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

[daler]

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.

Human language cannot even reach up to the supreme Reality of God. Our words are triflings, I suspect. Nevertheless, we try to put the ocean inside our cup of understanding.

The sun does not come down to the earth, but its light emanates forever from it. (Hypothetically, not literally, for we know the sun will burn up some day.) The point being that in the tradition of God being the Creator, His creation is but a reflection of His creativity.

The artist is not the art. The creation is not the Creator. That which God creates is what we term the “universe”, of which we all our part. However, our part as humans also includes the capacity to know and worship God, within the limits of our reality imposed upon us by Him, our Creator.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá’%C3%AD_Faith_and_science

 

[WmJackP]

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.
…]
And that was my argument from the very beginning. I explained to the opponents that if the esse of creatures was the Esse of God, the result would be God.
…]
The Incarnation proves the point. The Esse of the Second Person of the Trinity is the Esse of God. When that Esse is the esse of a man, a created creature, the result is God, the Son of God, Son of Man.

Therefore, if the esse of creatures is the Esse of God, the result is that the creature becomes God. So, with the exception of the Incarnation, a Divine Miracle, we must hold that the esse of creatures is a created esse and is not the Esse of God.

While you may not intend it, you continue to make the same point. Namely, that there is no such thing as absolute “nothing”. As long as you maintain the concept of a deity such as you have described, there is existence. Once an eternal and immutable extant being is conceded, the concept of “nothingness” disappears. I am sorry, but, your argument supports rather than refutes your position on ex nil creation.

 

[prodigalson2011]

While you may not intend it, you continue to make the same point. Namely, that there is no such thing as absolute “nothing”. As long as you maintain the concept of a deity such as you have described, there is existence. Once an eternal and immutable extant being is conceded, the concept of “nothingness” disappears. I am sorry, but, your argument supports rather than refutes your position on ex nil creation.

The concept of creation “ex nihilo” means that the things created have been created from no prior materials or substances. For example, God is beyond matter, space and time, yet matter, space and time exist. Neither matter, space or time were created from the substance of God. They are entirely other than God and yet there was nothing besides God prior to His creation. That is what is meant by creation ex nihilo.

 

[Linux]

The concept of creation “ex nihilo” means that the things created have been created from no prior materials or substances. For example, God is beyond matter, space and time, yet matter, space and time exist. Neither matter, space or time were created from the substance of God. They are entirely other than God and yet there was nothing besides God prior to His creation. That is what is meant by creation ex nihilo.

This is not all that you intend by creatio-exnihilo. You are also arguing that God creates an actual esse which is a distinct kind of existence while simultaneously conjoining that distinct act of existence with potency in-order to actualize the essence of the universe.

 

[WmJackP]

The concept of creation “ex nihilo” means that the things created have been created from no prior materials or substances. For example, God is beyond matter, space and time, yet matter, space and time exist. Neither matter, space or time were created from the substance of God. They are entirely other than God and yet there was nothing besides God prior to His creation. That is what is meant by creation ex nihilo.

When we describe bringing the cosmos into being, we are not just talking about materials or substances—we are discussing the state of “being”. This is the esse which Thomas describes.

I think you must agree that God exists and He has always existed and is all that IS. Hence, “other” extant materials, substances and entities must share in that same existence. Otherwise, you seem to be saying (even if you don’t intend to say it) that God created more “esse” than He Himself possesses? If that is your position, you are not stating a position that I can either accept of, for that matter, even follow. You

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While you may not intend it, you continue to make the same point. Namely, that there is no such thing as absolute “nothing”. As long as you maintain the concept of a deity such as you have described, there is existence. Once an eternal and immutable extant being is conceded, the concept of “nothingness” disappears. I am sorry, but, your argument supports rather than refutes your position on ex nil creation.

You are right about that, I did not intend to suggest that God did not exist. I really don’t see how you got that out of what I said. I made it pretty clear that God did not create the universe out of His own Substance, nor out of any other pre-existent substance. Therefore God created the universe ex nihilo, out of no prior existent being, out of non-being is the way Thomas explains it. That is good enough for me. Are you suggesting that you are a superior philosopher than Thomas or nearly 900 years of subsequent Catholic philosophers and 1,300 years of earlier Catholic thinkers, including St. Augustine? That would be a pretty bold statement. We would have to see your bona fides.

