God did not create out of nothing, since He always was there was never nothing; all was created from Him. Sometimes it is said that creation was from nothing but what is to us nothing is actually something in God’s hands.How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?
I believe that such an act would violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing, and therefore I would say that it is metaphysically impossible; no more rational than saying the universe popped out of nothing.
That being said I agree with creatio ex nihilo if by that it is meant that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials. But I reject what I would call “the rabbit out of the hat interpretation” of creation. I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.
I honestly think you are misreading that last passage. We are in God only in so far as we are caused by him. And his causation is always with his effect in the act of creating and sustaining. But God is separate from his effect. So we are not in God. I am pretty sure that this is Linus’ position as well.To preface this post…
My reply is not meant to Linus specifically, since he has “signed off” on this thread, but it is to open a discussion into what it could possibly mean for there to be more than one “esse.” ProdigalSon and Ut, you both may have some insights in how your position is not the position Aquinas tries to refute in this article.
The following is from Aquinas’ De Potentia Q. V: ARTICLE II
Keep in mind that the numbered points are the points that Aquinas is attempting to show are in error. Aquinas’ rebuttal starts at, “On the Contrary.”
This claim of Linus that creatures could have their own esse seems to me very much like a claim that creatures can exist “autonomously,” i.e., have their own esse, otherwise I have no idea what having its “own” esse could possibly mean.
Does it mean something like Point 1 (below) having received the power to “keep itself in existence?” If it does, then Aquinas clearly argues against that contention.
If it doesn’t, then what does “having its own esse” entail?
I have bold-faced key ideas that would seem relevant to the discussion.
The Reply to the Third Objection (last paragraph) is to clarify (specifically to Linus) that Jesus Christ does enter into this debate because the underlying structure of reality is, for Aquinas, tied to the Son of God.
In that paragraph he is, I think, pointing out that to be made “in God’s image” means essentially to be made “in” the Son and, by implication, from the third objection Aquinas is rebutting, it is through the Son, God’s perfect image, that we are kept in existence.
Based on this, I am pretty sure that Aquinas also agrees with Linus and myself.[13] A fourth factor that could have led them to their error is the mode of expression we use when we say that God is in all things. By this we do not mean that God is in things as a part of a thing, but as the cause of a thing that is never lacking to its effect. For we do not say that a form is in matter as a sailor is in a ship.
Esse is either the act of existing or its is not. If created essences have there own distinct act of existing then it is meaningless and arbitrary to speak of God sustaining their act of existing in being, since you are contradicting the fact that creatures already have the act of existing. Existential sustenance only becomes meaningful if creatures don’t have their own distinct act of existing. What is the point of introducing the concept of conjoining esse to essence if the end result is that a creature does not have its own sustaining act of existing but instead is being sustained in the act of existing by God? You cannot have it both ways. What possible meaning could the esse of creatures have in this case? Esse simply becomes meaningless when differentiated among creatures and at the same time made contingent upon Gods divine sustenance in order to be an act of existence.Does this seems fair? Regarding your question “what does “having its own esse” entail?” it certainly does not mean that we can in any way exist without his constant causation. It just means that God has given us something that we certainly have not merited or earned. It is a gratuitous act of overflowing goodness on the part of God.
God bless,
Ut
Signed off but not dead. " Our " position is that of Aquinas - and the only one compatable with Catholic doctrine. You repeatedly ignore two huge facts. Thomas has been taught in Catholic seminaries and studied by Catholic Philosophers/Theologians ( in good standing) for nearly 900 years. If Thomas had taught anything so astounding as you and Linux suggest, don’t you think we would have heard about it. None of his reliable commentators mention any of the things you suggest. Neither Etienne Gilson, nor Jaques Maritin, nor Regenald Garrigou-Lagarange, nor Cardianl Mercier, nor Thomas de Vio Cajetan, OP, not even Duns Scotus taught any of the things you two have advocated.To preface this post…
My reply is not meant to Linus specifically, since he has “signed off” on this thread, but it is to open a discussion into what it could possibly mean for there to be more than one “esse.” ProdigalSon and Ut, you both may have some insights in how your position is not the position Aquinas tries to refute in this article.
