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

[prodigalson2011]

If your interpretation of Aquinas is wrong, then it is not with Aquinas that i have a problem, but rather iit is your interpretation. One way i can deal with that is by refuting the reasoning of your interpretation by exposing its logical flaws and its failure to produce a meaningful conception of esse and essence. I have done this especially in post 515 which you have yet again evaded by producing yet another red herring.

How am I evading a post that wasn’t even directed at me? You have not exposed any logical flaws, nor have I failed to produce a meaningful conception of esse and essence. I have repeatedly done so, and you have not once addressed my arguments. All you have done is pick a convenient sentence or two out of a few of my posts, decontextualized them and argued against a straw man.

I offered a rather intelligible analogy in my last series of posts, to which you did not bother to respond. So I offer it again:

*As regards the creation of contingent esses, we start from an observable fact of the principle of causation. Namely, it can be readily observed that a cause effects its like. We can take as an example, again, the case of fire. Let us imagine, specifically, the act of fire upon, say, a leaf. The effect is that the leaf is now also on fire. But it is not that the flame that touched the leaf has transferred itself to the leaf, but rather, it has ignited the potential of fire within the leaf (that is, those properties of the leaf that make it flammable.) In a similar way, God ignites the potential existence of an essence. Let us further imagine that the flame which imparted fire unto the leaf is not itself contingent upon any fuel for its subsistence. Thus we see that the leaf has received its own act of fire from perfect fire.

Now, we know that any fire will keep burning so long as it has the necessary fuel (oxygen). In other words, it is necessary to the subsistence of fire that it exist in an oxygenated atmosphere. Similarly, since outside of existence is nothingness, a particular act of existence must exist within the atmosphere of existence itself, for God is not only the flame (existence-giver), he is also the fuel (existence-sustainer). In other words, as a flame will be extinguished if deprived of oxygen, so will contingent existence cease to be if deprived of God’s sustaining power.*

In other words, an essence has potential to exist, but that existence must be given to it by something which has the power to cause existence. And as a thing effects its like, God has such power. But like the flame, the existence he bestows is not His existence.

If they have being in their own right then they don’t need God to actualize them. But i think we can both agree that’s not what Aquinas intended to mean, but it sure looks like it. This again illustrates my point that we should not take Aquinas’ wording for granted as he can be confusing at times. The only way to get a sufficient understanding of Aquinas is to first understand the underlying metaphysical principles on which Aquinas bases his Arguments and then interpret his words in light of those principles. I don’t think that you do have a sufficient understanding.

I don’t think you have as sufficient an understanding as you think you do. If your interpretation is correct, then not only myself, but the overwhelming majority, if not the totality, of Thomistic scholars over the past several hundred years don’t understand him properly either.

A thing that has being in its own right is a thing that has its own act of existence. As is thoroughly expressed in my argument above, the possession of an individual act does not mean that the thing does not itself need to be actualized by a causal agent, nor that it does not need the sustenance of something outside of itself. These are all distinct things.

I can see how one could think that Aquinas is saying here that a created essence is identical with esse; but like i said…

This has become your mantra, but it’s an evasion. As I have repeatedly said: esse and essence are distinct, but they are nevertheless both parts of the creature.

But that’s besides the point in this case, because the quoted passage has nothing to do with whether or not esse and essence are distinct; it has to do with what part of the creature has operative power. That whereby an agent acts is its act means that an essence has no causal power; the act whereby a thing exists gives the creature its operative power. The essence is the vehicle, the esse is the driver. A car and a driver are not identical, but cars neither build nor operate themselves. If your argument is correct, then the human will is God.

What substantial objections? I have not seen any from you. All i have seen is a lot of assertions and assumptions about what Aquinas did or did not mean that do not tally up with the logical consequences of his esse/essence distinction.

Ok, Linux. I’ll leave that for our fellow readers to decide.

 

[utunumsint]

How am I evading a post that wasn’t even directed at me? You have not exposed any logical flaws, nor have I failed to produce a meaningful conception of esse and essence. I have repeatedly done so, and you have not once addressed my arguments. All you have done is pick a convenient sentence or two out of a few of my posts, decontextualized them and argued against a straw man.

I offered a rather intelligible analogy in my last series of posts, to which you did not bother to respond. So I offer it again:

*As regards the creation of contingent esses, we start from an observable fact of the principle of causation. Namely, it can be readily observed that a cause effects its like. We can take as an example, again, the case of fire. Let us imagine, specifically, the act of fire upon, say, a leaf. The effect is that the leaf is now also on fire. But it is not that the flame that touched the leaf has transferred itself to the leaf, but rather, it has ignited the potential of fire within the leaf (that is, those properties of the leaf that make it flammable.) In a similar way, God ignites the potential existence of an essence. Let us further imagine that the flame which imparted fire unto the leaf is not itself contingent upon any fuel for its subsistence. Thus we see that the leaf has received its own act of fire from perfect fire.

