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

[prodigalson2011]

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

I don’t see how what I said goes against that at all?

In any case, it’s exactly what I meant. His presence throughout creation does not imply that he is mixed with it. Creation is “within” Him because there is nowhere He is not. While He is everywhere throughout creation, His infinity also exceeds it.

 

[WmJackP]

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./QUOTE]

Certainly, if the position is not worth going further with, then by all means you shouldn’t.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see how what I said goes against that at all?

In any case, it’s exactly what I meant. His presence throughout creation does not imply that he is mixed with it. Creation is “within” Him because there is nowhere He is not. While He is everywhere throughout creation, His infinity also exceeds it.

The phrase " creation is within " God is inexact, at best. This language is not equivalent to " …in Him we live and move and have our being…". To be exact, creation is " outside " God if we want to use such terms. Or again, neither Thomas or the Church ever used such a phrase to describe God’s intimate presence throughout creation.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

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

This thread is not yours to end. I think you should just leave the thread.

 

[Linux]

Esse is an act of existence, not existence itself (Ipsum esse subsistens). Rather, esse is an effect of Ipsum esse subsistens. .

The logical conclusion of your statement is that an esse is a species of existence itself.

Esse perfects and sustains a substance in so far as God maintains that act through His will. .

How can something that begins as potency, perfect potency? That does not make sense.

As it is other than His esse, the esse of creation is not an essential act

Esse cannot be anything other than an essential act. If the esse of creation is not identical with the essence of creation then it is a thing in itself and therefore synonymously an essence and not a composite since an esse cannot meaningfully exist otherwise.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The logical conclusion of your statement is that an esse is a species of existence itself.

No, that is rather a completely erroneous conclusion. Existence itself is a substance whose essence is to exist. It is the only thing that exists necessarily.

Esse is simply an act whereby something exists. Furthermore, it is called “the actuality of all acts” because it is necessary for something to be in order for it to do anything else. Therefore, that act (esse) must be initiated by something other than itself (i.e. the well known first premise of the Kalam argument: anything that begins to exist has a cause.)

How can something that begins as potency, perfect potency? That does not make sense.

This is a particularly strong indication of the insufficiency of your current understanding of the metaphysics at play here.

It most certainly does make sense. Take for an analogy any human action. A human being and all of his respective acts begin as potency and yet perfect potency in other things all the time. A ball has the potential to roll, the hand has the potential to move the ball. The actualization of the hand’s potency in turn actualizes the potency of the ball.

In the case of God and esse, God has infinite power and “esse” is the first and most proper effect of God’s activity. Being as such the effect of an infinite power, it follows that its power to effect or actualize will be, to put it humbly, well more than commensurate to perfect its respective potency.

Esse cannot be anything other than an essential act. If the esse of creation is not identical with the essence of creation then it is a thing in itself and therefore synonymously an essence and not a composite since an esse cannot meaningfully exist otherwise.

No. Esse is not a thing in itself in any existential sense. It is an act. It can be other than an essential act given that there is at least one thing which does indeed possess such an act essentially. It can then produce such an effect in things in potency to existence (i.e. possibilities or things which could possibly exist) in the same way that fire effects fire upon things which are in potency to burn.

For an infinite power, which is necessarily the case for pure act, anything which is logically possible may be effected by its will. So if it is possible that “a thing X could exist”, the actus purus can effect the whole of that substance: thing X (essence) exists (esse). In this context, it is even more clearly seen that the esse is an act (i.e. verb). And it is by virtue of that act (esse) which is exercised by a substance in the form of X (essence) that a thing is said to exist. Because it has received an act of existing from the actus purus, that which exists without cause. Again, the cause is infinitely more than adequate to the effect.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The phrase " creation is within " God is inexact, at best. This language is not equivalent to " …in Him we live and move and have our being…". To be exact, creation is " outside " God if we want to use such terms. Or again, neither Thomas or the Church ever used such a phrase to describe God’s intimate presence throughout creation.

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s problematic. To be fair, I don’t think they used the term “outside” either.

As God is beyond spatio-temporal relations, any such terms are used metaphorically and opposite terms may be applicable depending on what kind of relational metaphor we are making.

For example, we typically think of North as “up” and South as “down.” But this, of course, is only metaphorical because we choose to view our world through a metaphorical lens such that the North Pole is the top and the South Pole is the bottom. We could just easily view it the other way around.

In a similar way, depending upon through which metaphorical lens we are describing God’s relation to creation, “within” or “without” may be applicable. If we choose to look from the angle of God’s omnipresence, “within” is a suitable metaphor. If we choose, rather, to look from the angle of his separateness from creation, “without” is a suitable metaphor in that case. Or you might even take both together to make one of those verbal devices G.K. Chesterton was so fond of: a paradox.

