.

I would say there are as many acts of existing as there are forms. Rikaby mentions two ways in which Thomas defines existence:

There is always an ambiguity in this term of ‘mere existence,’ ipsum esse, auto to einai.

• Either it means ens abstractissimum, the thinnest and shallowest of concepts, denoting the barest removal from nothingness:
• or it is ens plenissimum, being that includes (virtually at least) all other being, as the Platonic auto to kalon virtually includes all beauty.

In this latter sense the term is predicable of God alone. In God `mere existence’ means pure actuality.

All things in the created world take on their existence through their form. The form, according to Thomas, (as far as I understand him) is the principle of every being’s existence. God alone is not included in any Genus because he is pure actuality -being in the second sense that Rikaby mentions. For everything else, they have ens abstractissimum, which is included in every Genus and in every being whatever.

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.

Rikaby mentions two sense. So does Thomas.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

Phuwee! Pure fantasy. You have glommd onto this notion as a Trojan Horse to gull the gullible into Pantheism.

That is not true, although it is understandable why you would want it to be true because that’s the only leg you have to stand on. My argument is apparently pantheistic and you’re going to keep running with that until your blue in the face I’m sure.

Created beings cannot share an " act of existence " with God. That makes them God.

Being conjoined to “esse” does not make ones essence identical with esse. If that were true, such essences would not begin or cease to exist and therefore would be God. But essences clearly do begin to exist and cease to exist, and therefore the fact that they are conjoined to esse cannot possibly mean that they are identical. Therefore my claim that God is the esse of contingent essences cannot possibly mean that the essence of created things are identical with God on the basis of being conjoined with the esse that is God

What I am saying here about the real distinction between esse and essence is not contrary to logic and neither is it contrary to Thomism or the Catholic faith; although it certainly is contrary to your interpretation of the faith I am sure. It may be difficult to understand, but the alternative renders creation impossible to reasonable people; and I said to my self along time ago that I will never have a blind faith.

Before you hiss at me and talk about penalties of death for having my own mind, I would make sure that it is not in fact you who is being the heretic, since the logical implication of your argument is that God creates Gods and that the universe is a God since they have their own distinct esse on top of being illogical.

As usual you have ignored my argument and instead gone into a mindless rant full of false accusations and poor reasoning skills.

Its funny; Aquinas himself was accused of heresy in 1270 for siding with the philosophy of Aristotle. Thank God he didn’t listen to them or you.

 

[Linux]

Rikaby mentions two sense. So does Thomas.

God bless,
Ut

Chris mentioned that his mum is an alien.

I really don’t care who said what. Please address my argument with a direct rebuttal or not at all.

 

[utunumsint]

Chris mentioned that his mum is an alien.

I really don’t care who said what. Please address the argument with a direct rebuttal or not at all.

Its just that I don’t think you are using the terms the way they are supposed to be used. Or at the very least, when you say essence and I say essence we mean two different things. So it seems impossible for me to have a discussion with you.

Anyway, I think I will continue with this on my own then.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

If the only reality is god, then all things, all creation would exist in his mind, rather in themselves.
Relationships would be merely illusions, as they would involve a merging of different elements within the cosmic dream.
There would be no real love, just empty emotions: there being no true other. Love would be reduced to masturbation.
It gets too weird, imagining ourselves as having no distinct being/reality of our own.
Why does a christ have to sacrifice himself? It’s all a bad dream. Somebody wake god up!
I do not understand how someone can say that an all-powerful God cannot create being/reality in His image.
Maybe I misunderstand the discussion; unfortunately, the technical terms appear to have flexible definitions.

 

[yppop]

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

Linus,

1. Would you please define Pantheism for me? You seem to use it in a lot of different cases.
2. And while you’re at it, what do you mean by; Defined Dogmas of the Catholic Church?
   Thank you.
   Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,

1. Would you please define Pantheism for me? You seem to use it in a lot of different cases.
2. And while you’re at it, what do you mean by; Defined Dogmas of the Catholic Church?
   Thank you.
   Yppop

Pantheism is the notion or belief that God is some how an actual part of the world or visa versa, or that the world will gradually " develop " into God.

