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

[Linusthe2nd]

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

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
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.​

Linux Answers.

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

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

( Readers should refer to the article)​

Linus2nd Responds

Agreed, a substance is that which exists in no other.​

Linux Interprets the definition above

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.​

Linus2nd Responds

Agreed, but Thomas explains that the esse cannot be separated from the substance because it is that which is primary in the order of creation, it is the principle of whatever can be said to exist in the substance.​

Linux continues

…
( the reader can refer to the article on substance and accidents, to which I agree, I also agree to the definition of accidents, )

---

Linus2nd Responds

I agree to all that

---

Linux Interprets

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.​

Linus2nd Responds

Did I say it did?

But you are omitting some of my post. I said that I had previously provided you with evidence from Thomas Aquinas that esse was created along with the substance. And that is the point at issue. I had provided you with proof from the S.T previously but you apparantly didn’t read it. Here it is in part:

As Thomas says in S.T. 1, 45, 4 " God is the cause of created substances, which includes existence. And to be created, means also to be absolutely other than God, even in their " act of existence. "

Again, in 45, 5 he states, " Among all effects the most universal is existence itself…"

and further on he says, " Now God’s proper effect is that which is presupposed to any other, namely existence tout court ( simply ). "

Now if the proper effect of God’s creative action is existence, then God is creating an act of existence - which is what both of these quotations say. That is the point I am driving at. Now you can reject that. But I would think you would do so on some other authority and I would like to know what that authority that is. You certainly haven’t proven it by any argument of your own.

" Existence " must be interpreted in context as noun, verb, or participle.

Linus2nd

Linus 2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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,

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

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

1. 
   That is very good. But don’t forget S.T, Part 1, ques 45, art 8. Also keep in mind the various meanings of esse - an extent exists ( noun), is or to be ( the act of existing, participle), or as a copula ( John Brown is dead.)
   
   You didn’t mention competence in Latin among your other accomplishments. Impressive!
   
   Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing; for if something was created out of nothing this would contradict the absolute distinction between existence and non-existence - the fact that existence is the antihesis of nothing. Negation is not a being, a negation of being cannot become a real negation of being. It makes no logical sense to say that existence begins to exist, since the fact of its beginning contradicts the fact that it is the act of existing. Existence just exists.

The Catholic Church teaches that God created the universe out of nothing in time, which includes angels and men, all other living things, and purely material things. It is not something that can be proven. and since it cannot be proven, it cannot be disproven either.

1. Existence is not a genus in which there are distict species of existing. Hence Existence is an absolute. Thus God cannot create a differerent kind of existing or limited forms of existing. It makes no logical sense. However there can be difference or distinction in created essences but only because they are not indentical to esse. They do not have their own esse

Thomas teaches that being is said analogously of all that exists. He never said that God cannot create limited acts of existence. He never said God was the only Esse or the only Being, the only Act of Existence. This would be contrary to Catholic Dogma. No Catholic can hold such views.

This is the reason i say that God is the only esse. Nothing you have said up untill this point has refuted these two indisputable facts.

And I have shown you a dozen times that no Catholic can hold such views. I don’t know what faith you hold but I hope you aren’t out there somewhere teaching Catholic youth such errors. I would think that the Mormons would like your philosophy because I think it could fit nicely into their theology. Or it might suit some Eastern cult religion.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

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

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?

I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. Thomas never held anything as true which was contrary to Catholic Doctrine. No where in the Catechism will you find a statement in regard to Defined or Ordianary teaching that we are now or ever will be God. That is not what the Church means when it says " by Grace we share in the life of God. "

No, I don’t know what " theosis " means. Does it apply to anything I have said? But when Saints say things like " we will become God, " they do not mean that as an ontological fact. It would simply be a way to emphasize our closeness to God in love and to express how much He loves us ( well you guys at least, because it is evident from the fire I draw that he couldn’t love me much. )

By God being the final end, Thomas means the Beatific Vision for us. But for creatures, it means they have followed his plan in helpeing us reach our eternal goal.

Linus2nd.

 

[utunumsint]

That is very good. But don’t forget S.T, Part 1, ques 45, art 8. Also keep in mind the various meanings of esse - an extent exists ( noun), is or to be ( the act of existing, participle), or as a copula ( John Brown is dead.)

You didn’t mention competence in Latin among your other accomplishments. Impressive!

Linus2nd

I have a degree in classical studies, but focused mostly on Augustine and Ambrose - mostly from a historical perspective. After three years of studying latin, I was still terrible at translating texts. Don’t even mention Greek.