In any case, either one could lead to problems if interpreted literally. What is important is that we understand a) that these terms are only metaphorical and b) what specific relational quality the metaphor is addressing.

 

[Linux]

No, that is rather a completely erroneous conclusion.

If by that you mean there cannot be different kinds of esse, I agree and that is why i reject your understanding of esse in regards to creatures.

Existence itself is a substance whose essence is to exist. It is the only thing that exists necessarily.

God is esse, he is the act of existence, and that is why he exists neccesarily; and that is why i reject the idea that he creates a different kind of esse.

Esse is simply an act whereby something exists.

If it is not identical to a thing then it is a thing in itself, and therefore esse is an essence identically speaking; otherwise it is logically meaningless to speak of an esse that is distinct from the essence it actualises and at the same time is not a distinct essence itself and thus not an actual thing. It is nothing at all if it is not itself an essence. A finite esse as you present it is an ontologically meaningless concept.

Furthermore, it is called “the actuality of all acts” because it is necessary for something to be in order for it to do anything else. Therefore, that act (esse) must be initiated by something other than itself (i.e. the well known first premise of the Kalam argument: anything that begins to exist has a cause.)

Potency must be actualised by that which is **not potency **but is in fact actual, and that happens by conjoining act to potency. Otherwise it makes no sense, since more would be coming from less. If you put **esse **on the same level as a potency then esse itself needs to be conjoined to esse inorder to exist since it is a potency. But the whole point of esse being conjoined to essence is to show logically how all potency is actualised. Thus it cannot be reasonably concluded that esse is actualised from potency, if the principe of esse in the first place is precisley the basis by which we explain the actualisation of all potency.

This is a particularly strong indication of the insufficiency of your current understanding of the metaphysics at play here.

I disagree and for good reasons.

It most certainly does make sense.

No it does not.

Take for an analogy any human action. A human being and all of his respective acts begin as potency and yet perfect potency in other things all the time. A ball has the potential to roll, the hand has the potential to move the ball. The actualization of the hand’s potency in turn actualizes the potency of the ball.

Esse actualises all instances of change (which it cannot do if it two needs to be constantly actualised along with a particular essence to which it is not identical). The actualisation of potency, from nothing to something, is not cuased by an essence. It is purey a function of esse, which is how change is made possible in the first place. Secondary cuases speak about the kinds of change that are proper to a things particular essence; the kind of cuase and effect spoken of by science.

If you put esse on the same level as a potency then esse itself needs to be conjoined to esse inorder to exist. The whole point of esse being conjoined to essence its to show how potency is actualised.

In the case of God and esse, God has infinite power and “esse” is the first and most proper effect of God’s activity.

Thats irattional, if by effect you mean an esse that proceeds from God as a distinct thing, since God cannot create an essence that is identical to esse and niether can he create kinds of esse.

Being as such the effect of an infinite power, it follows that its power to effect or actualize will be, to put it humbly, well more than commensurate to perfect its respective potency.

Esse has to be an actual thing in itself inorder to actualise something distinct.

No. Esse is not a thing in itself in any existential sense.

Then insofar as ontology is concerened it is a meaningless thing that you are talking about.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linux

What you are not understanding is that the the Esse of God is a thing. But in created creatures the esse is not a thing, it is the principle of act which makes the essence to be a substance or a being. Among created beings it is the substance that is a thing. That is the difference between God and cratures.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Linux

What you are not understanding is that the the Esse of God is a thing. But in created creatures the esse is not a thing, it is the principle of act which makes the essence to be a substance or a being. Among created beings it is the substance that is a thing. That is the difference between God and cratures.

Linus2nd

If esse as conjoined to essence is not an actual thing in itself then it is an incoherent concept. You are not talking about the act of existence. Also, a substance is not identical to esse; a created substance is simply an essence that is actual; a substance is not synonmously an esse and essence in its intrinsic identity. If esse is distinct from a substance - which it is - then esse is a thing initself and thus a nature. If that were not the case then substances would be identical to their actuality which is irational since only God’s substance is existence. The substance of creatures is not. If the act of existence is not identical to a substance - which it clearly is not since substances begin to exist - then there is no escaping the fact that esse is distinct from essence as it is actual (a substance) and that your conception of a created substance is wrong and irrational.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If esse as conjoined to essence is not an actual thing in itself then it is an incoherent concept. You are not talking about the act of existence. Also, a substance is not identical to esse; a created substance is simply an essence that is actual; a substance is not synonmously an esse and essence in its intrinsic identity. If esse is distinct from a substance - which it is - then esse is a thing initself and thus a nature. If that were not the case then substances would be identical to their actuality which is irational since only God’s substance is existence. The substance of creatures is not. If the act of existence is not identical to a substance - which it clearly is not since substances begin to exist - then there is no escaping the fact that esse is distinct from essence as it is actual (a substance) and that your conception of a created substance is wrong and irrational.

