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

[prodigalson2011]

Nothing said here relects my argument. Seems to me that once again, instead of rationally facing my arguments you are reduced to fear-mongering. Also, the papal bull does not only contain what he was condemed for (some kind of mystical heresy) but also that which was merely suspected of heresy but not shown to be heretical.

Au contraire, mon frere. The man who formulated these ideas began from the premise “esse est Deus”, which is precisely what you are arguing in this thread, so yes, they do reflect on your argument in as much as they are what one of its most prominent proponents saw as the consequential facts of that perceived reality.

And fear-mongering? Please, Linux, let’s be serious. As though charges of heresy send people into panic. This seems to me the equivalent of a homosexual activist charging anyone who disagrees with him of homophobia.

But anyway, if I must spell it out, I’m more than happy to do so:

10. We are completely reformed into God and changed into him; in a similar manner as in the blessed sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ: so I am changed into him that he himself produces me as his own being, the same as he, not as something similar to him; it is true by the living God that there is no distinction. As Eckhart says here, in God there is no distinction. So an essence conjoined to Him cannot not possess the fullness of God’s being. Otherwise, there would be distinction in God.

11. Everything that God the Father has given his only begotten Son in his human nature he has also given to me: I am not left out in anything, neither in holiness nor in unity; he has given me everything that he has given him. Wherever the divine Esse is, so is the fullness of His goodness, truth, etc. Christ has both divine and human nature. Saying that humans have only the esse of God is no different, because there is no distinction between essence and esse in God. Thus human beings have both divine and human nature.

12. Everything that sacred scripture says of Christ is also completely brought to truth in every good and godly person. If the illusory will of our human being (for what being there is in us is actually only God) is cast away, God’s being in us will be fully fulfilled.

13. Everything that is proper to the divine nature is also proper to the just and godly person; thus such a person does everything God does and has created heaven and earth together with God, brings forth the eternal word and God does not know what to do without such a person. Again, the just and godly person has forsaken his or her nature in acknowledgment of the fact that his being is, at root, God.

20. The good person is God’s only begotten Son. Eckhart’s definition of “good” was not the same as most of us understand it. He also taught that external acts (charity, saintliness, etc.) were not good, but should be avoided. Goodness was to be achieved by an attempt to allow God to fully become in oneself through personal inactivity and the relinquishing of one’s nature, for “Only God is good.”

21. The noble person is every only begotten Son of God that the Father has begotten in eternity. All creatures who share in the same being share the same identity. The Esse of God cannot both be God and not be God.

22. The Father begets me as his only Son and as the selfsame Son. What God does is one: that is why he begets me as his Son without distinction. Again, in God there is no distinction. If we are “in God” in the sense that he is our being, there can be no true distinction among us.

24. Every distinction is foreign to God, as well in nature as in persons. To wit: his very nature is one and pure unity. Every person is one and pure unity as is his nature. Again, there is no distinction between essence and esse in God. That which possesses his esse possesses his essence, which is his power, which is his knowledge, which is etc., etc. God cannot do the absurd, and for a finite essence to be able to constrain an infinite power is absurd.

26. All creatures are pure nothing; I don’t say they are insignificant, or something in someplace, but that they are absolutely nothing. That which is not being is nothing. If God is all being, than His creatures are nothing, or nothing other than Himself.

 

[Linux]

You misunderstand all together. Instead of rushing to respond, why not go back and read the quotations from Thomas I have given you?

The emphasis is on substance, not on essence. True, essence limits esse, but it is the substance that is a being, not the essence. Now if you think your sources are greater than Thomas, it is time you disclose them. I know you wouldn’t claim that your own thought is greater than that of Thomas.

Linus2nd

You are either saying that existence is a property of substance or you are not. If it is not a property, then substances are contingent upon esse inorder to exist and are therefore not identical.

This is not about greatness. This is about logical truth. If that makes me “better” it is not because i desire greatness.

