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

[Peter_Plato]

So, twice in the same article, Thomas states that God creates existence.
newadvent.org/summa/1045.htm#article5

Linus2nd

Aquinas does not say “God creates existence.” That is your claim.

God cannot create esse (existence) because God is existence and he cannot “create” himself. God creates "acts of being” (ens) which are actualized participations in existence.

Again, created things cannot have their own existence because then existence (esse) would take on the nature and limitations of the created being, which Aquinas says is impossible.

Properly speaking, created things can be said to subsist in existence, are actualized or have “ens” within existence. They do not exist or have esse unto themselves - existence cannot be parceled out that way. They “subsist” rather than exist (have ens or act of being) rather than esse (being itself) within existence, which is one reality, God, who is existence itself, fullness of being.

Reread carefully my post #550

 

[utunumsint]

Hi PeterPlato,

This is my attempt to respond to your post 550. Hopefully my logic is working here:

The first part of your quote is this:

Hence we say that God is His own existence.
Now this cannot be said of any other being.
For, just as it is impossible to understand that there are many separate whitenesses,
but if there were “whiteness”
apart from every subject and recipient,
there would be but one whiteness,
so it is impossible to have a self-subsisting existence unless there is but one.

Accordingly,
every thing which exists after the first being,
because it is not its own existence,
has an existence that is received in something,
through which the existence is itself contracted;
and thus
in any created object
the nature of the thing which participates in existence is one thing, and the participated existence itself is another.

The first thing I want to note here is that the existence received in a thing is contracted. i.e. changed. And basically, it is changed by the form it actualizes. So I don’t think we can read that last sentence to be a split between our essence and God’s esse. Because as he mentions in S.C.G I chapter 26, the the forms that make up all of created reality would be basically contracting God’s esse. He is using the word contract in verb form, so it mean to reduce, in size, number, or range,

To further address the concept of witness.God alone is the only self-subsisting existence. But from that it does not follow that no other beings have contingent existences. They are two different things.

This next part is interesting:

And because any thing participates in the first act
**through similitude **
insofar as it has existence,
the participated existence must
in each case
be related to the nature participating in it,
as act
is related to potency.

Notice the part in bold that qualifies the first part. Similitude is a comparison. We participate in the first act, because we similarly receive our own qualified and limited existence. Not because we are directly participating in God’s existence. And that act of existence, the section goes on to explain, is related to the nature participating in it as act is related to potency.

He goes on to explain what he means here:

Accordingly,
in the world of physical objects,
matter does not of itself
participate in actual existence,
but it does participate therein through form;
for the form coming upon the matter
makes the matter itself actually exist,
as the soul does to the body.

As I explained in my previous post, the continuum is as follows:

• non being to being
• potency to act
• matter to form
• tabula rasa to intelligible form

I hope this helps. Can you point out where you think I have gone off track here?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

Another misunderstanding would be to conclude from the expression ‘tantum esse’ that the divine being is the same as “universal being” (esse universale) by which every thing formally is a being. This universal esse is something indeterminate and common, and acquires in each different being a different determination in virtue of the essence. So the danger here is that we take the expression ‘tantum esse’ to mean ‘being without essence,’ pure being that is free of any determinate content. But, Thomas argues, God’s being is fully determined in itself; it is not because his being is received in a distinct essence but by its very** purity** that the divine being is distinct from all other instances of being… … The designation of God’s being as tantum esse is therefore qualified and explained by the formula ‘bonitas pura’ taken from Liber de causes, ‘pure’ denotes God’s simplicity and ‘goodness’ refers to the fullness and determinate character of God’s being…

It is very clear to me that this is talking about the difference between what it means for God to be a being and what it means for a creature to be a being, and when it speaks of the being of creatures it is not speaking of esse in a distinct sense, but rather he is speaking of creatures** as they are actual**. So when it speaks of being in regards to creation it is speaking of substances as actual and not as having a distinct esse. It says that God has the fullness of being as compared to creatures. The context is revealed as such that when it says God is not the formal being of creatures (is not universal being), it means only that creatures do not have esse in the divine sense of the word; and that is only to say that our essence is not identical with the act of existing. An when it speaks of universal being it means those essences that become substances (existing-essence) only by a limited participation in actuality.

