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.
Peter_Plato said:
Despite what others have said, I think your view finds support in the following explanation:

The point being that created things exist only to the extent that they participate, but not necessarily or essentially so, in the Esse or Beingness of God. Existence is a free gift from God who lovingly shares his existence (esse) with creation. Only God is ipsum esse subsistens because only God necessarily exists as an aspect of what God is. Created things participate in God and only exist (ens) because they do so as a result of God “sharing” with us his being-ness (esse.) Our existence is contingent on God sharing himself with us. God’s existence is a necessary aspect of what he is. That is the meaning of ipsum esse subsistens.

I haven’t seen anything in your posts that contradicts this. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...
What you quoted is not saying that God is the act of existing of created beings. It is saying that their acts of existing and corresponding degrees of perfection are derived from and dependent upon the perfect existence of God, being composed of limited “facsimiles”, so to speak, of these perfections, and thus all beings share in some degree of God’s perfections. The author quotes Aquinas himself on this point: “In the created world everything is made to a likeness of what is in God.”

Later on in the same paper you cited, the author actually supports what I have been saying:

"Just as any created being is never found without its transcendental properties, the Uncreated Being or Esse is never found without the infinite fullness of uncreated unity, truth, and goodness: “This ultimately implies that subsistent being is also subsistent unity,truth, and goodness”.32 To be sure, “God is not good or wise because He causes goodness or wisdom; rather, God causes goodness and wisdom because He himself is good and wise”.33 By the same token, one may say that Ipsum Esse Subsistens causes unity, truth, and goodness, because Ipsum Esse Subsistens as such is subsistent unity, truth, and goodness."

This is in line with what I have been saying: wherever God’s esse is, the fullness of His nature must be so as well.

And again:

*"**Apparently, between the two poles, i.e., God the Highest Being (Ipsum Esse Subsistens) and non-being (non-esse or nothingness), there exists a hierarchy of beings , each possessing, enjoying, or being lack of a certain degree of fullness of being. **

What exactly, then, is this fullness of being? Gilson succinctly comments, “If God is Being, He is not only total being: totum esse. He is more especially true being: verum esse, and that means that everything else is only partial being, hardly deserves the name of being at all”.4*

< > indicates my addition to emphasize the point, as throughout this passage the word being and esse are interchangeable.

That the author also distinguises between God’s esse and the esse of created things is evidenced in this statement:

“Resembling the Esse of their Creator, the esse of countless individuals and communities would consist of God’s perfections or Essence.”

In any case, I had mixed feelings about the paper (which I note does not have an imprimatur), as it seemed to flip-flop here and there as to its theological stance.

And finally, to show that the view expressed by Linux is in direct contradiction of Catholic doctrine, a couple quotes from the Canons of Vatican I (Section I: God the Creator of all Things):
  1. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual … emanated from the divine substance … let him be anathema.
  2. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance <i.e. essence and esse>, have been produced by God from nothing … let him be anathema.
 
Linux said:
It is saying that. That is the necessary logical implication of the real distinction between esse and essence.
Click to expand...
Read the rest of my post. It is clearly not what is being said. The author makes clear reference to other esses throughout his paper.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Read the rest of my post. It is clearly not what is being said.
Click to expand...
It is very clear what the quote said.

“Thus, the whole history of creation, and later salvation, is simply the history of God’s self-communicating or sharing with created beings (entia) the infinite fullness of His Esse. In other words, Ipsum Esse Subsistens has been enjoying the infinite, perfect, highest possible level of existence since all eternity and, subsequently (but not necessarily so), desires to share Its very Esse or Essence with all created beings, i.e., as a gift of participation in God’s perfections. Representing the mature thinking of St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles (written during 1259-1264) and especially Summa Theologiae (1266-1273), for example, are by and large two systematic elaborations of this unmistakable reality.
http://catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/3.pdf”

Now once you understand what it means for God to be perfect, i.e that God is perfect because his nature by definition is the very act of existing, which is his power, which is his will, which is his love, which is…etcetera, your argument falls apart into a miserable heap of misunderstanding.