Now, we know that any fire will keep burning so long as it has the necessary fuel (oxygen). In other words, it is necessary to the subsistence of fire that it exist in an oxygenated atmosphere. Similarly, since outside of existence is nothingness, a particular act of existence must exist within the atmosphere of existence itself, for God is not only the flame (existence-giver), he is also the fuel (existence-sustainer). In other words, as a flame will be extinguished if deprived of oxygen, so will contingent existence cease to be if deprived of God’s sustaining power.*

In other words, an essence has potential to exist, but that existence must be given to it by something which has the power to cause existence. And as a thing effects its like, God has such power. But like the flame, the existence he bestows is not His existence.

I don’t think you have as sufficient an understanding as you think you do. If your interpretation is correct, then not only myself, but the overwhelming majority, if not the totality, of Thomistic scholars over the past several hundred years don’t understand him properly either.

A thing that has being in its own right is a thing that has its own act of existence. As is thoroughly expressed in my argument above, the possession of an individual act does not mean that the thing does not itself need to be actualized by a causal agent, nor that it does not need the sustenance of something outside of itself. These are all distinct things.

This has become your mantra, but it’s an evasion. As I have repeatedly said: esse and essence are distinct, but they are nevertheless both parts of the creature.

But that’s besides the point in this case, because the esse/essence distinction has nothing to do with the quoted passage. That whereby an agent acts is its act means that an essence has no causal power. The act whereby a thing exists gives the creature its operative power. The essence is the vehicle, the esse is the driver. A car and a driver are not identical, but cars neither build nor operate themselves. If your argument is correct, then

Ok, Linux. I’ll leave that for our fellow readers to decide.

Great post prodigalson2011. I took a closer look at your earlier posts. They bring together a lot of what I’ve been reading in Aquinas. The current discussion has been so focused on the essence esse debate that we lose sight of the wider metaphysical landscape. I like how you are introducing the concept of causes and act and potency.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We need only maintain that the nature of God and the nature of creatures is absolutely and objectively distinct.

That would be true but for the fact that you have added notions which destroy that fact, you have confused the notion.

In metaphysics we must maintain that existence and nature in respect of creation is absolutely and objectively distinct despite being conjoined.

And here is where you have intentionally introduced confusion.

You have consistently said that a " contingent " essence, suffused by God ( you used the terminology of " the act of Existence of God, " but there is no distinction in God’s Essence, His " Act of Existence " is God Himself), creates a contingent being or substance.

This is inadmissible as I have repeatedly shown. God’s Act of Existence cannot be the act of existence of a created being or substance, even by the subterfuge of saying it is the act of existence of a contingent essence. This is violation of the principle of non-contradiction, as I have repeatedly shown.

An act of existence is the inner principle of any contingent being or substance. As Thomas says, existence comes to the being or substance through its essence or form. Therefore, God Himself would be a part of the very substance of a contingent being or substance. God would become contingent being. So God would be contingent and Infinite and Eternal and Uncreated at the same time.

There are only two ways out of this delimma. Either God creates contingent essences without an act of existence. In which case only pure, but contingent essences or forms are created and this, the position of Bishop George Berkeley, is pure Idealism. It is pure Platonism.

Or God creates an act of existence for each contingent essence which is their own. The result is a truely contingent being or substance. And this is Thomas’ position. And by the way, this in no way obstructs the most intimate activity of God within His creation. It simply places the contingent being and God in the proper sphere of their proper activity.

I think all the readers, with the exception of Plato and Openminede77, will understand your delimma perfectly.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

*As regards the creation of contingent esses, we start from an observable fact of the principle of causation. Namely, it can be readily observed that a cause effects its like. We can take as an example, again, the case of fire. Let us imagine, specifically, the act of fire upon, say, a leaf. The effect is that the leaf is now also on fire. But it is not that the flame that touched the leaf has transferred itself to the leaf, but rather, it has ignited the potential of fire within the leaf (that is, those properties of the leaf that make it flammable.) In a similar way, God ignites the potential existence of an essence. Let us further imagine that the flame which imparted fire unto the leaf is not itself contingent upon any fuel for its subsistence. Thus we see that the leaf has received its own act of fire from perfect fire.