Defined Dogmas are the most formal teachings of the Church, like the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Often they are made during an General Council ( like the Council of Trent ). Often they are made in response to blatant errors being taught concerning the Faith. Of course Catholics must accept all that is taught in the Catechism, whether Defined in this manner or not.

Pantheism has been specifically condemned by the Church by formal declaration…
And the Church has formally declared that God created the entire universe, in time, Ex Nihilo. A necessary collorary to this is that the creatures of creation are entirely distinct and separate from God. Our beings are finite and His is Infinite and Eternal. We are created, He is not. And although our being is entirely separate from God, we are utterly dependent upon Him at every moment of our existence. Thus, our " act of existence " ( if such exists and we are not required to believe such is the case ), is not God’s " act of existence. "

I personally think we do have an " act of existence. " But the only way we have it is that God has given it to us. This was the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and held by traditional Thomists up to the present day. It has been rejected by Duns Scotus and others to the present day. Yet both groups represent loyal Catholics. It is a point of difference in philosophical thought only and does not impact Faith or the Teachings of the Church.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is not true, although it is understandable why you would want it to be true because that’s the only leg you have to stand on. My argument is apparently pantheistic and you’re going to keep running with that until your blue in the face I’m sure.

Being conjoined to “esse” does not make ones essence identical with esse. If that were true, such essences would not begin or cease to exist and therefore would be God. But essences clearly do begin to exist and cease to exist, and therefore the fact that they are conjoined to esse cannot possibly mean that they are identical. Therefore my claim that God is the esse of contingent essences cannot possibly mean that the essence of created things are identical with God on the basis of being conjoined with the esse that is God

What I am saying here about the real distinction between esse and essence is not contrary to logic and neither is it contrary to Thomism or the Catholic faith; although it certainly is contrary to your interpretation of the faith I am sure. It may be difficult to understand, but the alternative renders creation impossible to reasonable people; and I said to my self along time ago that I will never have a blind faith.

Before you hiss at me and talk about penalties of death for having my own mind, I would make sure that it is not in fact you who is being the heretic, since the logical implication of your argument is that God creates Gods and that the universe is a God since they have their own distinct esse on top of being illogical.

As usual you have ignored my argument and instead gone into a mindless rant full of false accusations and poor reasoning skills.

Its funny; Aquinas himself was accused of heresy in 1270 for siding with the philosophy of Aristotle. Thank God he didn’t listen to them or you.

I have responded fully to your O.P. and your later comments, so there is no need to repeat them. My position is that of St. Thomas, his arguments are mine. I have given you ample documentation to prove that but you apparantly have ignored it. I can’t make you read it and think about it.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I’m sorry, you are using a mode of expression I am unfamiliar with. If you just make your point in ordinary language, not resorting to metephor or mystical language, I might understand your point.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

I have responded fully to your O.P. and your later comments,

No you haven’t, you have constantly evaded my arguments; mostly passing the buck and spewing Ad hominem attacks. You made a claim that my argument goes against the law of non-contradiction for saying that God does not become the essence of creatures by being the esse of creatures (the one time I have seen you attempt to form a syllogism in this whole debate). I just refuted that claim by reminding you of the real distinction between esse and essence and how a nature that is identical to esse cannot begin or cease to exist; and yet here you are again asserting victory despite evidence to the contrary.

My position is that of St. Thomas, his arguments are mine.

I disagree,and if he does agree with you then he is wrong for the reasons I have already presented. I don’t care how great or famous he was.

I have given you ample documentation to prove that but you apparently have ignored it. I can’t make you read it and think about it.

Linus2nd

You have provided zero evidence that my argument is actually wrong. All you have done is quote Aquinas and asserted that he has refuted my argument.