It is not my concept and it is not wrong, that is the way Thomas explains it. And while you are attempting to explain it away, would you care to explain what a " form " is, or what ( prime ) " matter " is, or what " essence " is, or what " existence is before becoming actualized? They are nothing but Ideas in the mind of God. Then God utters a Word and viola, a horse is created. The Ideas of God come together as a real being. These ideas come together all at once, as principles ( causes ) of a real being, an essence that exists. Alone, by themselves, none of them are anything.

Then God utters a Word, and through Its Power things are created. But there is a certain order in this creation, eventhough it is the being or the substance that is created, not the individual principles, as such. Essence of course is primary for it defines " what " is to exist, and it may be a pure essence, a form only, or a combination of matter and form. So essence is a primary principle. But it is esse that is most essential because it makes the essence a real substance and, as such, it permeates the essence throughout, even ut its matter, if any.

Yet, as Thomas says, the act of existence is not a thing or a substance or a being. Yet it is not quite nothing. Thomas says simply, it is act, it is the act of everything which exists in creation. Only in God does it become a real Being, a real Substance. I have seen the act of existence described as a power. And that makes as much sense as anything. We can then say that the act of existence which God creates is a " power to be, " a power which permeates the entire created substance, a power which makes an essence a substance.

Of course, we would like to have a more clear and definite description of these principles, especially of existence. But we are reaching the very limits of human understanding. All we can see clearly is the real things before us, there is no doubt about them. And from them we have to infer what must be in order that they are real.

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

If by that you mean there cannot be different kinds of esse, I agree and that is why i reject your understanding of esse in regards to creatures.

Yes, I mean there cannot be different kinds of esse because esse is an active or operative principle. Esse provides the “is” of a given thing; that is all it ever does.

God is esse, he is the act of existence, and that is why he exists neccesarily; and that is why i reject the idea that he creates a different kind of esse.

God is not simply esse, and nowhere else will you find him referred to as such. Esse alone is not a thing but an act, like a push. God is a being whose essence is that act, and who thus requires nothing else to perfect that act in Him.

If it is not identical to a thing then it is a thing in itself, and therefore esse is an essence identically speaking; otherwise it is logically meaningless to speak of an esse that is distinct from the essence it actualises and at the same time is not a distinct essence itself and thus not an actual thing. It is nothing at all if it is not itself an essence. A finite esse as you present it is an ontologically meaningless concept.

Is a push an “essence” or a “thing in itself”? No, it is an act initiated by one thing and received by another. It has no existence outside the relationship between its producer and its receiver. So long as a hand pushes a book along a table, that book is in the act of motion. So long as God, in his infinite power, sustains a creature in existence, that creature is in “the act of existing,” an act by which it has, not is, being, since its act is received by external causation.

Potency must be actualised by that which is **not potency **but is in fact actual, and that happens by conjoining act to potency.

Act and potency are not conjoined; things are moved from potency to act. The esse of creation is moved from potency to act by God’s infinite power and in turn moves the essence which receives it from potency to act; just as the hand is moved from potency to act and in turn moves the book from potency to act.

Otherwise it makes no sense, since more would be coming from less.

No, if “esse” is the effect of God, it is an effect of infinite power, and thus is certainly greater than that which receives it.

If you put **esse **on the same level as a potency then esse itself needs to be conjoined to esse inorder to exist since it is a potency.

Esse is not an existent thing like a substance. It is an act received by an essence in posse which is in turn moved to being in esse.

But the whole point of esse being conjoined to essence is to show logically how all potency is actualised. Thus it cannot be reasonably concluded that esse is actualised from potency, if the principe of esse in the first place is precisley the basis by which we explain the actualisation of all potency.

“Esse is to essence as act is to potency.” Essence (potency) and esse (act) are principles within substances; so clearly acts and substances are different things. Esse, for instance, is an act, not a substance. God is a substance whose essence is that act. Therefore, having existence in and of Himself, he can effect existence upon created things, just as fire effects fire.

No it does not. Esse actualises all instances of change

It’s a little strange to me that, given that you are arguing that He is the only esse, you constantly seem to leave God out of the argument. Since God is self-subsistent esse, he does indeed actualize all things, including the esse of other things.

(which it cannot do if it two needs to be constantly actualised along with a particular essence to which it is not identical).

I think you’ve really kind of shot yourself in the foot here. Here you are saying that if esse is as I describe it, it would have to be constantly actualized (sustained), whereas before you said if esse were as I describe it, it would not have to be sustained. Which is it?

In any case, so long as it is being sustained it has the power to actualize change.

The actualisation of potency, from nothing to something, is not cuased by an essence. It is purey a function of esse, which is how change is made possible in the first place.

The actualization of potency is not caused by an essence, yet you contend that esse is an essence.