Now, we know that any fire will keep burning so long as it has the necessary fuel (oxygen). In other words, it is necessary to the subsistence of fire that it exist in an oxygenated atmosphere. Similarly, since outside of existence is nothingness, a particular act of existence must exist within the atmosphere of existence itself, for God is not only the flame (existence-giver), he is also the fuel (existence-sustainer). In other words, as a flame will be extinguished if deprived of oxygen, so will contingent existence cease to be if deprived of God’s sustaining power.*

This is a very enlightening analogy, but I think it raises a number of issues that, in the end, might help resolve misunderstandings.

When the idea is proposed that God is Goodness Itself, Truth itself or Being itself, this is not to say that God is another being that happens to be good, happens to be truthful or happens to exist, but is, rather, Goodness Itself, Truth Itself and Being Itself.

In your analogy with fire, this would not be like saying the God is another instance of fire that “happens” to exist here or there and might be a cause of fire in something else, but rather that God is “Fire Itself.”

God is not just another being that “happens to exist” or “happens to be actualized.” Neither is he a being that necessarily exists or is necessarily actualized, rather God is Existence itself, The Pure Act of Existence. He cannot but Exist because he is “TO BE.”
Existence is not a characteristic that things might acquire like they might “catch fire.”

In your analogy with fire, it would not be accurate to say that God is a source of fire, as if fire were some distinct characteristic that God has to pass on. It would be more accurate to say God is “Fire itself.” In this sense, if a thing catches Fire, Fire is not an inherent or essential aspect of the thing on fire, but rather brought to bear on the thing by the nature of Fire acting on what the thing is.

The other problem with your analogy, is that fire is destructive of the thing. God as Pure Act is not destructive, but just the opposite. His action, unlike fire, is what “creates” rather than combusts or destroys a thing. The Fire is what keeps a thing enflamed, i.e, in existence. It is the thing (creature) that is enflamed, but the thing is not the flame, it is what is enflamed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Essences - real things - do begin to exist - to have esse. That existence has a beginning in time caused by God, or have a beginning absolutely, as is the case with Angels, caused by God. We participate in God through causality. God, in his infinite esse, causes other beings to exist. Now in that very causality, there is a relation established. A fundamental relation. The effect (creation) participates in its cause (God) to a certain extent, but in a limited way. Limited by essence, I agree with that, but also limiting esse by its very essence. You can’t limit God’s esse. God’s esse is without limit. Therefore we have to use the language of causality because in no way do our essences constrain God’s act of being in the sense that we can see our act of being as being identical to God’s act of being. As Aquinas says very clearly here in the Summa contra Gentiles:

So, at the very least, you can’t use say Aquinas supports your argument, although I will admit, it is hard to tell in some places.

Fair enough. But I would appreciate it if you would acknowledged that Aquinas differs from you in this regard. Orthodoxy is important to me and I want people to realize that if they reject Aquinas, they are rejecting orthodoxy. God bless,Ut

Well, good luck on that, but fat chance !!! Linux will never admit anything which threatens his ideology, whatever that is. Has it occurred to anyone that we nothing at all about Linux ( or Peter Plato for that matter). In case you haven’t noticed Linux’s stragegy is exactly like that of any atheist, agnostic, Hindu, materialist, naturalist appearing in this forum. That is attack the enemy in their strong hold, thereby discrediting their whole rational argument.

This is exactly the same strategy used by Militant Islamists, they hope to destroy Democracy, using the very glue that holds Democracy together, civil rights and the rule of law. That is what Linux is doing. He is using Thomistic sounding arguments and definitions to reach conclusions which destroy Thomism and thus deprive Christians of the strongest rational defender, leaving practically defenseless, intellectually, leaving it open to the charge of Blind Faith. Just a thought about the possible motivation.

Linus2nd

Congratulations on the arguments you brought to this post and past ones. The last one especially is iron clad. I wonder if Plato read it?

 

[WmJackP]

The question is a tautology and cannot be rationally debated. If God is existence, then the act of creating existence is assumed by virtue of the existence of God (which is, of course, "existence).

So many of us observed that Clinton’s famous “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is” was so ridiculous as to be risible; so then I would submit, on the very same basis, that this question must be similarly judged.

The better question is whether there is any state of reality other than that of “being”? While I doubt that the question can be answered, I submit that, at least, the question makes sense.

 

[Linux]

How am I evading a post that wasn’t even directed at me?

Any one who has read it can see that while it was not posted to you personally, the post does mention you in particular and refutes your whole lack of an argument from beginning to end. That’s why you have evaded it with conspiracy theories and fear mongering as usual.

You have not exposed any logical flaws,

That’s your baseless opinion which has no genuine argument to support it; at least not one that i have not refuted continuously.

nor have I failed to produce a meaningful conception of esse and essence.

Yes actually you have failed. You keep contradicting yourself possibly without even realizing it because you simply don’t have the conceptual capabilities to see it. Personally, i think that you are so dedicated to exposing me as a heretic that you are quite happy to believe your own fallacies.