You have failed to refute my argument.

 

[Linux]

Linus,

1. Would you please define Pantheism for me? You seem to use it in a lot of different cases.
2. And while you’re at it, what do you mean by; Defined Dogmas of the Catholic Church?
   Thank you.
   Yppop

Pantheism is the belief that the nature of the universe is God. Linus does not know what he is talking about. He talks a big game, but his understanding of things is quite shallow.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No you haven’t, you have constantly evaded my arguments; mostly passing the buck and spewing Ad hominem attacks. You made a claim that my argument goes against the law of non-contradiction for saying that God does not become the essence of creatures by being the esse of creatures (the one time I have seen you attempt to form a syllogism in this whole debate). I just refuted that claim by reminding you of the real distinction between esse and essence and how a nature that is identical to esse cannot begin or cease to exist; and yet here you are again asserting victory despite evidence to the contrary.

I disagree,and if he does agree with you then he is wrong for the reasons I have already presented. I don’t care how great or famous he was.

You have provided zero evidence that my argument is actually wrong. All you have done is quote Aquinas and asserted that he has refuted my argument.

You have failed to refute my argument.

I guess you are welcome to your opinions. The reader can judge for themselves.

I hope the rest of the lemmings aren’t going to follow you over the cliff! Well, I’ve done all I can. If you ever get all that nonsence into print, you will find out you are all alone, or nearly so. Etienne Gilson would have a lot to say.

One final thought. According to Thomas and the Teaching of the Church, God is utterly simple. That means is Essence or Nature is Simple and Perfect and Undivided.

So when you speak ot the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pantheism is the belief that the nature of the universe is God. Linus does not know what he is talking about. He talks a big game, but his understanding of things is quite shallow.

uch:

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,

1. Would you please define Pantheism for me? You seem to use it in a lot of different cases.
2. And while you’re at it, what do you mean by; Defined Dogmas of the Catholic Church?
   Thank you.
   Yppop

My response to Linux’s post # 170 : "

I guess you are welcome to your opinions. The reader can judge for themselves.

I hope the rest of the lemmings aren’t going to follow you over the cliff! Well, I’ve done all I can. If you ever get all that nonsence into print, you will find out you are all alone, or nearly so. Etienne Gilson would have a lot to say.

One final thought. According to Thomas and the Teaching of the Church, God is utterly simple. That means is Essence or Nature is Simple and Perfect and Undivided.

So when you speak of the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism. "

As I said, read my posts # 17 and 125 and even go to the referenced texts and read them for yourself.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linux]

So when you speak ot the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism.

Clear evidence that you are ignoring my argument and that you reject the real distinction between esse and essence in creatures.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Clear evidence that you reject the real distinction between esse and essence.

No, not at all, that is your rather strange interpretation. Of course there is a real distinction between essence and esse. As Thomas says when speaking of creation, the act of creation is the production of entire substances, including their act of existence. So obviously their act of existence is distinct from their essence but it is the innermost principle of their being. It is what makes the essence a real being or substance. So naturally they are distinct. But the essence cannot exist without it.

Now you could save yourself a lot of trouble and instead of misinterpreting Thomas on this point, you could do like Duns Scotus and just reject the concept of the act of existence as incomprehensible and take up Scotus or some like minded philosopher. That would be fine, I would not object to that. What I object to is your misinterpretation of ST. Thomas. You should read " Elements of Christian Philosophy " by Etienne Gilson. He can make the argument better than I. It is an excellent book by a genuine scholar and worth every dollar. He spends several chapters on this very point.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

No, not at all, that is your rather strange interpretation. Of course there is a real distinction between essence and esse. As Thomas says when speaking of creation, the act of creation is the production of entire substances, including their act of existence. So obviously their act of existence is distinct from their essence but it is the innermost principle of their being. It is what makes the essence a real being or substance. So naturally they are distinct. But the essence cannot exist without it.