 

[Linux]

But anyway, if I must spell it out, I’m more than happy to do so:

10. We are completely reformed into God and changed into him; in a similar manner as in the blessed sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ: so I am changed into him that he himself produces me as his own being, the same as he, not as something similar to him; it is true by the living God that there is no distinction. As Eckhart says here, in God there is no distinction. So an essence conjoined to Him cannot not possess the fullness of God’s being. Otherwise, there would be distinction in God.

11. Everything that God the Father has given his only begotten Son in his human nature he has also given to me: I am not left out in anything, neither in holiness nor in unity; he has given me everything that he has given him. Wherever the divine Esse is, so is the fullness of His goodness, truth, etc. Christ has both divine and human nature. Saying that humans have only the esse of God is no different, because there is no distinction between essence and esse in God. Thus human beings have both divine and human nature.

12. Everything that sacred scripture says of Christ is also completely brought to truth in every good and godly person. If the illusory will of our human being (for what being there is in us is actually only God) is cast away, God’s being in us will be fully fulfilled.

13. Everything that is proper to the divine nature is also proper to the just and godly person; thus such a person does everything God does and has created heaven and earth together with God, brings forth the eternal word and God does not know what to do without such a person. Again, the just and godly person has forsaken his or her nature in acknowledgment of the fact that his being is, at root, God.

20. The good person is God’s only begotten Son. Eckhart’s definition of “good” was not the same as most of us understand it. He also taught that external acts (charity, saintliness, etc.) were not good, but should be avoided. Goodness was to be achieved by an attempt to allow God to fully become in oneself through personal inactivity and the relinquishing of one’s nature, for “Only God is good.”

21. The noble person is every only begotten Son of God that the Father has begotten in eternity. All creatures who share in the same being share the same identity.

22. The Father begets me as his only Son and as the selfsame Son. What God does is one: that is why he begets me as his Son without distinction. Again, in God there is no distinction. If we are “in God” in the sense that he is our being, there can be no true distinction among us.

24. Every distinction is foreign to God, as well in nature as in persons. To wit: his very nature is one and pure unity. Every person is one and pure unity as is his nature. Again, there is no distinction between essence and esse in God. That which possesses his esse possesses his essence, which is his power, which is his knowledge, which is etc., etc. God cannot do the absurd, and for a finite essence to be able to constrain an infinite power is absurd.

26. All creatures are pure nothing; I don’t say they are insignificant, or something in someplace, but that they are absolutely nothing. That which is not being is nothing. If God is all being, than His creatures are nothing, or nothing other than Himself.

Nothing here is reflecting my Argument. Once again you are fear mongering by finding somebody who has said heretical things that bare a superficial similarity, and there by attempting to make it appear that what such and such was condemned as a heretic for is exactly what i am arguing. You are doing this because you know if you can at least make it appear that way that Catholics will simply reject what i am saying out of hand without logically addressing whether or not the argument is valid.

If it was truly obvious that what this person was specifically condemned as a heretic for is exactly what i am saying then you would have produced this earlier on in the debate.

You can try to treat me like an idiot, but i assure you an idiot i am not.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nothing here is reflecting my Argument. Once again you are fear mongering by finding somebody who has said heretical things that bare a superficial similarity, and there by attempting to make it appear that what such and such was condemned as a heretic for is exactly what i am arguing.

I am not fear mongering, nor am I trying to make it appear that you are arguing exactly what Eckhart argued. I specifically stated that Eckhart carried the premise you both share in common to what I believe is its logical conclusion, and which you believe is not.

I think this is where the supposition “esse est Deus” leads. You seem to think otherwise.

You are doing this because you know if you can at least make it appear that way that Catholics will simply reject what i am saying out of hand without logically addressing whether or not the argument is valid.

No, I am doing this because I think that Eckhart’s proposals illustrate the necessary consequences of the principle you are propounding.

If it was truly obvious that what this person was specifically condemned as a heretic for is exactly what i am saying then you would have produced this earlier on in the debate.