The translation I provided is from a compilation I have. I did not do the translating. The translator expressly kept the word esse untranslated to distinguish it from the other forms of esse. She does this throughout the compilation to explicitly identify when Thomas is using the word in his philosophical sense.

Just to double check, I looked up the original latin to see if her translation made sense. I think it does.

God bless,
Ut

 

[polytropos]

This is quite a complex issue. I have been making my way through Elements of Christian Philosophy and there are a lot of passages that seem to lean one way or the other, so it is hard to get a feel for what Thomas really intended. I did come across this, however:

The philosophy of Saint Thomas is animated by a different spirit. In it, man is an existent among other existents. An existent is something that has an esse - that is, an act of being of its own… Let us not forget the ontological standing of a universe composed of creatures; that is, of beings that bear the mark of the pure Ipsum Esse. In such a world, every being has in itself its own act of being, distinct from all the others: habet enim unaquaeque res in seipsa esse proprium ab omnibus aliis distinctum. There is no such esse without an essence, or quiddity, whose act it is, but esse itself is not a quiddity. We apprehend it only as given in essences to which, as to its proper receivers, it imparts actual existence.

The issue I see is that it is at best imprecise to say “God is esse.” God is, in fact, Ipsum Esse. It seems problematic that God could be the act of existing of finite creatures, since God is simple so a creature necessarily cannot have “part of Ipsum Esse” as its act of existence.

To say that there can only be one act of existence is begging the question. God is the only pure act of existence Who has no genus, but I see no logical inconsistency in His effects having less perfect acts of existence inasmuch as they are in act.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

---

Quote:
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.

Glad to see you reading Thomas. But you have drawn the wrong conclusion. Indeed, existence is received. God created an act of existence for each substance as Thomas explains in S.T. Ques 45, arts 4 & 5.

Nothing in the article you quoted above precludes anything I have said.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is quite a complex issue. I have been making my way through Elements of Christian Philosophy and there are a lot of passages that seem to lean one way or the other, so it is hard to get a feel for what Thomas really intended. I did come across this, however:

The issue I see is that it is at best imprecise to say “God is esse.” God is, in fact, Ipsum Esse. It seems problematic that God could be the act of existing of finite creatures, since God is simple so a creature necessarily cannot have “part of Ipsum Esse” as its act of existence.

To say that there can only be one act of existence is begging the question. God is the only pure act of existence Who has no genus, but I see no logical inconsistency in His effects having less perfect acts of existence inasmuch as they are in act.

Take a look at the Summa Theologica, Part 1, ques 45, arts 4 & 5.
Also, see the book you are reading pg 177 and a little before. That pretty well clears this point up as far as Gilson is concerned.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

This is quite a complex issue. I have been making my way through Elements of Christian Philosophy and there are a lot of passages that seem to lean one way or the other, so it is hard to get a feel for what Thomas really intended. I did come across this, however:

The issue I see is that it is at best imprecise to say “God is esse.” God is, in fact, Ipsum Esse. It seems problematic that God could be the act of existing of finite creatures, since God is simple so a creature necessarily cannot have “part of Ipsum Esse” as its act of existence.

To say that there can only be one act of existence is begging the question. God is the only pure act of existence Who has no genus, but I see no logical inconsistency in His effects having less perfect acts of existence inasmuch as they are in act.

I agree with your thinking. The idea that our esse is God’s esse makes me think of created essence as some sort of infinitesimally small bacteria latched on the an immense object (God’s esse). The idea seems completely out of proportion… assuming I have understood you correctly.

God bless,
Ut

 

[polytropos]

Also, see the book you are reading pg 177 and a little before. That pretty well clears this point up as far as Gilson is concerned.

Those are among the passages I have been considering. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have a degree in classical studies, but focused mostly on Augustine and Ambrose - mostly from a historical perspective. After three years of studying latin, I was still terrible at translating texts. Don’t even mention Greek.

The translation I provided is from a compilation I have. I did not do the translating. The translator expressly kept the word esse untranslated to distinguish it from the other forms of esse. She does this throughout the compilation to explicitly identify when Thomas is using the word in his philosophical sense.

Just to double check, I looked up the original latin to see if her translation made sense. I think it does.

God bless,
Ut

What is the source of the compliation? Is it available on the net?
There is a Thomistic translation project on at the site below, but not all the Sentences have been translated ( very few in fact).
www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html

Linus2bd

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, I don’t know what " theosis " means. Does it apply to anything I have said? But when Saints say things like " we will become God, " they do not mean that as an ontological fact. It would simply be a way to emphasize our closeness to God in love and to express how much He loves us ( well you guys at least, because it is evident from the fire I draw that he couldn’t love me much.)