The fact that a contingent essence cannot exist without esse does not make the two identical, which is made evident by the fact that essences come in and out of existence. Thus your rebuttal is flawed. You say that you accept a real distinction between esse and essence but in fact you reject it and the evidence that supports it.

 

[billcu1]

Pantheism is the notion or belief that God is some how an actual part of the world or visa versa, or that the world will gradually " develop " into God.

From what I have heard of Pantheism, as the church understands it, seems to be and to denote “everyone else”. A non-catholic. A rejecter of “truth”. I’m not so sure that what I’ve seem of pantheism says that man will develop into God. But more like a God-like being. Such might be beyond our present understanding but the scriptures themselves say we will be like God and co-creators with him.

 

[yppop]

Pantheism is the notion or belief that God is some how an actual part of the world or visa versa, or that the world will gradually " develop " into God.

Linus
I see the source of our communication problem; it is that little word “part”. I think of Pantheism as it is defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary: Pantheism - “The doctrine or belief that God is not a personality, but that all laws, forces, manifestations, etc. of the self-existing universe are God; belief that God is everything and everything is God.”

or as implied in The Catechism of the Catholic Church - Part 1; Section 2; Chapter1; Paragraph 4; I, 285
… Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism)…

For me, the operative word in these two excerpts is “everything”. You, on the other hand, apparently believe that “somehow only actual part of God” need be involved before you can accuse others of Pantheism. I see now why you argue against my belief that the Holy Spirit is involved with man’s spirit and thus our soul, for the spirit is the substance of the soul as implied in the following:

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on May 18, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1986, the eighth of my Pontificate. John Paul II

DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM
Part I, Paragraph 3
section 14 -The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as the words of the farewell discourse in the Upper Room bear witness. At the same time he is the Spirit of the Son: he is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the Apostles and particularly Paul of Tarsus will testify. With the sending of this Spirit "into our hearts," there begins the fulfillment of that for which “creation waits with eager longing,” as we read in the Letter to the Romans.

sect 55 - In the texts of St. Paul there is a superimposing- and a mutual compenetration-of the ontological dimension (the flesh and the spirit), the ethical (moral good and evil), and** the pneumatological (the action of the Holy Spirit in the order of grace)… **

sect. 58 - Under the influence of the Holy Spirit this inner, “spiritual,” man matures and grows strong. Thanks to the divine self- communication, the human spirit which “knows the secrets of man” meets the “Spirit who searches everything, even the depths of God.” In this Spirit, who is the eternal gift, the Triune God opens himself to man, to the human spirit. The hidden breath of the divine Spirit enables the human spirit to open in its turn before the saving and sanctifying self-opening of God. Through the gift of grace, which comes from the Holy Spirit, man enters a “new life,” is brought into the supernatural reality of the divine life itself and becomes a “dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit,” a living temple of God. For through the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son come to him and take up their abode with him. In the communion of grace with the Trinity, man’s “living area” is broadened and raised up to the supernatural level of divine life. Man lives in God and by God: he lives “according to the Spirit,” and “sets his mind on the things of the Spirit.”

As a compatriot in the battle against materialism, I hope you don’t think the Pope’s words are Pantheism
.
And, by the way, “compatriot” does not mean “enemy” as you educed in your post 132 in answer to my complimentary close in post 120.
Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From what I have heard of Pantheism, as the church understands it, seems to be and to denote “everyone else”. A non-catholic. A rejecter of “truth”. I’m not so sure that what I’ve seem of pantheism says that man will develop into God. But more like a God-like being. Such might be beyond our present understanding but the scriptures themselves say we will be like God and co-creators with him.

CCC, para 285 : " 285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). …" All these may be termed Pantheism, though the Church identifies only the last as Pantheism. And whether or not the others can be properly termed Pantheism, all of these notions are equally condemned by the Church.

Linus2nd