I have repeatedly done so, and you have not once addressed my arguments.

You have made assertions, and when the conclusion of those assertions are exposed as irrational you evade the rebuttal with accusations of heresy.

All you have done is pick a convenient sentence or two out of a few of my posts, decontextualized them and argued against a straw man.

That is pure fantasy.

I offered a rather intelligible analogy in my last series of posts, to which you did not bother to respond. So I offer it again:

An analogy is not a rebuttal especially when its full of assertions.

As regards the creation of contingent esses, we start from an observable fact of the principle of causation. Namely, it can be readily observed that a cause effects its like. We can take as an example, again, the case of fire. Let us imagine, specifically, the act of fire upon, say, a leaf. The effect is that the leaf is now also on fire. But it is not that the flame that touched the leaf has transferred itself to the leaf, but rather, it has ignited the potential of fire within the leaf (that is, those properties of the leaf that make it flammable.) In a similar way, God ignites the potential existence of an essence.

You haven’t shown logically how it follows that God creates a distinct esse and conjoins it to an essence. If an essence is not real to begin with, how is it logically possible for god to ignite a potency (in this case a distinct esse) that exists only in an actual leaf. A leaf has the potential to catch fire because it exists.

You are putting the kart before the horse, since there has to be a real actuality before potency can be actualized.

Also the end of your paragraph doesn’t allow for essence and esse to be truly distinct since esse in your interpretation simply becomes an intrinsic expression of the created essence in question and not something actually distinct from whatness of its nature.

Here is my post again in case you didn’t see it.

1. A nature begins to exist because it is conjoined to the “act” of existing, which cannot happen unless esse is already actual and distinct (the only esse that is itself a distinct nature is God; which is an important point for no other esse can meaningfully exist as a distinct thing in itself without it also being synonymously an essence). Otherwise it amounts to saying that God has taken two things that are not actual (esse and essence) and put them together to make them both actual, which doesn’t make any rational sense since that which is not actual has no power to make another thing actual. Linus’s interpretation of Aquinas renders the idea of esse arbitrary and functionally useless as it relates to actualizing substances. In which case, why does God need an “esse” when it is his power alone that actualizes and sustains things in existence? Obviously the idea, although it may appear legitimate on the service, is very problematic and does more harm to God’s intelligence than anything else. Therefore for good reason i reject Linus’s interpretation as erroneous and short sighted.

1. Essences cannot cause esse, for an essence has no existential power by itself or as distinct from esse, so it is meaningless to speak of an essence limiting an esse unless created essences are not really distinct from the act of existence (If they are not objectively distinct, even after being conjoined, this leads to ontological contradictions). I don’t believe Aquinas made such a mistake, and if he is to remain logically consistent with the esse and essence distinction - including the absolute subordination of essences to esse for their actuality or the exercise of their natural power - then Aquinas would have to say that what he really means by essences limiting esse is that the degree to which a thing is actual is limited by the kind of nature it has. In other words he is not saying that an essence is literally limiting the existence of the act of existence, but rather he is saying that things are actual only to the degree to which they participate in the act of existing.

 

[Linux]

Now, we know that any fire will keep burning so long as it has the necessary fuel (oxygen). In other words, it is necessary to the subsistence of fire that it exist in an oxygenated atmosphere. Similarly, since outside of existence is nothingness, a particular act of existence must exist within the atmosphere of existence itself, for God is not only the flame (existence-giver), he is also the fuel (existence-sustainer).

Why does God need to sustain that which is the act of existing (esse)? That’s a contradiction in terms.

In other words, an essence has potential to exist, but that existence must be given to it by something which has the power to cause existence.

Actuality has to be conjoined to it. But if actuality is not real to begin with then to what is potency being conjoined to in-order to become actual?

That’s a rhetorical Question by the way.

And as a thing effects its like, God has such power. But like the flame, the existence he bestows is not His existence.

The act of existence is the act of existence. Saying that it is finite does not make it different from being the act of existence; it just means that it is finite, which is a contradiction since there cannot be species of the act of existence. Existence is not a genus.

I don’t think you have as sufficient an understanding as you think you do. If your interpretation is correct, then not only myself, but the overwhelming majority, if not the totality, of Thomistic scholars over the past several hundred years don’t understand him properly either.

That is not a refutation of my argument and is irrelevant if not a red-herring. Perhaps it is you that does not understand what scholars have said about Aquinas. Surely you are open to that possibility, or do you consider yourself metaphysically infallible?