I will let ProdiagalSon speak for himself. But I have pointed out above thant God is not the only Esse. When He created the universe He created whole substances, including their act of existence which was distinct and separate from His own Act of Existence. The created act of existence is similar to in kind but distinct from God’s Act of Existence in that in each created being, the act of existence is not Perfect as God’s Act of Existence, but is limited by the form or essence in which it is received. That is what Thomas teaches and all those who followed him. This is what is in accord with the Chruch’s teaching.
Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Are you suggesting that you are a superior philosopher than Thomas or nearly 900 years of subsequent Catholic philosophers and 1,300 years of earlier Catholic thinkers, including St. Augustine? That would be a pretty bold statement. We would have to see your bona fides.

Linus2nd

Another red herring evasion of someones argument.

 

[WmJackP]

But I have pointed out above thant God is not the only Esse. When He created the universe He created whole substances, including their act of existence which was distinct and separate from His own Act of Existence.

What? the state of “being” is like a piece of cake that can be divided, quantified, parsed out–pop in and pop out of its extant state? I most certainly disagree. “Being” simply is. There are no component parts or sub-divisions. There is or isn’t such a state and if there is a “state of being”, then its application is pervasive, universally cosmic in scope and perennial.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What? the state of “being” is like a piece of cake that can be divided, quantified, parsed out–pop in and pop out of its extant state? I most certainly disagree. “Being” simply is. There are no component parts or sub-divisions. There is or isn’t such a state and if there is a “state of being”, then its application is pervasive, universally cosmic in scope and perennial.

You can hold any position you care to but, as I pointed out to Linux and Peter, your common positions has not been demonstrated and I have demonstrated that Thomas Aquinas teaces that God’s Esse is separtate and distinct from that of created beings and that this is consistent with Catholic teaching. There really isn’t any point in rehashing all these arguments again. Both sides have explained their views, so I suggest, unless someone has something new to argue, that we put an end to this discussion.

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

You can hold any position you care to but, as I pointed out to Linux and Peter, your common positions has not been demonstrated and I have demonstrated that Thomas Aquinas teaces that God’s Esse is separtate and distinct from that of created beings and that this is consistent with Catholic teaching. There really isn’t any point in rehashing all these arguments again. Both sides have explained their views, so I suggest, unless someone has something new to argue, that we put an end to this discussion.

Linus2nd

If you see no need to defend your position, by all means certainly you should abandon the debate altogether.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you see no need to defend your position, by all means certainly you should abandon the debate altogether.

It has been debated for the last 47 pages and ditto on several other threads. Do you have some new insight for your side? If not, I certainly am not going to go over the last 47 pages again. You think whatever you want about that, I’m sure the casual reader will understand the absolute pointlessness in rehashing the same ground.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

not contributing much, but interested in the discussion, i presently find the image of someone trying to shovel the water out of a natural spring coming to mind

 

[prodigalson2011]

This is not all that you intend by creatio-exnihilo. You are also arguing that God creates an actual esse which is a distinct kind of existence while simultaneously conjoining that distinct act of existence with potency in-order to actualize the essence of the universe.

1. When I say that creation is “not of the substance of God,” that implies that it possesses neither his essence nor esse. It logically follows that God creates the esse of creation. So yes, my previous post did include all that I intend by “creation ex nihilo.”
2. I do not intend to say that the created esse is a “distinct kind of existence.” That is an idea you have repeatedly put in my mouth, and one which I have both denied and refuted:

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.

Of course, this is one of the countless counterarguments I have put forth which you consistently ignore, only to later repeat the same charge to which it was directed. Repeating your arguments without fully engaging the other side’s response to them is not debating; it’s pontificating.

In any case, to elaborate on why, even if there are separate acts of existence, and even if some of them are mutable and others are not, they do not therefore become different “kinds” or “species” of existence: it is because existence is not a substance, it is the act of a substance. And it is the same kind of act in all substances. The substance of one thing is different from another thing by virtue of its essence, not its esse.

God is called “existence itself” because he is pure act, unmitigated by any limitations of nature, not because he is the act of his creation.