It says nothing about God creating distinct esse. That is your interpretation of Aquinas and every other commentator you read on Aquinas.

But if you insist on interpreting Aquinas as saying that essences have their own distinct essence, then this is easily refuted for the following reasons.

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; which absolutely rules out the possibility of a real distinct esse that is not identical to its 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 actuality itself 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 to create an “esse” when it is his power alone that actualizes and sustains things in existence? What rational function could a created esse possibly serve? This esse that linus is speaking of is absolutely impotent. 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.

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.
2. 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.

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.

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aquinas does not say “God creates existence.” That is your claim.

The article you quoted, and which I first brought to the attention to all on this thread and several others, does not speak about creation. It does not have to. I have cited to you, and to Linux and to the whole world, many Articles in which Thomas says that God creates existence and gives it to creatures along with their entire substance. I have not counted the number of times Thomas makes such statements in both Summas and elsewhere, but it is multiple. So that is not " my claim, " as you put it.

God cannot create esse (existence) because God is existence and he cannot “create” himself. God creates "acts of being” (ens) which are actualized participations in existence.

First of all, you have just taken one of Linux’s major assumptions and accepted it as proven, when, in fact, it has never been proven. You have assumed that God’s Esse is the only esse. Therefore you have concluded that " God cannot create himself. " ( with which I heartily agree). Then you follow with a totally incoherent statement, " God creates " acts of being ( ens ) which are actualized participations in existence. But the real fault here is that you say that God is the act of existence of creatures. This is the same erroneous and inadmissable conclusion Linux makes.

Here you have confused ens with acts of existence. An ens is an actually existing being, an actually existing substance, a " this" or a " that. " An act of existence, an esse, is the act, the to be-ness which makes an essence an actually existing being or substance. Ens is not equivalent to act of existence.

No faithful Christian, Jew, or Muslim can accept that and, besides, it is repugnant to reason. It smaks of Pantheism.

And I have shown you from the very article you quoted that to paticipate means to be similar to, it does not mean to share the same nature, nor even to share a bit of the same nature.

Again, created things cannot have their own existence because then existence (esse) would take on the nature and limitations of the created being, which Aquinas says is impossible.

My goodness, is this intentional deception? Your statement would be true only if your initial assumption were true. And we simply cannot accept that God’s Esse, is the only esse. That is a Huge Assumption that neither you, nor Linux has bothered to prove.

And of course Aquinas agrees that God’s Esse cannot take on the nature and limitations of created being. ( Which I agree with.) However, you did not tell Thomas you had previously assumed that God’s Esse was the only esse and that you were going to magnify that atrocity by saying that God gives His Esse to creatures - thus you hope to excape one of the horns of the delimma, that of the spectical of being eyewitness to God creating Himself. But in so doing, you fall on the alternate horn of the delimma, now God is " creating " pure forms which have no existence of their own. Gee willikers, Mr. Mc Gee, whatever are you saying!!!

So, created beings must have their own existence, because that is the only way they can exist without falling into some sort of Pantheism.

And clearly, no genuine Christian, Jew, or Muslim can agree that God’s Esse is the only esse or that the esse of creatures is the act of existence of God.

Properly speaking, created things can be said to subsist in existence, are actualized or have “ens” within existence. They do not exist or have esse unto themselves - existence cannot be parceled out that way. They “subsist” rather than exist (have ens or act of being) rather than esse (being itself) within existence, which is one reality, God, who is existence itself, fullness of being.

That is your private interpretation. Do you really want to have a debate on the issue of whether or not a created substance can be said to " subsist? " I suggest you spend the next couple of weeks reading over Part 1 of the S.T. and Books I and II of the S.C.G. before engaging any such debate. Because you will simply loose.