For God to truly share his perfection with creation is by definition to share his esse with the essence of creation; and it is the fact that these essences are limited, in the respect that their essence is not identical to esse, which provides the real reason for saying that they have a limited participation in the perfection of God. That is what is meant by degrees of being or perfection. Otherwise the concept is ontologically meaningless since created essences cannot literally have “parts” of perfection in their nature, since perfection has no parts. Degrees of perfection is an analogy representing the relationship between the essence of creatures and the esse that is God.

There is no escaping the logical implication of what has been said here.
 
Lately I’ve been thinking about creation like a computer game program and God as the master programer.

Nothing exists in the Computer until the is (name removed by moderator)ut.

The characters in the game are just made of energy.

God (name removed by moderator)uts the energy and creates the virtual person.

E=mc2 We are all just energy anyway, when you get down to it.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
And finally, to show that the view expressed by Linux is in direct contradiction of Catholic doctrine, a couple quotes from the Canons of Vatican I (Section I: God the Creator of all Things):
  1. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual … emanated from the divine substance … let him be anathema.
  2. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance <i.e. essence and esse>, have been produced by God from nothing … let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
It think this is a very interesting and valid quote, but you are adding into it that substance equals both essence and esse. The actual body of the text without your additions is this:
  1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
  2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
  3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
  4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally,that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
  5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Notice that #3 equates substance with essence but does not include esse (existence).

Notice #4 focuses on substance or essence (and not esse) and denounces anyone who claims that finite things “emanated from” the divine substance. This is not the same as claiming existence of finite things participates in the divine esse.

As to #5 you defined substance as essence and esse which is not necessarily what is implied, since substance is the material or nature of created things which, as contingent things, excludes their existence since neither their form nor their material substance need include their existence. What they are is not the same as “that” they are.

To be clear I am completely open to hearing what Church teaching on this issue is and am fully ready to be on side with that. However, I am not clear that what the Church teaches is necessarily contrary to Linux’s view, just as I am not clear that Aquinas’ writings contradict Linux.
 
Linux said:
It is very clear what the quote said.

"Thus, the whole history of creation, and later salvation, is simply the history of God’s self-communicating or sharing with created beings (entia) the infinite fullness of His Esse. In other words, Ipsum Esse Subsistens has been enjoying the infinite, perfect, highest possible level of existence since all eternity and, subsequently (but not necessarily so), desires to share Its very Esse or Essence with all created beings, i.e., as a gift of participation in God’s perfections. Representing the mature thinking of St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles (written during 1259-1264) and especially Summa Theologiae (1266-1273), for example, are by and large two systematic elaborations of this unmistakable reality.
http://catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/3.pdf"

Now once you understand what it means for God to be perfect, i.e that God is perfect because his nature by definition is the very act of existing, which is his power, which is his will, which is his love, which is…etcetera, your argument falls apart into a miserable heap of misunderstanding.

For God to truly share his perfection with creation is by definition to share his esse with the essence of creation; and it is the fact that these essences are limited, in the respect that their essence is not identical to esse, which provides the real reason for saying that they have a limited participation in the perfection of God. That is what is meant by degrees of being or perfection. Otherwise the concept is ontologically meaningless since created essences cannot literally have “parts” of perfection in their nature, since perfection has no parts. Degrees of perfection is an analogy representing the relationship between the essence of creatures and the esse that is God.

There is no escaping the logical implication of what has been said here.
Click to expand...
For the benefit of your supporters I have included the link which didn’t take above.
catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/3.pdf

I read it. It is nothing more than an interpretation and of course I firmly disagree with its application to finite beings. I have already shown that that is not what Thomas taught and I have shown that it cannot be held.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
For the benefit of your supporters I have included the link which didn’t take above.
catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/3.pdf

I read it. It is nothing more than an interpretation and of course I firmly disagree with its application to finite beings. I have already shown that that is not what Thomas taught and I have shown that it cannot be held.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I don’t think you have proven that my argument is against the Church.
Neither have you disproved what the quote clearly states.