Go back to the first post in which I mentioned Eckhart; I specifically stated that I was hesitant to bring him up because the historical record as regards his case is fuzzy (most of his own writings have not been preserved, nor have the documents surrounding his trials.) I spent a good deal of time reading up on it before I brought him forward. To do otherwise would have been rash and disingenuous. Even so, as it turns out, I was not as well informed as I thought even when I did finally present his case for consideration.

You can try to treat me like an idiot, but i assure you an idiot i am not.

I am not trying to treat you like an idiot. If I have given that impression, then you have my sincerest apologies.

 

[StevenFrancis]

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.

Hi Linux:
I have my doubts about the concept of nothingness. (Maybe you could recommend a book). To my way of reasoning, we know there is something. We can not know that there is or can be nothing. Nothing is theoretical, and used more as a word without an absolute meaning. I believe it to be a concept of convenience for daily conversation, more than a philosophical or reasoning concept. When you take “nothing” to far, it becomes a meaningless word/concept, since the word itself IS. That is a concept is something. It is a self-invalidating word and concept.

What we believe to be God pre-exists matter, time, space, etc… Even if only as a potential for a creation. Potential is something. A force is something. A presence is something. God IS. All else is created. This includes matter. So matter, is also a creation. Infinite regression isn’t reasonable. There is a beginning to matter. Before matter can only be a potential for creation, (which isn’t “nothing”). If God IS what IS, and further is WHO IS, then He is something before matter, time, space, energy. He IS creation. The act of creation. This implies more even than being the creator. His is both creator and the act, (both potential and realized) of creation. We know that the creation occurred because we are creatures, and are alive within God’s creation, which He continues to allow to exist through His being. I am not a philosopher, and it sounds as if you may be. Or at least a serious student of it. I must therefore admit that these thoughts to me are self-evident, and organic to my consciousness. Personal axioms, if you will. Through reason alone, I can not find any farther regressive point than the potential for creation. That is, an eternal absence of nothingness, and an eternal something, if only God the creator who IS, in a restless potential state of pre-creation. A vacuum is something. A void is something. It can be filled. Antimatter is something, even it is anti-something, because double something can be added to it to become matter. Absolute darkness is something. It is the absence of light, but there is a potential for light, or we could not know that it is darkness. God is all these potentials, and more. He is also what comes along to fill the void. To add the matter. To light the darkness. We know that there was a potential for creation even in our emptiest concepts of empty or nothingness. Nothingness could only be known by nothing, or rather NOT known by nothing. From this complete lack of something could never come anything without the potential for becoming, which then invalidates the nothingness to begin with.

Whew…
back to my coffee

God bless,

Steven

 

[StevenFrancis]

26. All creatures are pure nothing; I don’t say they are insignificant, or something in someplace, but that they are absolutely nothing. That which is not being is nothing. If God is all being, than His creatures are nothing, or nothing other than Himself.

We are of the same faith, but I’m afraid I’m a real neophyte to philosophy in general, and particularly this level of theology. I am working on Aquinas now, and looks like I will be for quite some time. It’s a BIG read. Particularly when you’re trying to understand it as you go, and not just letting words go in your eyeballs and out your ears. Much of this sounds like Aquinas’ conclusions, but you refer throughout to Eckhart. (So does Pope Benedict XVI periodically). I admit to not having read any Eckhart. I have no formal school in any of this. 10th grade dropout/GED sort of dude. But I do dearly love to think, and reason things through. Not too good at spouting it back out after I’ve processed it, but the good Lord did give me an adequate reasoning capability, even while depriving my communicative skills. Long story short, this looks like some interesting stuff to think about while I’m stocking shelves at the grocery store. (Only one of the supreme beauties of such work). I’m particularly intrigued by 26. I just gave a little screed on nothing, just before reading your post. I don’t seem to have a faculty for understanding or accepting a concept of nothing or nothingness beyond common usage in conversational interaction, when we don’t really MEAN “nothing”, but we are just using the word as a convenience. “There is nothing on the shelf in aisle 6”. Well, of course there’s something on the shelf in aisle 6. There are dust particles, atoms, molecules, light, and then also the potential for the appearance of cans of tuna fish, if only someone would bring some cans and stack them there. These are all something. Even the potential of tuna. So saying that man, the creation is nothing…that he is absolute nothing…as you do in 26, is a rough one. Is that something you actually understand on an organic or learned level? Is it a concept you can actually visualize and make concrete in your mind? An abstract which you yourself grapple with? Are you quoting a philosopher or theologian? Is it this Eckhart? Anyway, please point me somewhere to help me to understand this, so I can speak about it intelligently. Perhaps I’m too thick, but I’d sure love to give it a few spins around the old noggin. Very intriguing stuff. A book or two perhaps?