Reread carefully my post #550

Well Peter, you should have listed your " religious preference " as Sophist rather than Socratic, because it is clear than you are taking Linux’s tack of skirting issues, leaping to conclusions, using isolated pharases to represent the meaning of an entire philosophy.

The article you quoted and which I first brought to the attention to all on this thread and several others does not speak about creation. It does not have to. I have cited to you and to Linux and to the whole world many Articles in which Thomas says that God creates existence and gives it to creatures along with their entire substance. I have not counted the number of times Thomas makes such statements in both Summas and elsewhere, but it is multiple.

 

[Linux]

“Nor is there any ‘thing’ such as existence or being, whatever this would mean, that exists without God or which has its existence prior to or apart from God”

 

[Linux]

From Aquinas’s disputed questions On the Power of God:

“What I call being, esse, is the most perfect of all: and this is apparent because the act is always more perfect than the potency. For a certain form is not understood to be in act unless it is said to be. For humanity or fieriness can be considered either as latent in the potentiality of matter or in the power of an agent, or even just in the mind; but by having esse, it actually comes to exist. From which it is clear that* what I call esse** is the actuality of all acts, and therefore the perfection of all perfections. And to what I call esse nothing can be added that is more formal, which determines it, in the way that the act determines the potency: for esse, taken in this manner, differs essentially from something to which an addition can be made by way of determining.[14]*”



The perfection of all perfections is clearly God; and is not being spoken of in reference to some fantasy finite esse.

I don’t think Aquinas would contradict himself. Do you? Therefore Linus has a flawed interpretation, and because God has a sense of humor i am correct.

“For God is the judge. One he putteth down, and another he lifteth up:”

 

[prodigalson2011]

​

From Aquinas’s disputed questions On the Power of God:

“What I call being, esse, is the most perfect of all: and this is apparent because the act is always more perfect than the potency. For a certain form is not understood to be in act unless it is said to be. For humanity or fieriness can be considered either as latent in the potentiality of matter or in the power of an agent, or even just in the mind; but by having eat, it actually comes to exist. From which it is clear that** what I call esse** is the actuality of all acts, and therefore the perfection of all perfections. And to what I call esse nothing can be added that is more formal, which determines it, in the way that the act determines the potency: for esse, taken in this manner, differs essentially from something to which an addition can be made by way of determining.[14]”



The perfection of all perfections is clearly God; and is not being spoken of in reference to some fantasy finite esse.

I don’t think Aquinas would contradict himself. Do you? Therefore Linus has a flawed interpretation, and because God has a sense of humor i am correct.

“For God is the judge. One he putteth down, and another he liftehupj:”

Just as you have been doing, you isolate and decontextualize to support your arguments, ignoring the broader scope of Aquinas’ philosophy which clarifies such general statements and clearly contradicts you.

I must say I find it amusing that you started by saying you didn’t care whether or not Aquinas agreed with you, but now you are insistent that he does.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi PeterPlato,

This is my attempt to respond to your post 550. Hopefully my logic is working here:

The first part of your quote is this:

The first thing I want to note here is that the existence received in a thing is contracted. i.e. changed. And basically, it is changed by the form it actualizes. So I don’t think we can read that last sentence to be a split between our essence and God’s esse. Because as he mentions in S.C.G I chapter 26, the the forms that make up all of created reality would be basically contracting God’s esse. He is using the word contract in verb form, so it mean to reduce, in size, number, or range,

To further address the concept of witness.God alone is the only self-subsisting existence. But from that it does not follow that no other beings have contingent existences. They are two different things.

This next part is interesting:

Notice the part in bold that qualifies the first part. Similitude is a comparison. We participate in the first act, because we similarly receive our own qualified and limited existence. Not because we are directly participating in God’s existence. And that act of existence, the section goes on to explain, is related to the nature participating in it as act is related to potency.

He goes on to explain what he means here:

As I explained in my previous post, the continuum is as follows:

• non being to being
• potency to act
• matter to form
• tabula rasa to intelligible form

I hope this helps. Can you point out where you think I have gone off track here?