 

[prodigalson2011]

When we describe bringing the cosmos into being, we are not just talking about materials or substances—we are discussing the state of “being”. This is the esse which Thomas describes.

Incorrect. The esse is the act of being, not the state of being. The state of being is the state of a whole substance. The esse is only a part of it.

I think you must agree that God exists

Yes.

and He has always existed

Yes. Although, for reasons of clarity, it would be more proper to say he exists eternally. “Always” is a term relative to time. Time does not apply to God.

and is all that IS.

No. That is pantheism, and I am not a pantheist.

Hence, “other” extant materials, substances and entities must share in that same existence.

They must originate from that existence.

Otherwise, you seem to be saying (even if you don’t intend to say it) that God created more “esse” than He Himself possesses?

The implication of this question is that you think “esse” is an existent thing: it is not. Esse is the act of a substance. It cannot be quantified, except insofar as different substances exercise such an act.

But to address your question as posed, no, He does not create “more” esse than He possesses because His being is infinite. But just because his being is infinite does not mean that everything that exists must be of that same being. It simply means that nothing can either increase nor decrease God’s being and that He will necessarily be present to everything that exists. Incidentally, this is what is meant by creation being within God: precisely because He is infinite, He permeates all that is.

This is also why the Church teaches that creation neither adds to or subtracts from God. It is not drawn from Him, nor does it accrue to Him.

If that is your position, you are not stating a position that I can either accept of, for that matter, even follow. You

I’m not sure how helpful this post has been in clarifying my position; I rarely have time to properly formulate my thoughts here. Any questions or criticisms are welcome.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They must originate from that existence.

It would be more proper to say that the universe originates from God as its cause but not form His Being.

( from WmJack) The implication of this question is that you think “esse” is an existent thing: it is not. Esse is the act of a substance. It cannot be quantified, except insofar as different substances exercise such an act.

( ProdigalSon Responds)But to address your question as posed, no, He does not create “more” esse than He possesses because His being is infinite. But just because his being is infinite does not mean that everything that exists must be of that same being. It simply means that nothing can either increase nor decrease God’s being and that He will necessarily be present to everything that exists. Incidentally, this is what is meant by creation being within God: precisely because He is infinite, He permeates all that is.

We have to guard against being too quick to agree to what seems like an innocuous statement. The answer is that we have to distinguish the Esse which Is God, the Purus Actus Subsistens, as Thomas calls Him, and created esse. God is Perfect, and since God is His Own Existence, nothing can be added to or subtracted form His Being. Now since God is His Existence, for God, Existence is a " thing, " it is a Substance. For unless His Existence is a Substance, He could not Exist. So God is the one thing in which Existence is an Existing Substance. His Act is A Being.

Not so finite beings. Their act of existence is given to them as a gift which makes them real composit, finite beings. For them the act of existence is an limited act. Their act of existence is given along with all that makes them to be an existing " what. " For them the act of existence is not a substence nor a thing. It is more like a power to exist, which God gives them, which permeates their entire structure. And because it is a power to exist, it must be constantly kept active by Him who caused it.

So creatures are similar to God’s own Existence because he has given them the power to exist, an act of existence. They are thus said to " participate " in God’s own Existence, because they have a power similar to God’s Actual Existence.

This is also why the Church teaches that creation neither adds to or subtracts from God. It is not drawn from Him, nor does it accrue to Him.

You are doing fine, keep it up. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points.

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

It would be more proper to say that the universe originates from God as its cause but not form His Being.

Thanks. As indicated at the end, my post was hurried, and this is an important clarification.

We have to guard against being too quick to agree to what seems like an innocuous statement. The answer is that we have to distinguish the Esse which Is God, the Purus Actus Subsistens, as Thomas calls Him, and created esse. God is Perfect, and since God is His Own Existence, nothing can be added to or subtracted form His Being. Now since God is His Existence, for God, Existence is a " thing, " it is a Substance. For unless His Existence is a Substance, He could not Exist. So God is the one thing in which Existence is an Existing Substance. His Act is A Being.