Thanks, and God Bless,
Steven

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have often wondered what John meant by Christ being the “Light” that shines in all men. I suspect what he means is that conscious awareness itself is only possible to the extent that “Christ” or Being is present. This goes back to the fact that human potentiality is not actualized until esse (Actus Purus or Being Itself) is the causative agent.

We are “enlightened” by God’s presence through Christ, the Light. Somewhere behind the reality of our consciousness is Christ. It is Christ that allows awareness of Being in Truth (for Aquinas, Being, Truth and Goodness are convertible) by bringing us into being, but, at the same time, sin (separation from the Light, from Being itself) blocks the full realization of the creative power of God. He cannot actualize our full potential without our cooperation and sin impedes that cooperation. Truth (Being) is immediately available to us (i.e., is within you) because Christ is Truth, Goodness and Being that is the “Light” that makes our “knowing” or awareness - in the sense of true knowing or true awareness - possible.

If it was merely our own “esse” we were dealing with we could only know in a relative sense what we are. Awareness in a limited sense of self-awareness could only be possible because we are a limited “self” or limited existent. We could only know what we think we are relative to the limited being (recall that Being and Truth are convertible) of what we currently are. We could have no knowledge of truth in itself or the full truth about ourselves. In order to know Truth in itself Truth must make Itself present to us. In order to know ourselves as we truly are, Truth itself would have to be present to us, but how would that be possible unless Being itself were present to us.

If Christ is the Light in the sense of the Truth Itself (and Aquinas insists that Truth, Goodness and Being are convertible) then Christ is Being Itself present to us which allows us to know the Truth Itself and to be joined with Being Itself in Him. That would be the only way that a true awareness of ourselves as we really exist could be possible. Otherwise, our knowledge of ourselves would be necessarily fractured and Christ would not be the “Light” that shines in all men.

I have no idea of how much Aquinas you have actually read. I suggest you go to Part 1 of S.T. and read the sections treating of Creation, and Human Knowledge, and Grace.

You are, to an extent, confusing the action of Grace, with the ordinary causality of God upon the human intellect. In no sense, is either of these causalities to be considered as making us Divine. Through the natural influence of God’s causality we come to a knowledge of all truth accessible to the human intellect. By a special action upon our intellects God can " inspire " us with " insights. " These are usually called some form of Grace because it outside the normal causality of God’s action. Then there is the special action of Grace upon the soul in general identifing it as an adopted son of God, which causes God to bestow special powers and/ or virtues.

Thomas covers all this but nowhere does he ever say " we become Divine " in any sense beyond the metaphorical. Sometimes those steeped in mysticism carry metaphores too far. I don’t mean you ( because I wouldn’t know that), I am speaking of Saints who wrote and often spoke in a mystical manner. Such speech cannot legitimately be regarded as the way reality actually obtains.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
You misunderstand all together. Instead of rushing to respond, why not go back and read the quotations from Thomas I have given you?

The emphasis is on substance, not on essence. True, essence limits esse, but it is the substance that is a being, not the essence. Now if you think your sources are greater than Thomas, it is time you disclose them. I know you wouldn’t claim that your own thought is greater than that of Thomas.