God bless,
Ut

Well done. It helps to have a trained, orderly mind.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From Aquinas’s disputed questions On the Power of God:

“What I call being, esse, is the most perfect of all: and this is apparent because the act is always more perfect than the potency. For a certain form is not understood to be in act unless it is said to be. For humanity or fieriness can be considered either as latent in the potentiality of matter or in the power of an agent, or even just in the mind; but by having esse, it actually comes to exist. From which it is clear that** what I call esse** is the actuality of all acts, and therefore the perfection of all perfections. And to what I call esse nothing can be added that is more formal, which determines it, in the way that the act determines the potency: for esse, taken in this manner, differs essentially from something to which an addition can be made by way of determining.[14]”



The perfection of all perfections is clearly God; and is not being spoken of in reference to some fantasy finite esse.

I don’t think Aquinas would contradict himself. Do you? Therefore Linus has a flawed interpretation, and because God has a sense of humor i am correct.

“For God is the judge. One he putteth down, and another he lifteth up:”

Of course it could. But it doesn’t in this case. I don’t remember the exact location of the Article, but that was not its meaning. It is essential when quoting, that you give exact references or you must stand accused of " special pleading, " attempting to extract a point from context inorder to prove or help prove a conclusion not related to the text. As the quote stands, it proves nothing either way.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Nor is there any ‘thing’ such as existence or being, whatever this would mean, that exists without God or which has its existence prior to or apart from God”

Of course, no one ( except Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics ) would dispute that as long as we all understand that our existence depends on God, Who creates our act of existence along with our essence. In that since, we do not exist apart from God, for no effect is independent of its cause.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

" Reply to the Seventeenth Objection. God at the same time gives being and produces that which receives being, so that it does not follow that his action requires something already in existence. " ( Disputed Questions on the Power of God, Q III, Art I, Can God Create from Nothing) dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#1:1

From this it follows that God creates an act of existence ( being/act of existence) at the same time He produces that ( a being ) which receives being ( existence/ an act of existence). And if it is said that this act of existence which God gives is His own Act of Existence, this is tantemount to saying that God creates Himself which is nonsensical. Thomas has already shown that neither God nor creatures can create themselves.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

​

Just as you have been doing, you isolate and decontextualize to support your arguments, ignoring the broader scope of Aquinas’ philosophy which clarifies such general statements and clearly contradicts you.

I must say I find it amusing that you started by saying you didn’t care whether or not Aquinas agreed with you, but now you are insistent that he does.

And once again you have produced a red herring to avoid answering what is in fact a clear refutation of your belief that God creates an esse that is absolutely distinct from himself…

Its funny to me that when Aquinas clearly says something that does not go your way you brush it under the carpet.

You have not produced one successful refutation of my argument, and neither have you produced any logical argument that can feasibly be seen as supporting you interpretation of Aquinas. You merely take his words at face value and ignore anything that contradicts your shallow interpretation. And then you arrogantly accuse people of heresy in a philosophical debate and ignore any interpretation that refutes your accusation.

Fear-mongering is clearly your only skill.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

" In order to make this point clear… Now the first of all effects is being, which is presupposed to all other effects, and does not presuppose any other effect: wherefore to give being as such must be the effect of the first cause alone by its own power…"
( Disputed Questions on the Power of God, Q III, Art IV, Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature? dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#1:1

Thus, God gives to creatures their own being or existence, since it could not be an effect had He not given it. And here we must note that we are talking about the act of existence/or existence per se, the effect which causes, or is that act whereby the creature is said to exist, that whereby all the other created effects become real in a being or substance.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

As for whether or not I care about Aquinas. What I mean to say is, I don’t care if my argument contradicts him because the truth does not bend to sentimentality. That does not mean that I don’t respect Aquinas for he has done; but I don’t think for a minute that he is an infallible thinker immune to refutation as you obviously do. However, It seems to me that people on this thread follow Aquinas blindly without criticism because of what he represents rather than because his philosophy is correct.