The following is from Aquinas’ De Potentia Q. V: ARTICLE II
Keep in mind that the numbered points are the points that Aquinas is attempting to show are in error. Aquinas’ rebuttal starts at, “On the Contrary.”
It not only seems to say that ceatures have their own esse, it is actually what it says. And Thomas does not say that creatures can exist " autononously, " and I never said that either. What I said, and what Thomas makes it clear, is that God creates an act of existence for each creature which is separate from his own but dependent on Him, not only for its creation but for its continued existence. And because the creature’s being is similar to God’s, the creature is said to " participate " or be similar to God’s own existence. That is what I said, that is what Thomas says, that is what the Church says.This claim of Linus that creatures could have their own esse seems to me very much like a claim that creatures can exist “autonomously,” i.e., have their own esse, otherwise I have no idea what having its “own” esse could possibly mean.
Absolutely not. No created creature can maintain its own existence. God keeps it in existence - always, at every moment, His " hand " is on us, on everything at every moment, keeping all in existence - that is what Thomas taught, that is what the Church teaches, that is what the Scriputres mean, that is what the Church means when it says, " …in Him we live, and move, and have our being…"Does it mean something like Point 1 (below) having received the power to “keep itself in existence?” If it does, then Aquinas clearly argues against that contention.
Just answered that.If it doesn’t, then what does “having its own esse” entail?
Thomas never mentions The Second Person except when he is talking about the Incarnation, the Transubstantion, the Trinity, and the Resurrection. Except in so far as the actual " making " of the universe and man is attributed to the Second Person of the Trinity, I fail to see how Jesus could have any bearing on the underlying structure of the created universe.The Reply to the Third Objection (last paragraph) is to clarify (specifically to Linus) that Jesus Christ does enter into this debate because the underlying structure of reality is, for Aquinas, tied to the Son of God.
No, no, please don’t put words in my mouth, nor in Thomas’. Lo’l !!!In that paragraph he is, I think, pointing out that to be made “in God’s image” means essentially to be made “in” the Son and, by implication, from the third objection Aquinas is rebutting, it is through the Son, God’s perfect image, that we are kept in existence.
The only danger here is that you have no charity or respect for philosophical debate or your opponents.No, no, please don’t put words in my mouth, nor in Thomas’. Lo’l !!!
This whole debate, as it has meandered over three or four threads, is a perfect illustartion on just how dangerous Philosophy/Theology can be to the souls of those improperly trained in them and who are not firmly grounded in their Faith, the Faith of the Catholic Church.
Linus2nd
That depends on your interpretation, and it is really irrelevant and a red herring, since such has no determining factor on whether or not the logical arguments put forth by me and peter are correct.Signed off but not dead. " Our " position is that of Aquinas - and the only one compatable with Catholic doctrine. You repeatedly ignore two huge facts. Thomas has been taught in Catholic seminaries and studied by Catholic Philosophers/Theologians ( in good standing) for nearly 900 years. If Thomas had taught anything so astounding as you and Linux suggest, don’t you think we would have heard about it. None of his reliable commentators mention any of the things you suggest. Neither Etienne Gilson, nor Jaques Maritin, nor Regenald Garrigou-Lagarange, nor Cardianl Mercier, nor Thomas de Vio Cajetan, OP, not even Duns Scotus taught any of the things you two have advocated.
Further, don’t you think that if what you say is true that it would have been important enough that the Church would have declared some Dogma or Doctrine to inform its Catholic children and scholars just what the teaching of the Church was on such important matters?
But there is nothing but silence on both accounts. That is proof enough that you are wrong. But if you both are so sure you are correct, write your book, I will be anxious to see the reviews it will get.
Linus2nd
??? Don’t have any idea what you are talking about. This is a Catholic site. Let me remind you of Humani Generis.The only danger here is that you have no charity or respect for philosophical debate or your opponents.