My sincere apologies for causing you distress. That was certainly not my intent.

What I was getting at was that being right is not what is important, but getting at the truth of the matter is. Our mind frame should be, I think, one of being open to the possibility that there is more to it - whatever “it” is - than we currently understand.

The Church is our penultimate guide and St. Thomas, certainly in philosophical matters and metaphysics, in particular, was as lucid and reliable as anyone has ever been. The point I was trying to make was that it may not be helpful to insist others are just plain “wrong,” but rather to find alternate ways of demonstrating what the truth is on the matter in as clear and precise a manner as possible.

I do think the idea of theosis is pertinent to this discussion. The idea is summed up in the catechism in paragraph 460

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: [78] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” [79] “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” [80] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” [81]

The footnotes are to
78 2 Peter 1:4
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My sincere apologies for causing you distress. That was certainly not my intent.

What I was getting at was that being right is not what is important, but getting at the truth of the matter is. Our mind frame should be, I think, one of being open to the possibility that there is more to it - whatever “it” is - than we currently understand.

The Church is our penultimate guide and St. Thomas, certainly in philosophical matters and metaphysics, in particular, was as lucid and reliable as anyone has ever been. The point I was trying to make was that it may not be helpful to insist others are just plain “wrong,” but rather to find alternate ways of demonstrating what the truth is on the matter in as clear and precise a manner as possible.

I do think the idea of theosis is pertinent to this discussion. The idea is summed up in the catechism in paragraph 460

The footnotes are to
78 2 Peter 1:4
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

Thank you, no offense taken.
Your reference is the kind of " exuberance " I had in mind. The facilitator I had for a public presentation of the CCC would repeatedly say, " we will become god " - without explanation. Given the gullibility of people in general, his remarks troubled me, because I knew we would never become god ( big g or little g ). But he never intertained discussion. So I often how many walked away and became Mormons ?

Linus2nd

 

[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.

If you would take the time to consider what people are actually saying, you wouldn’t be wrong so often. I’m not " putting words into Thomas’ mouth. " I simply said that the mind has concepts of things which are reflective of actual being. The mind reflects on such concepts. Now they may actually exist or not, depending on how the mind is considering them at the moment. But in actuality, neither esse or essence exists except in an actual being. Neither has any reality apart from being.

This is perfectly Thomistic.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

My sincere apologies for causing you distress. That was certainly not my intent.

What I was getting at was that being right is not what is important, but getting at the truth of the matter is. Our mind frame should be, I think, one of being open to the possibility that there is more to it - whatever “it” is - than we currently understand.

The Church is our penultimate guide and St. Thomas, certainly in philosophical matters and metaphysics, in particular, was as lucid and reliable as anyone has ever been. The point I was trying to make was that it may not be helpful to insist others are just plain “wrong,” but rather to find alternate ways of demonstrating what the truth is on the matter in as clear and precise a manner as possible.

I do think the idea of theosis is pertinent to this discussion. The idea is summed up in the catechism in paragraph 460

The footnotes are to
78 2 Peter 1:4
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

Very interesting. It would be worth it to figure out Thomas’ understanding of how the union of the divine and human nature take place, and whether the union happens in a similar way in human beings.

Hence, it is obvious that nothing prevents some things being united in a person which are not united in the nature. For an individual substance of a rational nature can have something which does not pertain to the nature of a species and this is united to it personally, not naturally. Therefore, in this manner it must be taken that the human nature was united to the Word of God in the person, not in the nature: since if it does not pertain to the divine nature, nevertheless it pertains to his person, insofar as the person of the Word joined human nature to himself by assuming it. But concerning the manner of this kind of conjunction doubt and discord occurs. For we see in creatures that something comes to another in two ways; namely accidentally and essentially.

It is this concept of Person that unites. Does our own union with God happen along the same lines? Certainly it is a union on a different order from the natural one, otherwise we could not call Jesus true man, but on the level of personhood. Now all human beings can also be called persons. The notion of person is also applied to God in the Trinity.

More food for thought and research. The hope is that along the way we will learn something more about esse, although at the moment it seems to me that Aquinas at least believed in separate esses.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

What is the source of the compliation? Is it available on the net?
There is a Thomistic translation project on at the site below, but not all the Sentences have been translated ( very few in fact).
www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html

Linus2bd

Hi Linus,

It isn’t online. Unfortunately, I only found the original latin online.