Linus2nd​

Linux’s answer.
You are either saying that existence is a property of substance or you are not. If it is not a property, then substances are contingent upon esse inorder to exist and are therefore not identical.

This is not about greatness. This is about logical truth. If that makes me “better” it is not because i desire greatness.​

Linus2nd’s response

Existence is a principle of the substance along with the essence. Thomas makes it clear that it is the Substance which is created along with its principles. The principles are more properly regarded as concreated. But it is the Substance itself, properly considered, that is created and it is the esse which is created first, in the sense of being the most important to the existence of the entire substance. Since all these are the effects of the creative act, the only possible conclusion is that the esse of each substance is a created esse. I have provided you with the proper references but you have never commented upon them.

In regard to your second remark. I think it is fair. Thomas is regarded as one of the greatest among Catholic philosophers/theologians. It would be interesting to know who you regard as greater.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linux:
I have my doubts about the concept of nothingness. (Maybe you could recommend a book). To my way of reasoning, we know there is something. We can not know that there is or can be nothing. Nothing is theoretical, and used more as a word without an absolute meaning. I believe it to be a concept of convenience for daily conversation, more than a philosophical or reasoning concept. When you take “nothing” to far, it becomes a meaningless word/concept, since the word itself IS. That is a concept is something. It is a self-invalidating word and concept.

What we believe to be God pre-exists matter, time, space, etc… Even if only as a potential for a creation. Potential is something. A force is something. A presence is something. God IS. All else is created. This includes matter. So matter, is also a creation. Infinite regression isn’t reasonable. There is a beginning to matter. Before matter can only be a potential for creation, (which isn’t “nothing”). If God IS what IS, and further is WHO IS, then He is something before matter, time, space, energy. He IS creation. The act of creation. This implies more even than being the creator. His is both creator and the act, (both potential and realized) of creation. We know that the creation occurred because we are creatures, and are alive within God’s creation, which He continues to allow to exist through His being. I am not a philosopher, and it sounds as if you may be. Or at least a serious student of it. I must therefore admit that these thoughts to me are self-evident, and organic to my consciousness. Personal axioms, if you will. Through reason alone, I can not find any farther regressive point than the potential for creation. That is, an eternal absence of nothingness, and an eternal something, if only God the creator who IS, in a restless potential state of pre-creation. A vacuum is something. A void is something. It can be filled. Antimatter is something, even it is anti-something, because double something can be added to it to become matter. Absolute darkness is something. It is the absence of light, but there is a potential for light, or we could not know that it is darkness. God is all these potentials, and more. He is also what comes along to fill the void. To add the matter. To light the darkness. We know that there was a potential for creation even in our emptiest concepts of empty or nothingness. Nothingness could only be known by nothing, or rather NOT known by nothing. From this complete lack of something could never come anything without the potential for becoming, which then invalidates the nothingness to begin with.

Whew…
back to my coffee

God bless,

Steven

Your ideas are rather confused and, if I may say, unorthodox. I suggest you read the Catechism before launching into philosophy which can be dangerous to those who do not know the contents of the Faith and have not committed themselves to it.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

Existence is a principle of the substance along with the essence. Thomas makes it clear that it is the Substance which is created along with its principles. The principles are more properly regarded as concreated. But it is the Substance itself, properly considered, that is created and it is the esse which is created first, in the sense of being the most important to the existence of the entire substance. Since all these are the effects of the creative act, the only possible conclusion is that the esse of each substance is a created esse. I have provided you with the proper references but you have never commented upon them.

Linus2nd

Hi Linus,

Interesting. So, in other words,

esse (principle) + essence (principle) = created being (substance)

The way I understand Aquinas talk about essences, is that they only exist apart from an actual substance in the mind as an abstraction.