Aside from the fact that Thomas’ arguments are perfectly logical and so are mine, and those of Ut and ProdigalSon, refer to my post above.That depends on your interpretation, and it is really irrelevant and a red herring, since such has no determining factor on whether or not the logical arguments put forth by me and peter are correct.
Christ, the Son of GodYour analogy fails. That the 3 sides of a triangle are inseparable from the concept of a triangle is because the very definition of a triangle is a 3 sided figure. That is the essence of a triangle. You are trying to liken a real composite being to a single abstract component.If esse and essence is inseparable in real things, then they cannot fail to exist for they cannot be separated from each-other and might as well-be identical just as the 3 sides of a triangle is inseparable from the concept of a triangle. Thus what you are trying to imply here with this quote cannot be the case.
When I say that essence and esse are ontologically inseparable, I mean that they cannot be separated unless the entire substance, both esse and essence, is destroyed. In that sense, they are not so much separated as annihilated. So it is senseless to speak of esse and essence being ontologically separable when at least one of them can be seen, prima facie, to be incapable of existence without the other (and the other the same through logical deduction.) How can an essence be ontologically separable from an esse if it cannot exist without it? That is an absurdity. How can an esse be ontologically separable from an essence if the essence is what gives it that of which it is the “is”? As an esse is the “to be” of an essence, without an essence it is the being of nothing. But nothing is the absence of being. So to speak of esse as being actually apart from essence is equally absurd.Of course an essence cannot be real if esse is separated from it, as opposed to esse and essence merely being ontologically separate things in themselves. Also the distinction is not merely an abstraction, but a real objective distinction, just as the handle is its own nature and the brush is something else. Thus whatever is intended by the quote is not what you are implying and of course cannot be logically true even if that is what Aquinas intends…
I hope utunuminst won’t mind me interjecting, but I feel compelled to reply to this point.Esse is either the act of existing or its is not. If created essences have there own distinct act of existing then it is meaningless and arbitrary to speak of God sustaining their act of existing in being, since you are contradicting the fact that creatures already have the act of existing. Existential sustenance only becomes meaningful if creatures don’t have their own distinct act of existing.
I’d be more than happy to offer my perspective on these points. So, without further ado…To preface this post…
My reply is not meant to Linus specifically, since he has “signed off” on this thread, but it is to open a discussion into what it could possibly mean for there to be more than one “esse.” ProdigalSon and Ut, you both may have some insights in how your position is not the position Aquinas tries to refute in this article.
The following is from Aquinas’ De Potentia Q. V: ARTICLE II
Keep in mind that the numbered points are the points that Aquinas is attempting to show are in error. Aquinas’ rebuttal starts at, “On the Contrary.”
This claim of Linus that creatures could have their own esse seems to me very much like a claim that creatures can exist “autonomously,” i.e., have their own esse, otherwise I have no idea what having its “own” esse could possibly mean.
Does it mean something like Point 1 (below) having received the power to “keep itself in existence?” If it does, then Aquinas clearly argues against that contention.
If it doesn’t, then what does “having its own esse” entail?
I have bold-faced key ideas that would seem relevant to the discussion.
Can God Enable A Creature to Keep Itself in Existence by Itself and Without God’s Assistance?
THE second point of inquiry is whether God can make a creature able of itself to keep itself in existence independently of God , and seemingly he can do so.
To have the power to keep oneself in existence is only possible to something that exists essentially. Neither I, utunuminst or Linus has ever maintained such a claim for created beings.
- To create is more than to keep oneself in existence. Now a creature could have received the power to create according to the Master (Sent. v, 4). Therefore it could have received the power to keep itself in existence.
- The power of God over things surpasses the power of our intellect. Now our intellect can understand a creature apart from God. Much more therefore can God make a creature able of itself to keep itself in existence.
Point 2 falls more or less under the umbrella of point 1. As to point 3, I would elaborate by saying such an idea is based upon a misunderstanding of the sense in which “image” is used.