The book is “An Aquinas Reader: Selections from the writings of Thomas Aquinas” Edited, with an introduction by Mary T. Clark 1972. Here is another quote from the sentences:

Moreover, there are two ways of being actuality: either as an incomplete actuality, one mixed with potentiality, whose essence goes into act, and such an act is motion, for there is a motion of existing in potentiality, as the Philosopher says (Physics III: 6); or according to an actuality unmixed with potentiality, not receiving any addition of perfection, and such is a permanent and lasting actuality. **Esse **is such an actuality in two ways: either so that a thing has its **esse **in act as acquired from another, and then the thing having such **esse **is potential with respect to that act and wholly receives it; or **esse **in act is in the thing from itself so that it is of the essence of its quiddity, and such **esse **is divine esse, in which there is no potentiality with respect to its act. Hence it becomes evident that act is present in three ways.
There is the kind without any underlying potentiality; such is the divine esse and its operations, and to this the measurement of eternity corresponds. There is another actuality with a certain underlying potentiality; yet a complete act is acquired in that potentiality; and to this aevum corresponds. 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. When therefore anything has a proper measure, the essential difference of that measure comes from the condition of the act that is measured. Moreover, where act is in motion, we find a succession of before and after.
…
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.

Interesting that he defines that act is present in three different ways. The esse of the create beings is acquired, but certainly not in the mode of the divine esse. The other beings have esse that has a beginning, but no end, or that has its esse divided through succession. Thus Thomas identifies the difference in esses based on how those esses are measured and whether they are acquired or not, and how they are acquired.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you, no offense taken.
Your reference is the kind of " exuberance " I had in mind. The facilitator I had for a public presentation of the CCC would repeatedly say, " we will become god " - without explanation. Given the gullibility of people in general, his remarks troubled me, because I knew we would never become god ( big g or little g ). But he never intertained discussion. So I often how many walked away and became Mormons ?

Linus2nd

So St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Augustine and the Church are all a little too “exuberant” in this matter? Somehow you know this, how? Like the facilitator in your story you are not entertaining discussion either. I am not inclined to become Mormon, however, but frankly it is because their metaphysics are at the level of Greek mythology and do not connect at all to subsistent reality. Included in that rebuff of Mormonism is the fact that their concept of God is self-contradictory. Aquinas, Augustine and the Church Fathers, who, by the way, universally taught the idea of theosis, construct a plausible metaphysic behind the concept.

 

[Linux]

If you would take the time to consider what people are actually saying, you wouldn’t be wrong so often. I’m not " putting words into Thomas’ mouth. " I simply said that the mind has concepts of things which are reflective of actual being. The mind reflects on such concepts. Now they may actually exist or not, depending on how the mind is considering them at the moment. But in actuality, neither esse or essence exists except in an actual being. Neither has any reality apart from being.

This is perfectly Thomistic.

Linus2nd

Esse is existence. Essence is not.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus,

It isn’t online. Unfortunately, I only found the original latin online.

The book is “An Aquinas Reader: Selections from the writings of Thomas Aquinas” Edited, with an introduction by Mary T. Clark 1972. Here is another quote from the sentences:

Interesting that he defines that act is present in three different ways. The esse of the create beings is acquired, but certainly not in the mode of the divine esse. The other beings have esse that has a beginning, but no end, or that has its esse divided through succession. Thus Thomas identifies the difference in esses based on how those esses are measured and whether they are acquired or not, and how they are acquired.

God bless,
Ut

Thanks, don’t think I need to be buying any more books. I’m thinking about getting rid of all of mine pretty soon. Hate to leave it to someone else, they might wind up in the trash.

Thomas speakes of the difference in many places, I’ve read it before or something similar.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Esse is existence. Essence is not.

You really are incredible. This is the genesis of your post here, post 452:

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd

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.

I answered you here, post 457 : 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​

Your objection has morphed. I understand that esse means existence and essence does not. What did I say that made you think I didn’t know the difference?

My original statement was a response to something another poster had said. And I told him that apart from their presence in actually existing substances, both esse and essence are mental constructs, except in the case of God in Whom they are united in the Simplicity of His Existence. There is nothing un-Thomistic about this at all.

It is the substance that is created and the essence and the existence ( or act of existence if you insist) are con-created or co-created as principles of the substance. Again, perfectly Thomistic. Properly speaking, it is the substance that is created, but of course the principles accompany the creative act. The object of the creative act is the substance, the essence and the esse are the necessary principles that are co-created to make the substance.

Linus2nd