A thing that has being in its own right is a thing that has its own act of existence. As is thoroughly expressed in my argument above, the possession of an individual act does not mean that the thing does not itself need to be actualized by a causal agent, nor that it does not need the sustenance of something outside of itself. These are all distinct things.

This is a fallacy. When you speak of esse, you are either talking about the act of existing (in which case it does not need sustenance in order to exist because it is existence) or you are not really talking about the act of existing but rather instead some meaningless concept that you have invented and which has nothing to do with Aquinas.

This has become your mantra, but it’s an evasion. As I have repeatedly said: esse and essence are distinct, but they are nevertheless both parts of the creature.

Esse is not identical with created substances. Esse is that by a substance is real.

The essence is the vehicle, the esse is the driver.

So the essence exists before the esse even gets into the car. Absolutely amazing!!! :clapping:

Ok, Linux. I’ll leave that for our fellow readers to decide.

Yes please do.

 

[Linux]

Any one who has read it can see that while it was not posted to you personally, the post does mention you in particular and refutes your whole lack of an argument from beginning to end. That’s why you have evaded it with conspiracy theories and fear mongering as usual.

Sorry, i mistook you for linus.

You are both basically twins anyway.

 

[Linux]

That would be true but for the fact that you have added notions which destroy that fact, you have confused the notion.

That’s not true

And here is where you have intentionally introduced confusion.

Are you saying i am intentionally being deceptive?

You have consistently said that a " contingent " essence, suffused by God… …creates a contingent being or substance.

What?

God’s Act of Existence cannot be the act of existence of a created being or substance, even by the subterfuge of saying it is the act of existence of a contingent essence. This is violation of the principle of non-contradiction, as I have repeatedly shown.

No it isn’t since esse and essence remain absolutely distinct even after being conjoined, which is made evident by the fact the essences pass in and out of existence.

An act of existence is the inner principle of any contingent being or substance.

What does that mean to you?

As Thomas says, existence comes to the being or substance through its essence or form.

You could take this to mean that essence actualizes esse. But he could not have meant that under pain of contradiction. You can take the face value of such words for granted if you like, but I do not really care about that as much as i care about the logical consequences of the esse and essence distinction.

Therefore, God Himself would be a part of the very substance of a contingent being or substance.

The word substance merely describes essence as it is actual. Esse is not identical to substances.

He would not be apart of the “whatness” of a thing and that is what is important. Any other sense of “mixing” is irrelevant; also the word mixing fails to grasp what i mean by conjoining an essence to God as esse. God simply thinks an essence to be real and it is real. God’s will and thought are identical with his esse, and so it is his esse that makes them actual for there is no other esse by which they can be actual.

God would become contingent being.

No he wouldn’t. The only way that would happen is if his esse became identical to an essence by being conjoined.

So God would be contingent and Infinite and Eternal and Uncreated at the same time.

Wrong.

Either God creates contingent essences without there own act of existence.

Correct. emphasis is my own.

In which case only pure, but contingent essences or forms are created and this, the position of Bishop George Berkeley, is pure Idealism. It is pure Platonism.

You are confusing the nature of Gods thoughts with human thoughts; our thoughts are not identical with esse and so we cannot conjoin abstractions with the act of our reality. The idea that nothing is actual outside of God’s esse (which is identical with his mind) is not a problem to me, since i do not equate human minds with the power of Gods mind.

Existing in the mind of a human being, and existing in the mind of God does not entail the same thing.

Or God creates an act of existence for each contingent essence which is their own.

This is a meaningless and contradictory proposal for reasons i have already stated and you failed to refute.

And this is Thomas’ position.

No it is not, it is your position.

And by the way, this in no way obstructs the most intimate activity of God within His creation. It simply places the contingent being and God in the proper sphere of their proper activity.

No, it places reality in to contradiction.

I think all the readers, with the exception of Plato and Openminede77, will understand your delimma perfectly.

Linus2nd

That’s not my problem. The truth needs no acknowledgement in-order to be true.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s not true

The best way to answer your sophistical responses is to repeat my last post to you and let the reader compare your previous post to the below.

Originally Posted by Linux
We need only maintain that the nature of God and the nature of creatures is absolutely and objectively distinct.

Linus2nd Responds
That would be true but for the fact that you have added notions which destroy that fact, you have confused the notion.

Quote: Comment by Linux
In metaphysics we must maintain that existence and nature in respect of creation is absolutely and objectively distinct despite being conjoined.

Linus2nd Respons
And here is where you have intentionally introduced confusion.

You have consistently said that a " contingent " essence, is " conjoined " by God ( you used the terminology " the act of Existence of God. " But there is no distinction in God’s Essence, His " Act of Existence " is God Himself). ( I have corrected the phrasology of this sentence since the original post.)