 

[Linux]

" In order to make this point clear… Now the first of all effects is being, which is presupposed to all other effects, and does not presuppose any other effect: wherefore to give being as such must be the effect of the first cause alone by its own power…"
( Disputed Questions on the Power of God, Q III, Art IV, Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature? dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#1:1

Thus, God gives to creatures their own being or existence, since it could not be an effect had He not given it. And here we must note that we are talking about the act of existence/or existence per se, the effect which causes, or is that act whereby the creature is said to exist, that whereby all the other created effects become real in a being or substance.

Linus2nd

From Aquinas’s disputed questions On the Power of God:

“What I call being, esse, is the most perfect of all: and this is apparent because the act is always more perfect than the potency. For a certain form is not understood to be in act unless it is said to be. For humanity or fieriness can be considered either as latent in the potentiality of matter or in the power of an agent, or even just in the mind; but by having esse, it actually comes to exist. From which it is clear that** what I call esse** is the actuality of all acts, and therefore the perfection of all perfections. And to what I call esse nothing can be added that is more formal, which determines it, in the way that the act determines the potency: for esse, taken in this manner, differs essentially from something to which an addition can be made by way of determining.[14]”



The perfection of all perfections is clearly God; and is not being spoken of in reference to some fantasy finite esse.

I don’t think Aquinas would contradict himself. Do you? Therefore Linus has a flawed interpretation, and because God has a sense of humor i am correct.

“For God is the judge. One he putteth down, and another he lifteth up:”

 

[prodigalson2011]

Its funny to me that when Aquinas clearly says something that does not go your way you brush it under the carpet.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is becoming farcical.

You merely take his words at face value and ignore anything that contradicts your shallow interpretation.

You need to turn that finger around, Linux. I have made the effort to reply to the entirety of your posts. You’re the one who selectively quote mines and disregards passages like this:

Thomas concludes his treatment of God’s simplicity with an article in which he explicitly excludes the identification of the simple God with the simplicity of prime matter or that of common being (esse commune). God’s simplicity is not such that he enters into a composition with others; He cannot be a part of a whole, for in that case he would not be simpliciter prima in entibus.

And then you arrogantly accuse people of heresy in a philosophical debate and ignore any interpretation that refutes your accusation.

Fear-mongering is clearly your only skill.

And ad hominems are clearly yours.

That horse is dead, Linux: a) I never accused you of heresy b) the post on Meister Eckhart was meant to show that your claims are not so readily acceptable to Catholics as you think.

 

[Linux]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is becoming farcical.

You need to turn that finger around, Linux. I have made the effort to reply to the entirety of your posts. You’re the one who selectively quote mines and disregards passages like this:

Thomas concludes his treatment of God’s simplicity with an article in which he explicitly excludes the identification of the simple God with the simplicity of prime matter or that of common being (esse commune). God’s simplicity is not such that he enters into a composition with others; He cannot be a part of a whole, for in that case he would not be simpliciter prima in entibus.

And ad hominems are clearly yours.

That horse is dead, Linux: a) I never accused you of heresy b) the post on Meister Eckhart was meant to show that your claims are not so readily acceptable to Catholics as you think.

From Aquinas’s disputed questions On the Power of God:

“What I call being, esse, is the most perfect of all: and this is apparent because the act is always more perfect than the potency. For a certain form is not understood to be in act unless it is said to be. For humanity or fieriness can be considered either as latent in the potentiality of matter or in the power of an agent, or even just in the mind; but by having esse, it actually comes to exist. From which it is clear that** what I call esse** is the actuality of all acts, and therefore the perfection of all perfections. And to what I call esse nothing can be added that is more formal, which determines it, in the way that the act determines the potency: for esse, taken in this manner, differs essentially from something to which an addition can be made by way of determining.[14]”



The perfection of all perfections is clearly God; and is not being spoken of in reference to some fantasy finite esse.

I don’t think Aquinas would contradict himself. Do you? Therefore Linus has a flawed interpretation, and because God has a sense of humor i am correct.