I wonder if he would say the same thing about esse. Is this every separable from a substance except as an abstraction in the mind?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus,

Interesting. So, in other words,

esse (principle) + essence (principle) = created being (substance)

The way I understand Aquinas talk about essences, is that they only exist apart from an actual substance in the mind as an abstraction.

I wonder if he would say the same thing about esse. Is this every separable from a substance except as an abstraction in the mind?

God bless,
Ut

Yes, esse + essence = substance ( keep in mind that in material substances that the essence is the name given to the composit of matter and form and that existence comes to the composit through the form). And apart from actual substnaces, essences and existence are concepts or ideas or intellectual " images " only. Except the Essence of God, His Existence does exist outside the mind.

Esse, apart from substance, is only a mental construct or abstraction, as you say - except in the case of God. God is no mental construct. But He is the only case.

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your ideas are rather confused and, if I may say, unorthodox. I suggest you read the Catechism before launching into philosophy which can be dangerous to those who do not know the contents of the Faith and have not committed themselves to it.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Linus2nd

I didn’t think his thoughts were any more confused than the thoughts of most philosophers. As to whether philosophy can be dangerous, only if you take it seriously. If you take it seriously, it can make you arrogant and self-satisfied. He who has hears, let him hear.

I would submit that moral errors are more harmful than intellectual errors. And intellectual errors which do not affect matters of value are not harmful at all.

If StevenFrancis made any intellectual errors in the above post, they are not potentially harmful ones.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thomas covers all this but nowhere does he ever say " we become Divine " in any sense beyond the metaphorical.

What can Thomas possibly mean by God being the “final end?”

Do you understand the meaning of the term “theosis?” Or what about:

"the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp): ‘God was made man, that man might be made God’ " (ST III, q. 1 a. 2).

Sometimes those steeped in mysticism carry metaphores too far. I don’t mean you ( because I wouldn’t know that), I am speaking of Saints who wrote and often spoke in a mystical manner. Such speech cannot legitimately be regarded as the way reality actually obtains.

With all due respect, it is interesting that you find yourself competent to critically address the thoughts and writings of bona fide saints and expound as the final word on the writings of St. Thomas. Does it ever enter your mind or the realm of possibility that your interpretation of either may be mistaken or, at least, incomplete?

 

[Linux]

Linux’s answer.
You are either saying that existence is a property of substance or you are not. If it is not a property, then substances are contingent upon esse inorder to exist and are therefore not identical.

This is not about greatness. This is about logical truth. If that makes me “better” it is not because i desire greatness.​

Linus2nd’s response

Existence is a principle of the substance along with the essence. Thomas makes it clear that it is the Substance which is created along with its principles. The principles are more properly regarded as concreated. But it is the Substance itself, properly considered, that is created and it is the esse which is created first, in the sense of being the most important to the existence of the entire substance. Since all these are the effects of the creative act, the only possible conclusion is that the esse of each substance is a created esse. I have provided you with the proper references but you have never commented upon them.

Linus2nd

Esse is either a property of substance or its is not. If it is not then substances are entirely contingent upon esse and are entirely distinct; for if esse is not entirely distinct from substance then the two are identical and therefore would always exist, which would be a contradiction. So I don’t know what you mean by substance.

Lets take a look here at what is meant by substance.

iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#H4

“The next fundamental metaphysical category is that of substance. 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. Aquinas’s ontology then is comprised primarily of substances, and all change is either a change of one substance into another substance, or a modification of an already existing substance. Given that essence is that which is said to possess existence, but is not identical to existence, substances are essence/existence composites; their existence is not guaranteed by what they are. They simply have existence as limited by their essence.”

It is clear here that a substance is an essence that is actual/its primary identity as it is actual, and that substances are entirely distinct from esse and therefore refers primarily to the “whatness” of a thing as it exists. It is not a third emergent nature that springs forth from the conjoining of esse and essence, but rather the word simply describes the fundamental identity of an essence that is actual.

This becomes more clear as you reach the bottom of the below paragraph which has been highlighted.

