L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Oh no, It is right on point - you just don’t want to admit it. One error leads to another.
Linus2nd.
- Status
Linus2nd.
L
Linux
Guest
And yet even after all the false accusations the undisputable fact remains true. Esse and essence is absolutly distinct even after being conjoined. That’s why God has to sustain essences in reality…with his esse, which is his nature, which is his power, which is his will, which is his love, etcetera etcetera.
Y
yppop
Guest
Linus;
Could you be a little more specific? What part of what I wrote is contrary to Catholic Dogma. I don’t need evidence; your always dogmatic opinion will do.
Do you really understand what I wrote?
After 79 years as a successful Catholic, I am sure my wife, my 8 children, 22 grandchildren, 5 son-in-laws (3 converts); 2 daughter-in-laws (1convert); 2 great-grandchildren, all Catholics will be disappointed when you have me excommunicated for trying to explain how God might create ex nihilo.
Please write smaller you’re giving me a headache.
Yppop
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
That is fair enough and I congratulate you on the good example you have given. Below is what you wrote. I have underlined the parts that are contrary to Catholic Teaching. And I’m not picking on you, I am warning the hundreds of Catholics who follow this Forum.
Originally Posted by yppop
JD,
I don’t think that the other respondents in this thread or any number of other threads understand or grasp the amazing significances of what you are alluding to. I feel compelled to add to your thoughts with the following response (slightly altered)I made to another thread about a similar subject.I will only respond to anyone that has the least inkling of what we both understand as one of the more amazing characteristic of God, namely that we along with every particle of matter in the universe are immersed in the spiritual substance (that we refer to as infinite nothingness) that can only be described as the Mind of God, a mind that has thoughts, but thoughts of a different nature than ours.
Here is that response:
Creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing, is a fundamental doctrine of Catholicism. Furthermore, it is the position of Catholic theology that the Big Bang theory does not contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as long as the BB theory implies an absolute beginning.
The Big Bang theory states that not only did matter, time, and energy emerge from a singularity, but so too did the space that gives dimensionality to the universe.
How “space” emerged from whatever the singularity was immersed in can only be imagined by assuming two modalities of space. Our finite universe has a border (yeh, I know all about Einstein’s solution) that must be spatial.
This is not a problem because we can identify two modalities of space: the continuous and the discrete, both of which can be modeled mathematically. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom states that that the real numbers are order-isomorphic to the linear continuum of geometry. In other words the axiom states that there is a one to one correspondence between real numbers and points on a line. Cantor also showed that there are as many points on the real number line as there are in two or three-dimensional space. Hence all points in 3-dimensional space can be associated with the real numbers.
The real numbers, hence continuous space, are described by the second transfinite number, aleph-1. The rational numbers also lie on the real number line, are denumerable, and are described by the first transfinite number aleph-0. Rational numbers define discrete space.
The two modalities of space, discrete and continuous, allow us to explain the duality nature of reality. Objective reality, consisting of the physical elements space, time, matter, energy, is constructed from discrete space, while continuous space provides a spiritual aspect of reality.
Thus, the mathematical properties of the infinite allow us to describe a scenario in which discrete space is crunched into a singularity and is caused to emerge from continuous space.
Because [aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1)] an infinite amount of discrete space can be removed from an infinite amount of continuous space without changing continuous space one iota; God can create the universe (or an infinite number of universes) from His own substance without change. That is the nature of God, the Infinite.
Relative to God, aleph(0) is nihilo. Since discrete space characteristically has “gaps” between points, God can reduce the size of the gap so that an inordinate number of points fit into an infinitesimal volume, i.e., essentially “nothing”
And even more so, God does not require an infinite number of “points” to create the universe, He does it with a very large but finite number of points of discrete space that we refer to as s-points.
To those skeptics that may bridle at the thought the matter is composed of some form of space, consider what string theory implies. Also consider that the typical atom whose material size is determined by the position of “point-particle” electrons, is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus and the nucleus is composed of “point-particle” quarks. In other words, matter is mostly empty space.
I contend that the empty space that provides the materiality is the continuous space that provides the spiritual aspect of reality.I call, the continuous space from which the universe emerged, infinite nothingness. It is the Mind of God. We are immersed in the Mind of God.
I contend that what I have presented may not be the truth; I offer it as a plausible “philosophical” explanation for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
Yppop.
I can’t keep up with your mathematics but I don’t need to. When the Church said God’s creation was ex nihilo, it meant just that, it did not mean from some scarcely definible mathematical something. Because even that would have to have been created.
Nor are we created from the substance of God. Nor doe we exist in the mind of God execpt as thoughts or ideas.
I have explained all this before. The teaching of the Church is that God is absolutely transcendent to his creation, eventhough He is immediately present to it and works most intimately in it. I’m afraid some people get carried away with this idea and think we exist in God’s Mind. But that is impossible because anything existing in God’s mind is God and we are not God and never will be.
I know you are just " thinking " or " speculating, " but some people reading this stuff don’t realize that.
Linus2nd
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
You have yet to reply to my last post, wherein I explained that even though the esse and essence are completely distinct even after being conjoined, the esse is nevertheless altered by the essence.
This is problematic for your theory, because God, being eternal, cannot be changed.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
You have yet to reply to my last post, wherein I explained that even though the esse and essence are completely distinct even after being conjoined, the esse is nevertheless altered by the essence. This is problematic for your theory, because God cannot be changed.