This is inadmissible as I have repeatedly shown. God’s Act of Existence cannot be the act of existence of a created being or substance, even by the subterfuge of saying it is the act of existence of a contingent essence. This is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, as I have repeatedly shown.

An act of existence is the inner principle of any contingent being or substance. As Thomas says, existence comes to the being or substance through its essence or form. Therefore, God Himself would be a part of the very substance of a contingent being or substance. God would become contingent being. So God would be contingent and Infinite and Eternal and Uncreated at the same time.

There are only two ways out of this delimma. Either God creates contingent essences without an act of existence. In which case only pure, but contingent essences or forms are created and this, the position of Bishop George Berkeley, is pure Idealism. It is pure Platonism.

Or God creates an act of existence for each contingent essence which is their own. The result is a truely contingent being or substance. And this is Thomas’ position. And by the way, this in no way obstructs the most intimate activity of God within His creation. It simply places the contingent being and God in the proper sphere of their proper activity.

I think all the readers, with the exception of Plato and Openminede77, will understand your delimma perfectly.

Your errors are multiple.
You assert, without proof, that the Esse of God is the only esse.
You assert, without proof, that we exist, ontologically in the mind of God.
You assert, without proof, that there is no creation ex nihilo.
You assert, without proof, that the universe exists in the mind of God.
You assert, without proof, that the esse of creatures is the esse of God.
All these positions are contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Has it occurred to anyone that we nothing at all about Linux ( or Peter Plato for that matter). In case you haven’t noticed Linux’s stragegy is exactly like that of any atheist, agnostic, Hindu, materialist, naturalist appearing in this forum. That is attack the enemy in their strong hold, thereby discrediting their whole rational argument.

This is exactly the same strategy used by Militant Islamists, they hope to destroy Democracy, using the very glue that holds Democracy together, civil rights and the rule of law. That is what Linux is doing. He is using Thomistic sounding arguments and definitions to reach conclusions which destroy Thomism and thus deprive Christians of the strongest rational defender, leaving practically defenseless, intellectually, leaving it open to the charge of Blind Faith. Just a thought about the possible motivation.

Yikes, I never realized your opponents’ goal is to overthrow the strangely capitalized Democracy by the outlandishly hopeful method of posting on CAF.

Anyhow, congrats on your appointment as Witch-hunter General, please add my name to Linux and Peter Plato for your upcoming inquisition.

Ad hominem is fallacy, not philosophy. Play nice bro.

 

[Linux]

Your errors are multiple.
You assert, without proof, that the Esse of God is the only esse.
You assert, without proof, that we exist, ontologically in the mind of God.
You assert, without proof, that there is no creation ex nihilo.
You assert, without proof, that the universe exists in the mind of God.
You assert, without proof, that the esse of creatures is the esse of God.
All these positions are contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

Linus2nd

Non of this is true. You are being completely dishonest; and yet again you have evaded instead of facing what i have said rationally with clear syllogism.

I have have justified logically all my claims syllogistically regardless of whether you agree with the argument or not.

1. A nature begins to exist because it is conjoined to the “act” of existing, which cannot happen unless esse is already actual and objectively distinct (the only esse that is itself a distinct nature is God; which is an important point for no other esse can meaningfully exist as a distinct thing in itself without it also being synonymously an essence). Otherwise it amounts to saying that God has taken two things that are not actual (esse and essence) and put them together to make them both actual, which doesn’t make any rational sense since that which is not actual has no power to make another thing actual. An esse first has to be actual in-order to actualize potency. Linus’s interpretation of Aquinas renders the idea of esse arbitrary and functionally useless as it relates to actualizing substances. In which case, why does God need an “esse” when it is his power alone that actualizes and sustains things in existence? Obviously the idea, although it may appear legitimate on the surface, is very problematic and does more harm to God’s intelligence than anything else. Therefore for good reason i reject Linus’s interpretation as erroneous and short sighted.
2. Essences cannot cause esse, for an essence has no existential power by itself or as distinct from esse, so it is meaningless to speak of an essence limiting an esse unless created essences are not really distinct from the act of existence (If they are not objectively distinct, even after being conjoined, this leads to ontological contradictions). I don’t believe Aquinas made such a mistake, and if he is to remain logically consistent with the esse and essence distinction - including the absolute subordination of essences to esse for their actuality or the exercise of their natural power - then Aquinas would have to say that what he really means by essences limiting esse is that the degree to which a thing is actual is limited by the kind of nature it has. In other words he is not saying that an essence is literally limiting the existence of the act of existence, but rather he is saying that things are actual only to the degree to which they participate in the act of existing.
3. Existence is not a genus. The act of existence is the act of existence. Actuality is actuality. Asserting that an esse can be finite and therefore distinct from God does not change the fact that it is still the act of existence, and neither does it alleviate the pain of contradiction involved in making a species of existing which is exactly what you are doing by saying that God creates finite esse. There can be difference in essences precisely and only because they are not identical to esse and that is why the word “Being” applies to them only in an analogous respect. There is no rational distinction in esse.