- There is a creature made to God’s image (Gen. i, 26). Now according to Hilary (De Synod.) an image is the undivided and united likeness of one thing adequately representing another: so that an image can be adequate to the thing of which it is the image. Seeing then that God needs no other to keep him in existence, it would seem that he could communicate this to a creature.
This ignores the fact that the effects of natural agents are themselves subject to the same sustaining power as the agents themselves.
- The more perfect the agent the more perfect an effect can it produce. Now natural agents can produce effects which are able to remain in existence without their causes. Therefore a fortiori God can do this.
On the contrary God can do nothing that is prejudicial to his own authority: and it would be prejudicial to his dominion if anything could exist without his upholding it. Therefore God cannot do this.
I answer that God’s omnipotence does not imply that he can make two contradictories true at the same time. Now the statement that God can produce a thing which does not need to be upheld by him involves a contradiction. For we have already proved that every effect depends on its cause in so far as it is its cause. Accordingly the statement that a thing needs not God to uphold its existence implies that it is not created by God: while the statement that such a thing is produced by God implies that it is created by him. Wherefore just as it would involve a contradiction to say that God produced a thing that was not created by him, even so it would involve a contradiction were one to say that God made a thing that did not need to be kept in existence by him. Wherefore God is equally unable to do either.
Reply to the First Objection. Since to create is to be the cause of something, and only that which has no cause needs not to be kept in existence by another, it is clear that not to need to be kept in existence by another is more than to create: even as to have no cause is more than to be a cause. Moreover it is not altogether true that the power of creating is communicable to a creature, seeing that it is the act of the first agent as we have shown above (Q. iii, A. 4).
Rather than go through Thomas’ rebuttal point by point, I will just repeat what I said in my last reply to Linux, wherein I explain, in my own words, how a created act of existence still requires the sustaining power of God:Reply to the Second Objection. Although the intellect is able to understand a creature without understanding God, it cannot understand a creature not being kept in existence by God, since this involves a contradiction, as if one were to say that a creature is not created by God, as stated above (Q. iii, A. 5)…
Your entire argument just fell apart right here. Two things that are not completely identical are not identical.Esse and essence is not a merely a functional distinction, for if that were the case esse and essence would be identical in everything but function,
Yes, it would, precisely because it does not possess any existential function.and therefore an essence would not fail to exist.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.But that does not make any sense for how can a man be identical to existence accept in function? If you are your esse then your act or function is your esse.
There is no species of existence. To exist is to exist, period. What is different is that which exists. It is the existent substance that exhibits such properties as finitude, etc. These are conferred by the essence. The act of existing is the same principle in everything that exists. An individual act allows individual substances, such as individual intellects, to exist. Whether or not or for how long a substance can maintain that act is determined by its form and essence.And yes, there is a contradiction involved in God making a species of existence.
The act of Existence is just the act of Existence (esse). The act of existence is either an essence in and of itself (God), or it is conjoined to an essence.I hope utunuminst won’t mind me interjecting, but I feel compelled to reply to this point.
An act of existing is not the same as essential existence.
Never said it did equate. Creatures differ from God in the fact that they are actual only in the respect that their being something is only possible when an “act” (esse) is conjoined to potency; whereas God is esse itself, and therefore called a self subsistent being.For something to exist of its own accord, the existence must be identical to the essence. Having an act of existence does not equate to being existence. .
Well if this created act of existing cannot sustain essences in existence, then it is not functioning as an act of existence, in which case what is it and what is the point of conjoining it with potency if it is in fact not that which brings potency to act.Insofar as the esse given to creation does not belong to it essentially, it is impossible for creation to sustain this act by its own power. Therefore, God must sustain the esse of creation.
More fear-mongering i see. The last thing you want is for people to engage with my argument rationally.??? Don’t have any idea what you are talking about. This is a Catholic site. Let me remind you of Humani Generis.
" 9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
Linus2nd
- If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
- Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.
- Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
- 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.