“*Let us begin with a logical definition of substance, as this will give us an indication of its metaphysical nature. Logically speaking, a substance is what is predicated neither of nor in anything else. This captures the fundamental notion that substances are basic, and everything else is predicated either of or in them. Now, if we transpose this logical definition of substance to the realm of metaphysics, where existence is taken into consideration, we can say that 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), **and the paradigm instances of which are the medium sized objects that we see around us: horses, cats, trees and humans.
***”

The concept of a substance becomes clearer in this paragraph on accidents.

"*On the other hand there are accidents. Accidents are what accrue to substances and modify substances in some way. Logically speaking, accidents are predicated of or in some substance; metaphysically speaking, accidents cannot exist in themselves but only as part of some substance. As their name suggests, accidents are incidental to the thing, and they can come and go without the thing losing its identity; whereas a thing cannot cease to be the substance that it is without losing its identity.

Accidents only exist as part of some substance. It follows then that we cannot have un-exemplified properties as if they were substances in themselves. Properties are always exemplified by some substance, whereas substance itself is un-exemplifiable. For example, brown is always predicated of something, we say that x is brown, in which case brown is an accident. However, brown is never found to be in itself, it is always exemplified by something of which it is said.*"

Nothing said here lends authority to your claim that ESSE is created alongside an essence to make a substance.

It merely claims that the conjoining of esse and essence allows potential essences to be a real substances which is just an essence that is actual.

 

[Linux]

Esse, apart from substance, is only a mental construct or abstraction, as you say - except in the case of God. God is no mental construct. But He is the only case.

Linus2nd

This is not the teachings of Aquinas. And what you are basically saying is that there is no real distinction between the “isness” of a thing and the “whatness” of a thing because esse is just a concept in Gods mind. So why is God’s esse not just a concept in Gods mind then if Aquinas was not speaking of the act of existence objectively?

You are contradicting yourself and confusing yourself, because now God does not create independent esse which are conjoined to essence as you said before, but rather he creates substances that are not conjoined to anything objectively distinct that we can call the act of existing. So how are they actual, since you don’t want to say that God conjoins his esse with potential essences?

Sorry, these are concepts which you have put into the mouth of Aquinas.

 

[utunumsint]

Ok. I think I found the clincher folks, at least as far as Aquinas’ understanding of esse is concerned.

From his Commentary on the Sentences Book I,

**Therefore just as time’s before and after known according to number fulfill the definition of time, so the permanence of act as known by the reason, which has the sense of measurement, fulfills the definitions of aevum and of eternity. But because the esse of aeveternal things is acquired from another, ** aevum measures an esse having a beginning; **** not so eternity, however, which measures esse not aquired from another. And so when “beginning” is not uniformly understood, various statements can be made; for eternity is found with that esse without any efficient beginning; aevum, however, has such a beginning; while time belongs to the actuality that has a beginning and end of duration as measured in time.

You can find the original latin here: corpusthomisticum.org/snp1019.html

Sed quia esse aeviternorum est acquisitum ab alio, ideo aevum mensurat esse quod habet principium; non autem aeternitas, quae mensurat esse quod non est acquisitum ab alio. Et secundum hoc potest sustineri dicta differentia, licet non uniformiter sumpto principio: quia aeternitas respicit illud esse quod non habet principium efficiens; aevum autem quod habet tale principium; tempus vero respicit actum qui habet principium et finem durationis, ut mensuratur tempore.

Aquinas here seems to be differentiating three different kinds of esses.

1. 
   *]The esse of God - that which has no beginning or end.
   *]The esse of aeveternal beings - an esse which has a beginning but no end. It may have always existed, but it “acquires its esse” from another.
   *]An esse measured in time "There is, however, another actuality with an underlying potentiality, and for it the act is completed by receiving the addition of perfection according to succession; and to this, time corresponds. "
   
   It seems clear to me that Aquinas distinguishes and defines here three different esses.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[Marie1234]

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.