Your intentions have been made evident by the fact that when you first read the quote you tried to ad-hoc explain it away as saying something else, and now it is supposedly just an interpretation; so now you can just go back to just dismissing it out of hand, just like you dismissed my argument.:whistle:

Supposedly you are the only one with the right interpretation.:rolleyes:
 
Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
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.

Linus my friend,
1.Suppose you are wrong; what are those hundreds of warned Catholics going to do with such disinformation. Why do Catholics need to be warned? Do they not have a mind of their own or do you believe they have not the depth of understanding that you have?

The issue in this thread is creatio ex nihilo. What I am doing is providing a plausible way in which creatio ex nihilo can be explained in terms that are familiar, or if not familiar, at least, understandable.

Quote:
I can’t keep up with your mathematics but I don’t need to.

2.If you can’t understand the mathematics how do you know I am wrong? When you say you “don’t need to” are you implying that mathematics has no explicative worth?

Quote:
When the Church said God’s creation was ex nihilo, it meant just that…

3.When you say ex nihilo means exactly that, what do you mean by “that” ? What does the Church mean by that?

Quote:
…it did not mean from some scarcely definible mathematical something. Because even that would have to have been created.

4.Could you please expand on what you mean by “some scarcely definable mathematical something”? If you can’t understand the mathematics how would you know that using transfinite numbers is not a plausible way to explain “creatio ex nihilo”? You certainly don’t want to argue from ignorance of the subject at hand.

Quote:
Nor are we created from the substance of God

5.If we aren’t created from the substance of God who is omnipresent, infinite and eternal, how does and where does the supposed nihilo (non-existence) occur? The substance of God surely is not only infinite in extent but also infinitely divisible.

Quote:
Nor do we exist in the mind of God execpt as thoughts or ideas.

6.Are you implying that there is some other way to exist in God than by thoughts or ideas? Has anyone else claimed such an idea? I sure haven’t. We are created by the power of God - power that is purely spiritual and non-physical - from God’s thoughts and ideas that can only originate in what we humans can only imagine as the Mind of God. Yes, of course, we don’t know with certainty, but one of the great gifts of God that comes to us through Sanctifying (or Habitual) Grace is the gift of wonder. And I wonder with a deep personal feeling of awe in the spirit of the encyclical Fides et Ratio which states:

para.22: “In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature’s reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20). This is to concede to human reason a capacity which seems almost to surpass its natural limitations. Not only is it not restricted to sensory knowledge, from the moment that it can reflect critically upon the data of the senses, but, by discoursing on the data provided by the senses, reason can reach the cause which lies at the origin of all perceptible reality. In philosophical terms, we could say that this important Pauline text affirms the human capacity for metaphysical enquiry.”

Quote:
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.

7.How is “God is transcendent” and simultaneously (or conterminously if you wish) “immediately present to it and works intimately in it”. Is this not a contradiction?

Quote:
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.
  1. I understand your thinking here and thank you for not playing the “Pantheism” card.
    However in response 5 what ever nihilo/non-existence is and I assume you mean absolute non-existence, if God creates from this nihilo/non-existence, which because God is infinite this nihilo/ non-existence is “part of God” when He is creating, then by your reasoning that if we are part of God we are God, then if non/existence is part of God does that mean God is nihilo/non-existent?,
    Yppop
Close

Linus2nd
 
Linux said:
I don’t think you have proven that my argument is against the Church.
Neither have you disproved what the quote clearly states.

Your intentions have been made evident by the fact that when you first read the quote you tried to ad-hoc explain it away as saying something else, and now it is supposedly just an interpretation; so now you can just go back to just dismissing it out of hand, just like you dismissed my argument.:whistle:

Supposedly you are the only one with the right interpretation.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That particualr interpretation happens to be contrary to Catholic Dogma. Show me any Catholic Dogma or even ordinary teaching to support your position. You can’t because there is none.

That closes the case as far as I am concerned and it should also close it for other Catholics.