“For God is the judge. One he putteth down, and another he lifteth up:”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aquinas does not say “God creates existence.” That is your claim.

I must correct my prior post on this point. This is not my claim but Thomas’ claim.

I answer that, It sufficiently appears at the first glance, according to what precedes (1), that to create can be the action of God alone. For the more universal effects must be reduced to the more universal and prior causes. Now among all effects the most universal is being itself: and hence it must be the proper effect of the first and most universal cause, and that is God. Hence also it is said (De Causis prop., iii) that “neither intelligence nor the soul gives us being, except inasmuch as it works by divine operation.” Now to produce being absolutely, not as this or that being, belongs to creation. Hence it is manifest that creation is the proper act of God alone.

An ens ( a being ) includes all that makes a " what " to be a " thing, " and that would include its act of existence/or its existence.

( underlining is mine).

You may of course disagree with Thomas, many have, but not many Catholic Philosophers have. But it is clear that this is what he taught. Other questions must be resolved in light of this fact. On the other hand, one cannot legitimately use Thomas to support their positions on other issues if they deny this foundational teaching. And of course it is most in line with Catholic Doctrines.

Reread carefully my post #550

I have and I have understood it. You have not understood it.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011 View Post
Another misunderstanding would be to conclude from the expression ‘tantum esse’ that the divine being is the same as “universal being” (esse universale) by which every thing formally is a being. This universal esse is something indeterminate and common, and acquires in each different being a different determination in virtue of the essence. So the danger here is that we take the expression ‘tantum esse’ to mean ‘being without essence,’ pure being that is free of any determinate content. But, Thomas argues, God’s being is fully determined in itself; it is not because his being is received in a distinct essence but by its very purity that the divine being is distinct from all other instances of being… … The designation of God’s being as tantum esse is therefore qualified and explained by the formula ‘bonitas pura’ taken from Liber de causes, ‘pure’ denotes God’s simplicity and ‘goodness’ refers to the fullness and determinate character of God’s being…

It is very clear to me that this is talking about the difference between what it means for God to be a being and what it means for a creature to be a being, and when it speaks of the being of creatures it is not speaking of esse in a distinct sense, but rather he is speaking of creatures** as they are actual**. So when it speaks of being in regards to creation it is speaking of substances as actual and not as having a distinct esse. It says that God has the fullness of being as compared to creatures. The context is revealed as such that when it says God is not the formal being of creatures (is not universal being), it means only that creatures do not have esse in the divine sense of the word; and that is only to say that our essence is not identical with the act of existing. An when it speaks of universal being it means those essences that become substances (existing-essence) only by a limited participation in actuality.

It says nothing about God creating distinct esse. That is your interpretation of Aquinas and every other commentator you read on Aquinas.

But if you insist on interpreting Aquinas as saying that essences have their own distinct essence, then this is easily refuted for the following reasons.

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; which absolutely rules out the possibility of a real distinct esse that is not identical to its 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 actuality itself 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 to create an “esse” when it is his power alone that actualizes and sustains things in existence? What rational function could a created esse possibly serve? This esse that linus is speaking of is absolutely impotent. 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.

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.
2. 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.

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.

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As for whether or not I care about Aquinas. What I mean to say is, I don’t care if my argument contradicts him because the truth does not bend to sentimentality. That does not mean that I don’t respect Aquinas for he has done; but I don’t think for a minute that he is an infallible thinker immune to refutation as you obviously do. However, It seems to me that people on this thread follow Aquinas blindly without criticism because of what he represents rather than because his philosophy is correct.

Well I am glad to hear that. But your conclusion is wrong. We agree with Thomas for two reasons. First, what he taught is certainly reasonable, many highly intelligent and saintly men and women for 800 years have thought so. Secondly, the Church has seen his work ( and that of others ) as beneficial to the Church’s work.

By the way I’m still waiting for your reference to your quotation from Disputed Questions on the Power of God.

Linus2nd