Now, our positions coincide until we reach the bolded section. There is a difference between having esse and having God’s esse. God’s esse is identical to his nature. Therefore to “have” the esse of God is to have the nature of God. For the esse of creation is distinct from essence; God’s is not. God’s esse cannot suddenly become distinct from his essence when applied to a creature. So for the act of a being to be God, it follows that that being becomes God’s act. That is, pure unlimited act. For as God’s nature is as such, it cannot be subordinated to (take the form of) another nature.The act of Existence is just the act of Existence (esse). The act of existence is either an essence in and of itself (God), or it is conjoined to an essence.
Never said it did equate. Creatures differ from God in the fact that they are actual only in the respect that their being something is only possible when an “act” (esse) is conjoined to potency; whereas God is esse itself, and therefore called a self subsistent being.
Creatures have esse, and God is esse, therefore we have God and yet still we are not God; since like you said having esse does not equate to being esse.
The esse of creation is an instrument of God. It brings potency to act through God’s creative power. It is necessary for creation to receive its own act because the esse of God is God; it cannot be other than God. If cannot God confer esse unto something, then God cannot create.Well if this created act of existing cannot sustain essences in existence, then it is not functioning as an act of existence, in which case what is it and what is the point of conjoining it with potency if it is in fact not that which brings potency to act.
Esse is an act of existence, not existence itself (Ipsum esse subsistens). Rather, esse is an effect of Ipsum esse subsistens. Esse perfects and sustains a substance in so far as God maintains that act through His will. As it is other than His esse, the esse of creation is not an essential act, and thus requires the sustenance of something that does have existence essentially. God effects his like so far as is possible, but he cannot duplicate himself. He creates beings analogous to Himself insofar as they exist to some degree of perfection. On the other hand, if your argument is true, then there really is no need for God to sustain them in existence through an act of the will, for once something has received essential existence as part of its being, it obviously exists essentially.Perfecting potency an sustaining it in act is one and the same action. If a thing is act then it functions as act and does not need to be sustained since that would be contradictory of the fact that it is existence. Esse is existence, it does not “have” existence.
I believe I see your point and it is an interesting one. The RC faith asserts that God is existence. So what then does it mean for this “deity of existence” to create other extant entities? In other words, if all there is–is God, then how can it be that something, that is not God, come into being. Isn’t that your point, namely, that there is no such thing as “nothing” because God is all there is and He is existence?How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?
I believe that such an act would violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing, and therefore I would say that it is metaphysically impossible; no more rational than saying the universe popped out of nothing.
That being said I agree with creatio ex nihilo if by that it is meant that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials. But I reject what I would call “the rabbit out of the hat interpretation” of creation. I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.
Hi WmJackP,I believe I see your point and it is an interesting one. The RC faith asserts that God is existence. So what then does it mean for this “deity of existence” to create other extant entities? In other words, if all there is–is God, then how can it be that something, that is not God, come into being. Isn’t that your point, namely, that there is no such thing as “nothing” because God is all there is and He is existence?
If that is the question then my response would be to read Lawrence Krause’s recent work, A Universe from Nothing.
OK. I pulled it up and will read it. thanksHi WmJackP,
Have you read Edward Feser’s blog on nothing? edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fifty-shades-of-nothing.html
It is a good read and offers an interesting critique of Krause’s feature rich Nothing.
God bless,
Ut
I advise you to read all my posts, especially the most recent three or four above before agreeing to this. What you have encountered here is a couple of Sophists at work.I believe I see your point and it is an interesting one
Incorrect, it teaches that God is simple, and Scripture reveals God as " I am Who am, tell them ’ I am ’ sends you…" It is Thomas Aquinas who taught that God is Pure Esse Subsistens. And this accords with Church teaching, but is not actually a part of Catholic Doctrine.The RC faith asserts that God is existence.
And that is exactly what I have been arguing against for months. These positions are contrary to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and to Catholic Doctrine. No Catholic can hold them.So what then does it mean for this “deity of existence” to create other extant entities? In other words, if all there is–is God, then how can it be that something, that is not God, come into being. Isn’t that your point, namely, that there is no such thing as “nothing” because God is all there is and He is existence?
.A Universe from Nothing