Linus2nd
 
Peter_Plato said:
It think this is a very interesting and valid quote, but you are adding into it that substance equals both essence and esse. The actual body of the text without your additions is this:

Notice that #3 equates substance with essence but does not include esse (existence).
Click to expand...
Number 3 refers specifically to the divine substance, wherein esse and essence are identical. The use of “substance or essence” is also ambiguous, as it could be read as signifying the interchangeability of the terms on a general level or in the sense that any of God’s nominal properties are synonymous in His being, and thus whether considering his essence or being, the same principles apply.

I would argue that it is being applied in the latter sense, for the following reason. I quote from the IEP (a peer reviewed online philosophical encyclopedia), in its article on Aquinas’ metaphysics:

*"Given that essence is that which is said to possess existence, but is not identical to existence, substances are essence/existence composites."

“…a substance is that whose nature it is to exist not in some subject or as a part of anything else, but what exists in itself. Thus, a substance is a properly basic entity, existing per se (though of course depending on an external cause for its existence).”*
Notice #4 focuses on substance or essence (and not esse) and denounces anyone who claims that finite things “emanated from” the divine substance. This is not the same as claiming existence of finite things participates in the divine esse.
Click to expand...
As I have just shown, substance and essence are not synonymous (substances are essence/existence composites). Nevertheless, there is no distinction between the two in God, so it is irrelevant in any case. To “emanate” means to flow out or proceed from. If God’s esse (the divine substance) is the act of existence of created things, then they indeed “emanate” from the divine substance. Number 4 addresses 3 separate heresies; this is one of them.

The quote you cited as supporting Linux’s argument cannot be understood in isolation. God’s sharing of His nature is a matter of His creation of things that reflect certain of his perfections in differing degrees, much as two people may share similar facial features or voices. We participate in the Divine Nature first by those degrees of perfection which are inherent to our being and secondly by further gifts of grace which enable us to become more like God. From the Catechism:

“Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness.”

Note that the participation is in the form of likeness, not union.

But, ultimately, as regards Linux’s argument, any reference participation in the divine nature lends no support, as he denies that being conjoined to God’s esse would have anything to do with us taking on God’s nature.
As to #5 you defined substance as essence and esse which is not necessarily what is implied, since substance is the material or nature of created things which, as contingent things, excludes their existence since neither their form nor their material substance need include their existence. What they are is not the same as “that” they are.
Click to expand...
As I have just shown, Aquinas does indeed define a substance as a composite of essence and esse: “According to Aquinas, substances are what are primarily said to exist, and so substances are what have existence but yet are not identical with existence.” (IEP; Aquinas: Metaphysics)

And it would seem that the Council, perhaps to avoid just such confusion, deliberately referred in this instance to “the WHOLE substance.”
To be clear I am completely open to hearing what Church teaching on this issue is and am fully ready to be on side with that. However, I am not clear that what the Church teaches is necessarily contrary to Linux’s view, just as I am not clear that Aquinas’ writings contradict Linux.
Click to expand...
I hope that this hurried response has been helpful. 🙂

The IEP article I sourced can be read in its entirety here: iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#H4
 
Linux said:
How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

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

That being said I agree with creatio ex nihilo if by that it is meant that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials. But I reject what I would call “the rabbit out of the hat interpretation” of creation. I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.
Click to expand...
We as humans know little about what nothing is. Technically we have never encountered nothing. Personally I think the universe exists in a infinate void of nothing that God (existing in another deminsion where time and space mean nothing) created it. I have a theory about what nothing is. First off, think about the color black. According to our brains there is nothing there. If a black ball was on a table, to our brains there is a void in the table where nothing exists. But we know this is not true, we know something is there because we use other sences and common sence to tell a ball is on the table. Our brain thinks there is nothing there because light is not being bounced back to our eyes. In fact not only is there nothing on the table but everything (everything being all wavelengths of light). Same thing goes for nothing. There isn’t no matter or energy outside of the universe in this void, but all raw ingredients of matter and energy. This void the universe is in is what God used to create the universe. He did not create matter and energy out of nothing to create the universe. God put order to the chaos of nothing. Don’t think I’m says God used already existing materials other than himself to create the universe. I’m saying that this is the nature of nothing, it is in fact everything (leaving nothing left to perceive). The reason nothing is everything is only because God is there is perceive it.
 