All I can say is…it’s a mystery y’all!

We on earth will never be able to comprehend how something is made out of nothing. God created everything outside of our natural world and natural laws. We can’t understand something outside our knowledge and realm.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Your ideas are rather confused and, if I may say, unorthodox. I suggest you read the Catechism before launching into philosophy which can be dangerous to those who do not know the contents of the Faith and have not committed themselves to it.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Linus2nd

Thank you. You needn’t worry too much about the first part. I was just going on reason regarding the term nothing. I just looked around the net a bit and found that I was working off a different nothing than we use in Christian theology. Good to point it out though.
Regarding the second part, I am a student of the contents of the Faith, but have fully and deeply committed myself to it in obedient assent to the Church on faith as I learn. If by your statement you are thinking that I am not committed to Catholic Christianity, nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe I was mixing apples and oranges in a discussion. So yes…it probably sounds confused.

In any event,
God bless and keep you,
Steven

 

[Linux]

Article 1. Whether God is perfect?

Objection 1. It seems that perfection does not belong to God. For we say a thing is perfect if it is completely made. But it does not befit God to be made. Therefore He is not perfect.

Objection 2. Further, God is the first beginning of things. But the beginnings of things seem to be imperfect, as seed is the beginning of animal and vegetable life. Therefore God is imperfect.

Objection 3. Further, as shown above (Question 3, Article 4), God’s essence is existence. But existence seems most imperfect, since it is most universal and receptive of all modification. Therefore God is imperfect.

On the contrary, It is written: “Be you perfect as also your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

I answer that, As the Philosopher relates (Metaph. xii), some ancient philosophers, namely, the Pythagoreans and Leucippus, did not predicate “best” and “most perfect” of the first principle. The reason was that the ancient philosophers considered only a material principle; and a material principle is most imperfect. For since matter as such is merely potential, the first material principle must be simply potential, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.

Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory says (Moral. v, 26,29): “Though our lips can only stammer, we yet chant the high things of God.” For that which is not made is improperly called perfect. Nevertheless because created things are then called perfect, when from potentiality they are brought into actuality, this word “perfect” signifies whatever is not wanting in actuality, whether this be by way of perfection or not.

Reply to Objection 2. The material principle which with us is found to be imperfect, cannot be absolutely primal; but must be preceded by something perfect. For seed, though it be the principle of animal life reproduced through seed, has previous to it, the animal or plant from which is came. Because, previous to that which is potential, must be that which is actual; since a potential being can only be reduced into act by some being already actual.

Reply to Objection 3.** Existence is the most perfect of all things**, for it is compared to all things as that by which they are made actual; for nothing has actuality except so far as it exists. Hence existence is that which actuates all things, even their forms. Therefore it is not compared to other things as the receiver is to the received; but rather as the received to the receiver. When therefore I speak of the existence of man, or horse, or anything else, existence is considered a formal principle, and as something received; and not as that which exists.

Existence is perfection, and perfection in a metaphysical context is only meaningful in reference to that which actually exists. Perfection cannot be distinct from God, therefore God is the esse of all essence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is not the teachings of Aquinas. And what you are basically saying is that there is no real distinction between the “isness” of a thing and the “whatness” of a thing because esse is just a concept in Gods mind. So why is God’s esse not just a concept in Gods mind then if Aquinas was not speaking of the act of existence objectively?

You are contradicting yourself and confusing yourself, because now God does not create independent esse which are conjoined to essence as you said before, but rather he creates substances that are not conjoined to anything objectively distinct that we can call the act of existing. So how are they actual, since you don’t want to say that God conjoins his esse with potential essences?

Sorry, these are concepts which you have put into the mouth of Aquinas.

And as usual, you are not reading what I said. I said that apart from God, existence considered in itself is a concept. But, as a matter of fact, when considered as the ground of what makes a substance to be a being, it is that which makes a substance a being.

Linus2nd