Not so finite beings. Their act of existence is given to them as a gift which makes them real composit, finite beings. For them the act of existence is an limited act. Their act of existence is given along with all that makes them to be an existing " what. " For them the act of existence is not a substence nor a thing. It is more like a power to exist, which God gives them, which permeates their entire structure. And because it is a power to exist, it must be constantly kept active by Him who caused it.

So creatures are similar to God’s own Existence because he has given them the power to exist, an act of existence. They are thus said to " participate " in God’s own Existence, because they have a power similar to God’s Actual Existence.

I thought about this, too, awhile after I had posted, but by that time it was past the window for editing. I was going to wait for WmJack’s response before addressing it, but since you have already done so you’ve spared me the trouble. This point is also crucial to the coherence of that whole section of my post, so thanks again.

Also, that first statement you quoted wasn’t from WmJack; both are mine. Perhaps you copied the wrong part?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks. As indicated at the end, my post was hurried, and this is an important clarification.

I thought about this, too, awhile after I had posted, but by that time it was past the window for editing. I was going to wait for WmJack’s response before addressing it, but since you have already done so you’ve spared me the trouble. This point is also crucial to the coherence of that whole section of my post, so thanks again.

Also, that first statement you quoted wasn’t from WmJack; both are mine. Perhaps you copied the wrong part?

Sorry, I guess I got confused. Old age .

Linus2nd

 

[kmcarl56]

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

From what I have read and watched, scientists have actually proven that everything written in the Bible that they have tried to prove wrong or impossible scientifically, is actually true and/or scientifically possible, as far as man is capable of such proof in this current age. With regard to the “act of existing” out of nothing, isn’t that the a definition of “FAITH” itself? You know that the atom exists, that is has a nucleus, protons, and electrons, but you cannot see it, nor explain its’ origin. It came from somewhere, right?

If you are a Christian, you must believe in God. If you have the faith that God is the only real and living God, then you must believe that He has existed out of nothing forever in the past and will in the future. Good luck in finding the answer…

None of us will ever have all the answers we seek until we are able to ask God Himself, and I can’t wait to meet Him because I have a lot of questions!

I don’t need scientific proof. All I have to do is look outside and see the glorious wonders that God has made for us.

May God bless you and keep you in all you do and say from this day until eternity!

Joyful in Faith…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

From what I have read and watched, scientists have actually proven that everything written in the Bible that they have tried to prove wrong or impossible scientifically, is actually true and/or scientifically possible, as far as man is capable of such proof in this current age. With regard to the “act of existing” out of nothing, isn’t that the a definition of “FAITH” itself? You know that the atom exists, that is has a nucleus, protons, and electrons, but you cannot see it, nor explain its’ origin. It came from somewhere, right?

If you are a Christian, you must believe in God. If you have the faith that God is the only real and living God, then you must believe that He has existed out of nothing forever in the past and will in the future. Good luck in finding the answer…

None of us will ever have all the answers we seek until we are able to ask God Himself, and I can’t wait to meet Him because I have a lot of questions!

I don’t need scientific proof. All I have to do is look outside and see the glorious wonders that God has made for us.

May God bless you and keep you in all you do and say from this day until eternity!

Joyful in Faith…

Yes, by Faith we believe that God created all things out of nothing, along with space and time. It would be improper however to say that God Himself " has existed out of nothing. " God has always existed, so he could not ever have " existed out of nothing. " It is created creatures that have been made out of non-being, out of nothing.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

.

But to address your question as posed, no, He does not create “more” esse than He possesses because His being is infinite. But just because his being is infinite does not mean that everything that exists must be of that same being. It simply means that nothing can either increase nor decrease God’s being and that He will necessarily be present to everything that exists. Incidentally, this is what is meant by creation being within God: precisely because He is infinite, He permeates all that is.

It would be improper to say that " …this is what is meant by creation being within God…"

That is not what is meant when we say that " …He permeates all that is…" Creatures can never exist " within " God. The one example where this may be true is the Incarnation, and this is a Miracle and the result is God. So what ever is meant when we say, " In Him we live and move and have our being…,. " it is not that. We simply meant that God is immediately and substantially present to every aspect of His creation causing them to be, to act, and guiding and directing everything. It is more like He surrounds us, because created, finite being cannot be mixed with Eternal Being.

Linus2nd