From the same IEP article, explaining what it means to say the created things “participate in existence”:

*"Firstly, when something receives in a particular fashion what pertains universally to another, it is said to participate in that other; for example, a species (‘man’) is said to participate in its genus (‘animal’) and an individual (Socrates) is said to participate in its species (‘man’) because they (the species and the individual) do not possess the intelligible structure of that in which they participate according to its full universality…

…Essences exist, but they do not exist essentially, they participate in their acts (* note the use of the plural) of existence. Insofar as an essence participates in its act of existence, the essence limits that act of existence to the nature of the essence whose act it is; for the essence merely has existence, it is not existence, in which case its possession of existence will be in accord with the nature of the essence. The act of existence is thus limited and thereby individuated to the essence whose act it is."*

This states, much more eloquently, what I have already put forth on this thread: essences limit their acts of existence. But God cannot be altered.

P.S. This last point reminds me that I said I would come back to my discussion of the incarnation/hypostatic union today, but the hour grows late, so I will have to postpone that discussion yet another day.
 
Peter_Plato said:
As to #5 you defined substance as essence and esse which is not necessarily what is implied, since substance is the material or nature of created things which, as contingent things, excludes their existence since neither their form nor their material substance need include their existence. What they are is not the same as “that” they are.
Click to expand...
Peter,

The Vatican Council’s declaration that the “whole substance” of all things is created ex nihilo doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. Substance is an extremely broad term that includes matter-form composites and the substantial form. If there is no “substance” then there is no existence outside of God. This also means that there are no essences outside of God, because essence is what a thing is as intelligible. No thing (substance), no essence (thing as intelligible).

If you don’t believe me, look at the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation where the whole substance of the bread transforms into His Body and the whole substance of the wine into His blood. There isn’t some “other” essence perhaps hanging around. The only thing that doesn’t change here is the accidents. Yet that doesn’t help with Linux’s experiment, because accidents can only inhere in something else that exists - a substance.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
What you quoted is not saying that God is the act of existing of created beings. It is saying that their acts of existing and corresponding degrees of perfection are derived from and dependent upon the perfect existence of God, being composed of limited “facsimiles”, so to speak, of these perfections, and thus all beings share in some degree of God’s perfections. The author quotes Aquinas himself on this point: “In the created world everything is made to a likeness of what is in God.”

Later on in the same paper you cited, the author actually supports what I have been saying:

"Just as any created being is never found without its transcendental properties, the Uncreated Being or Esse is never found without the infinite fullness of uncreated unity, truth, and goodness: “This ultimately implies that subsistent being is also subsistent unity,truth, and goodness”.32 To be sure, “God is not good or wise because He causes goodness or wisdom; rather, God causes goodness and wisdom because He himself is good and wise”.33 By the same token, one may say that Ipsum Esse Subsistens causes unity, truth, and goodness, because Ipsum Esse Subsistens as such is subsistent unity, truth, and goodness."

This is in line with what I have been saying: wherever God’s esse is, the fullness of His nature must be so as well.

And again:

*"**Apparently, between the two poles, i.e., God the Highest Being (Ipsum Esse Subsistens) and non-being (non-esse or nothingness), there exists a hierarchy of beings , each possessing, enjoying, or being lack of a certain degree of fullness of being. ***

What exactly, then, is this fullness of being? Gilson succinctly comments, “If God is Being, He is not only total being: totum esse. He is more especially true being: verum esse, and that means that everything else is only partial being, hardly deserves the name of being at all”.4

< > indicates my addition to emphasize the point, as throughout this passage the word being and esse are interchangeable.

That the author also distinguises between God’s esse and the esse of created things is evidenced in this statement:

“Resembling the Esse of their Creator, the esse of countless individuals and communities would consist of God’s perfections or Essence.”