Actually, come to think of it, the doctrine of the incarnation actually provides a perfectly simple refutation of your argument. So simple, in fact, that I’m embarrassed I didn’t think of it earlier: since we have already established that essence and esse are identical in God, we can conclude that Christ’s “divine nature” could have been nothing else but the esse of God. Therefore, we see that conjoining a human nature to the divine nature produces a God-man.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Before I nod off, I would like to say that the above requires a fair amount of further explication, clarification and qualification. I turned it out rather quickly before preparing for bed (where I am headed presently). I will return to this tomorrow.
U
utunumsint
Guest
I’ll be interested in how you develop this thought. It has been at the back of my mind as well as a major objection to Linux’s theory. If our esse is God’s esse by nature (as opposed to by gace), then doesn’t that render the incarnation superflouus?
God bless,
Ut
U
utunumsint
Guest
I suppose I could ask you the same question Linux. How does your doctrine impact the traditional understanding of the incarnation? This would seem to render Christ as more of a guru, showing us the “God within” in a Nestorian kind of way - if you insist that there was no real hypostatic union between the divine and human natures. So there would be no difference between the moral union of the Just with God and that of Christ (as true man) with God.
God bless,
Ut
God bless,
Ut
I
inocente
Guest
Some critiques:
The idea that matter is just space wound up if different ways is speculative but uncontroversial.
Since there’s no way for a point in space to know if it is “objective” or “spiritual”, that must be a hidden property of every point, and therefore space must be a projection, a shadow on the wall of Plato’s cave.
Discrete/continuous space then sounds like the Matrix dressed in numerological clothes, a simulation being run on God’s laptop.
It’s not clear why time doesn’t also have “objective” and “spiritual” points, since we know that space and time form a continuum.
But imho the main issue is that a number of grand pseudo-scientific theories have been expressed on CAF and elsewhere, which have in common no explanatory value apart from squirreling away something never explained, and you need to do something to separate your theory from that herd.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
If one considers the case of the Incarnation, God does assume a human nature and so pervasively that the composition is a Person, the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. And instead of supporting Linux’s argument, it supports my own.
First of all this is a miracle. But in the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. For in the instance of the rest of creation this is not the case, because in them their esse is their own. In the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. This demonstrates that the " conjoining " the Esse of God to that of a creature is Miracle and is not the case for the rest of creation. For them, their esse is their own.
Secondly, the instance of the Incarnation it proves that if the Esse of God is " conjoined " with the essence of a creature, the resulting being is God. And this is a result that Linux has steadfastly denied. For it is his contention that to " conjoin " the esse of God to the essence of a creature does not make the resultant being identical to God. That is, it does not turn it into God. Conversely, it has been my contention that to " conjoin the Esse of God to the essence of a creature transforms the creature into God.
So, the instance of the Incarnation proves my argument correct and demonstrates that Linux’s argument is wrong on these points.
Linus2nd
First of all this is a miracle. But in the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. For in the instance of the rest of creation this is not the case, because in them their esse is their own. In the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. This demonstrates that the " conjoining " the Esse of God to that of a creature is Miracle and is not the case for the rest of creation. For them, their esse is their own.
Secondly, the instance of the Incarnation it proves that if the Esse of God is " conjoined " with the essence of a creature, the resulting being is God. And this is a result that Linux has steadfastly denied. For it is his contention that to " conjoin " the esse of God to the essence of a creature does not make the resultant being identical to God. That is, it does not turn it into God. Conversely, it has been my contention that to " conjoin the Esse of God to the essence of a creature transforms the creature into God.
So, the instance of the Incarnation proves my argument correct and demonstrates that Linux’s argument is wrong on these points.
Linus2nd
L
Linux
Guest
You asserted that it is altered, that is not an argument. Potentiality cannot cuase esse.
L
Linux
Guest
The Biological Organism through which Jesus expressed himself is clearly not God (it has dimensions and has a distinct spatial location). Jesus was fully God, and fully human at the same time. The biological organism was not identical in essence with the nature of God.
Neither does this union alter the esse of God.
I don’t see the conflict you speak of. In fact it seems that you have a misunderstanding of the incarnation.
U
utunumsint
Guest
To be fair, I’ve hijacked prodigalson2011’s point. He said he would develop this thought in more detail today. But as an aside, do you know about the doctrine of hypostatic union? That Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature?
If yes, then where would you localize esse in each nature? And how is it different in Christ than in other human beings? If at all.
God bless,
Ut
I
inocente
Guest
How I see your posts now you’ve taken up shouting all the time.
U
utunumsint
Guest
HahahahahahaHow I see your posts now you’ve taken up shouting all the time.
L
Linux
Guest
Its besides the point. This is not an issue that I need to solve in order for my argument to be correct; and to be honest I am not an expert. But what I do know for a fact, is that the biological organism through which the Christ is expressed is not in and of its self “God”.
And the biological organism’s (the creaturely essence) union (conjoining) with God does not alter the nature (esse) of God.
Thus prodigalson2011’s argument actually supports my argument.
E
empther
Guest
Linusthe2nd says it like it is ( post 93 in “Is God the esse of all contingent things?” ) …
Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.
Linus2nd
Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.
Linus2nd
A
Aloysium
Guest
It seems to me that this is the philosophy/theology Linux is trying to promote: that within us, at our core, we are God. I can’t understand what other view of man can come of his arguments. At what point does a debate turn into proselytizing?
L
Linux
Guest
Esse is absolutely distinct from essence even after being conjoined (which is made evident by the fact that essences pass in and out of existence); so what you have said here is evidently false. Thus being conjoined to esse (God) does not make our essence at its core God.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, your so called rebuttals can only work if you deny the real distinction between esse and essence.
- Status