Nothing is the absolute antithesis of existence, therefore the act of existence can only be intrinsic to that which is the act of existence.There cannot be an existence that is not existence, and thus it is absolutely necessary that God is the esse of all contingent essences.

Your belief that these necessary facts are against the church is your problem. I have explained why they are not. But if they are, then Catholicism has error in its dogma regardless of your desire for it to be without error. I don’t think Dogma as expressed by the church does have error. I think that your interpretation of those teachings in how they reflect metaphysical reality is in error; like it or not.

The bible itself says that we exist in God: Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yikes, I never realized your opponents’ goal is to overthrow the strangely capitalized Democracy by the outlandishly hopeful method of posting on CAF.

Anyhow, congrats on your appointment as Witch-hunter General, please add my name to Linux and Peter Plato for your upcoming inquisition.

Ad hominem is fallacy, not philosophy. Play nice bro.

Talk about ad hominems !

I knew where you stood without even thinking about it.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Talk about ad hominems !

I knew where you stood without even thinking about it.

Linus2nd

You are now calling somebody out for ad hominems when they are in fact pointing out your consistent ad hominem attacks?:hypno:

That’s very bizarre.:dts:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Non of this is true. You are being completely dishonest; and yet again you have evaded instead of facing what i have said rationally with clear syllogism…

The reader can review Linux’s previous post for his objections. Since these have been answered by myself and others ad infinitem in other threads, I prefer to give several quotations from St. Thomas which refute the key argument Linux offers. These show that God indeed causes each created being to have an act of existence of its own. Thus, the act of existence of created substances are not God’s act of existence. This destroys every position taken by Linux. I could multiply citations from Thomas to prove Linux is wrong, but these are sufficient.

==============================================================
S.C.G. Book I, Ch 26, para 3

3] Furthermore, things are not distinguished from one another in having being, for in this they agree. If, then, things differ from one another, either their being must be specified through certain added differences, so that diverse things have a diverse being according to their species, or things must differ in that the being itself is appropriate to natures that are diverse in species. The first of these alternatives is impossible, since, as we have said, no addition can be made to a being in the manner in which a difference is added to a genus. It remains, then, that things differ because they have diverse natures, to which being accrues in a diverse way. Now, the divine being does not accrue to a nature that is other than it; it is the nature itself, as we have said. If, therefore, the divine being were the formal being of all things, all things would have to be absolutely one.
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#26

Again: This from S.C.G., Book II, ch 21, para 4:

[4] Furthermore, effects correspond proportionally to their causes, so that we attribute actual effects to actual causes, potential effects to potential causes, and, similarly, particular effects to particular causes and universal effects to universal causes, as Aristotle teaches in Physics II [3]. Now, the act of being is the first effect, and this is evident by reason of the universal presence of this act. It follows that the proper cause of the act of being is the first and universal agent, namely, God. Other agents, indeed, are not the cause of the act of being as such, but of being this-of being a man or being white, for example. On the contrary, the act of being, as such, is caused by creation, which presupposes nothing; because nothing can pre-exist that is outside being as such. By makings other than creation, this being or such being is produced; for out of pre-existent being is made this being or such a being. It remains that creation is the proper action of God.
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#21

I will close out with a warning to Catholics, other Christians, Jews, and Muslims ( the latter two groups had a valuable philosophical tradition in the Golden Age of their past which Thomas was wont to draw from frequently). The quotation below illustrates a problem which is unfolding in this thread and similar ones. All should read the entire Encyclical Humani Generis from which the quotation is taken.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

1. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

These show that God indeed causes each created being to have an act of existence of its own.

It does not show any such thing, and neither have you or Thomas Aquinas disproved my argument.

If by saying that God is not the formal being of each thing he is saying that God is not the esse of each essence, then i have no choice but to reject his claim because it leads to ontological contradictions which i have explained thoroughly and have been ignored with red herrings (for example, this has turned into a debate about Thomas instead of a debate about the Title of this thread).

But if he is saying that God is not the essence of a thing as it adheres in an actual substance, then i agree.

 

[utunumsint]

It does not show any such thing, and neither have you or Thomas Aquinas disproved my argument.

If by saying that God is not the formal being of each thing he is saying that God is not the esse of each essence, then i have no choice but to reject his claim because it leads to ontological contradictions which i have explained thoroughly and have been ignored with red herrings (for example, this has turned into a debate about Thomas instead of a debate about the Title of this thread).