In any case, I had mixed feelings about the paper (which I note does not have an imprimatur), as it seemed to flip-flop here and there as to its theological stance.

And finally, to show that the view expressed by Linux is in direct contradiction of Catholic doctrine, a couple quotes from the Canons of Vatican I (Section I: God the Creator of all Things):
  1. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual … emanated from the divine substance … let him be anathema.
  2. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance <i.e. essence and esse>, have been produced by God from nothing … let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

In regards to Etienne Gilson let me quote a bit from pg 177 of " Elements of Christian Philosophy. " He says in part, “…The only things that can properly be created are those of which it has previously been said that they are capable of having an act of being of their own. These are substances…” Obviously, Gilson is convinced that the esse of creatures is their own and that God creates it along with the entire substance. It is an effect of God’s creative act to give created beings an act of existence of their very own.

One can get a fuller flavor by reading pg 176 and all of 177. But his position is clear. Creatures have their own esse which is not God’s Esse or a part thereof. So whatever it means to say that they participate in esse, it does not mean their esse is that of God’s. Thomas you see never defines what he means by participating and sharing. And even Gilson is rather vague most of the time. Although at one point he does say that to participate means to be caused by something else.

Linus2nd
 
tdgesq said:
Peter,

The Vatican Council’s declaration that the “whole substance” of all things is created ex nihilo doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. Substance is an extremely broad term that includes matter-form composites and the substantial form. If there is no “substance” then there is no existence outside of God. This also means that there are no essences outside of God, because essence is what a thing is as intelligible. No thing (substance), no essence (thing as intelligible).
Click to expand...
This is precisely my point. Things exist to the extent that they participate in existence. God is essentially “to exist.” There aren’t millions of flavors of existence. There is only existence simpliciter. Things are actual to the extent that they are created to participate in existence, which is essentially what God is (ipsum esse existens).

I am not clear which of my points you are concerned about because your post seems to support what I have been saying. I am not arguing that created things were not created ex nihilo, but that created things in order to exist as created things must participate in existence (there is only one possible) to the extent that they have been created to.
 
Peter_Plato said:
This is precisely my point. Things exist to the extent that they participate in existence. God is essentially “to exist.” There aren’t millions of flavors of existence. There is only existence simpliciter. Things are actual to the extent that they are created to participate in existence, which is essentially what God is (ipsum esse existens).

I am not clear which of my points you are concerned about because your post seems to support what I have been saying. I am not arguing that created things were not created ex nihilo, but that created things in order to exist as created things must participate in existence (there is only one possible) to the extent that they have been created to.
Click to expand...
See my response to at the thread " Do We Exist in the Mind of God? " My response is in two posts, #s 118 and 119.

My opinion is that you have misunderstood " participation " and are interpreting Thomas as advocating something he never advocated.

Also : In regards to Etienne Gilson let me quote a bit from pg 177 of " Elements of Christian Philosophy. " He says in part, “…The only things that can properly be created are those of which it has previously been said that they are capable of having an act of being of their own. These are substances…” Obviously, Gilson is convinced that the esse of creatures is their own and that God creates it along with the entire substance. It is an effect of God’s creative act to give created beings an act of existence of their very own.

One can get a fuller flavor by reading pg 176 and all of 177. But his position is clear. Creatures have their own esse which is not God’s Esse or a part thereof. So whatever it means to say that they participate in esse, it does not mean their esse is that of God’s. Thomas you see never defines what he means by participating and sharing. And even Gilson is rather vague most of the time. Although at one point he does say that to participate means to be caused by something else.

I will add that the Church’s Dogma is absolutely clear. It is " unclear " to those who want to nuance it to secure them in some ideological opinion they hold ( for unspecified reasons ), and if the Church meant, implicitly, to include such nuances, then it has to be admitted that the Truth of Divine Revelation is not open to the " unwashed " masses, since it can only be obtained through the kind of study and effort and intelligence available only to a select elite. This amounts to the " special knowledge " of Gnosticism.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top