But if he is saying that God is not the essence of a thing as it adheres in an actual substance, then i agree.

Aquinas is contradicting you.

Here is the same quote Linus used from my translation:

Things do not differ from one another by having existence, since they all agree in that. If things do differ from one another, therefore, this must come from the fact that the act of existence is possessed by specifically different natures. Things differ, therefore, by reason of their different natures receiving existence diversely in proportion to each nature. Now, the divine act of existence is possessed by no other nature but is itself the vary nature or essence of God. And so if the divine act of existence could be identified with the act of existence of all things, all things would coalesce together into the absolute unity of one single being…

The latin is clear here: corpusthomisticum.org/scg1014.html

Item. Res ad invicem non distinguuntur secundum quod habent esse: quia in hoc omnia conveniunt… quod res differant per hoc quod ipsum esse diversis naturis secundum speciem convenit… Relinquitur ergo quod res propter hoc differant quod habent diversas naturas, quibus acquiritur esse diversimode. Esse autem divinum non advenit alii naturae, sed est ipsa natura, ut ostensum est. Si igitur esse divinum esset formale esse omnium, oporteret omnia simpliciter esse unum.

So perhaps we can agree that Aquinas disagrees with you and move on. Your argument must stand by itself.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

For those who are interested, here is a breakdown of the second quote:

Furthermore,
Adhuc.

Effectus suis causis proportionaliter respondent:
effects correspond proportionally to their causes,

ut scilicet effectus in actu causis actualibus attribuamus,
so that we attribute actual effects to actual causes,

et effectus in potentia causis quae sunt in potentia;
potential effects to potential causes,

et similiter effectus particulares causis particularibus,
and, similarly, particular effects to particular causes

universalibus vero universales;
and universal effects to universal causes,

ut docet philosophus, in II physicorum.
as Aristotle teaches in Physics II [3].

Esse autem est causatum primum:
Now, the act of being is the first effect,

quod ex ratione suae communitatis apparet.
and this is evident by reason of the universal presence of this act.

Causa igitur propria essendi est agens primum et universale, quod Deus est.
It follows that the proper cause of the act of being is the first and universal agent, namely, God.

Alia vero agentia non sunt causa essendi simpliciter,
Other agents, indeed, are not the cause of the act of being as such,

sed causa essendi hoc, ut hominem vel album.
but of being this-of being a man or being white, for example.

Esse autem simpliciter per creationem causatur, quae nihil praesupponit:
On the contrary, the act of being, as such, is caused by creation, which presupposes nothing;

quia non potest aliquid praeexistere quod sit extra ens simpliciter.
because nothing can pre-exist that is outside being as such.

Per alias factiones fit hoc ens vel tale: nam ex ente praeexistente fit hoc ens vel tale.
By makings other than creation, this being or such being is produced; for out of pre-existent being is made this being or such a being.

Ergo creatio est propria Dei actio.
It remains that creation is the proper action of God.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

Things do not** differ** from one another by having existence, since they all agree in that. If things do differ from one another, therefore, this must come from the fact that the act of existence is possessed by specifically different natures.

In other-words there is no ontological distinction between the esse of a man and the esse of a fish. There is only differentiation in essences; and therefore esse is one and has no distinction in it. In fact essences can only be different because esse is not intrinsic to their nature. There can be no differentiation in esse.

**
Things differ, therefore, by reason of t**heir different natures receiving existence**** diversely in proportion to each nature.

Given the first portion of the quote which is basically saying that the act of existence (esse) cannot be a genus and therefore there cannot be different kinds of the act of existence, this cannot be taken as arguing that esse is as diverse as essence; unless of course one is willing to say that Aquinas is contradicting himself.

Now, the divine act of existence is possessed by no other nature

This needn’t be interpreted as saying that God is not the esse of all essences. It can be simply saying that the lack of distinction between God’s essence and esse is not something possessed by contingent natures, and this is to say that the unity of esse and essence in God is not something true of creation. Of course you can disagree but then you would have to recognize that Aquinas is contradicting the truth that existence is not a genus.

but is itself the vary nature or essence of God.

And we could also conclude from this that the devine act of existence is something uniqe to Gods essence and does not constitute the essence of created things. From this it would not contradict the idea that God is the esse of all essences; but i am happy to disagree with Aquinas and say he is in error.

And so if the divine act of existence could be identified with the act of existence of all things, all things would coalesce together into the absolute unity of one single being…

Only if by the term “divine act of existence” he is also including the essence of created things. But i agree that there is only one esse, and i am happy to disagree with Aquinas which i certainly made clear in the OP.