Secondary cuases speak about the kinds of change that are proper to a things particular essence; the kind of cuase and effect spoken of by science.

Though I think I may have mistermed it is such, the esse of a thing is an effect of the Primary Cause: God. Creatures themselves are secondary causes. This, however, does not affect my argument.

Thats irattional, if by effect you mean an esse that proceeds from God as a distinct thing, since God cannot create an essence that is identical to esse and niether can he create kinds of esse.

It is not a distinct thing in terms of being an existent substance; it is a distinct effective action which proceeds naturally from God’s being (an agent effects its like).

Esse has to be an actual thing in itself inorder to actualise something distinct.

God is an actual thing whose creative power actualizes distinct things through the imparting of an act of existence.

Then insofar as ontology is concerened it is a meaningless thing that you are talking about.

No, it is not. I think you are just looking at this from a very narrow ontological perspective.

 

[daler]

Linux

What you are not understanding is that the the Esse of God is a thing. But in created creatures the esse is not a thing, it is the principle of act which makes the essence to be a substance or a being. Among created beings it is the substance that is a thing. That is the difference between God and cratures.

Linus2nd

“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, baring the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it.” Baha’u’llah

 

[prodigalson2011]

prodigalson2011:

Act and potency are not conjoined; things are moved from potency to act. The esse of creation is moved from potency to act by God’s infinite power and in turn moves the essence which receives it from potency to act; just as the hand is moved from potency to act and in turn moves the book from potency to act.

To rephrase for purposes of analogical clarity (though I think both forms of the analogy work): the essence of creation is moved from potency (essence in posse) to act (essence in esse) by God’s infinite power (act), just as the book is moved from potency to act by the power (act) of the hand. The motion of the book is not the motion of the hand, but it receives its motion from the hand’s motion. Likewise, the act of existing of creation is not the act of existing of God, but it receives that act as an effect of God’s act.

Nevertheless, it is not a contradiction to say that the esse of creation is moved from potency to act; for the fact remains that all acts besides the actus purus begin as potency (things move from potency to act). The important point is that the potential act of existing has been moved from potential act to real act, and it is no longer in potency (as Aquinas teaches, a thing cannot be, with respect to the same thing, in both act and potency at the same time.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, baring the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it.” Baha’u’llah

I think you are speaking " mystically " here. " Vanity of vanities, all is vanity but to serve the Lord…" We live in a real world alright, but when we attempt to define it at its roots, it is hard to grasp.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Then God utters a Word, and through Its Power things are created. But there is a certain order in this creation, eventhough it is the being or the substance that is created, not the individual principles, as such.

If esse is not created as a distinct thing, then esse is identical to substances. You cannot have it both ways.

What do you mean by “principle”. Act is a real thing and it is absolutely distinct from substances. If it is distinct then it follows necessarily that it is a thing in itself.

There really is no escaping that fact.

 

[Linux]

Yes, I mean there cannot be different kinds of esse because esse is an active or operative principle. Esse provides the “is” of a given thing; that is all it ever does.

You are just making it up as you go along. What do you mean by active and operative principles? It seems you want to say that esse is not a real thing, but at the same time claim that it causes potency to become actual. That does not make any sense.

God is not simply esse, and nowhere else will you find him referred to as such. Esse alone is not a thing but an act, like a push.

God is simply esse. His essence is esse; in other-words his identity is the act of existence; and he is refereed to as such. He is not an essence and an esse. His essence is simply esse.

Is a push an “essence” or a “thing in itself”?

This is all meaningless what you are saying. A thing does the pushing. Pushing simply does not happen without that which is pushing. Pushing is the activity of “some-thing”

If you are saying that existence is the activity of an essence, how is that not the same as saying that esse and essence in creatures is identical, or that an essence perfects esse.

In fact what does it mean at all to speak of the activity of existence apart from the activity of a real existence. It means nothing.

So long as God, in his infinite power, sustains a creature in existence, that creature is in “the act of existing,” an act by which it has, not is, being, since its act is received by external causation.

What act of existence, whose act of existence does it have?

What could that possibly mean unless God is the “act” in which an essence is being sustained?

The act of existence we see in creatures is real, and it is distinct from the essence of creatures. It is that which perfects potency, and therefore it is actuality itself. It is objectively meaningless to speak of it otherwise. If it is objectively distinct from an essence even when that said essence is actual, then esse is a thing in itself since it is that which is holding potency in reality, and could not meaningfully do so if it were not actual reality. The essence of creatures is not a thing in itself and that is why it requires that which is actual to move it to actuality. This is achieved by conjoining act to essence. Otherwise it is an impotent concept objectively speaking. I don’t understand why you can’t see the problem of referring to esse as a mere principle as opposed to **actuality **versus potency.

Act and potency are not conjoined; things are moved from potency to act.

Take that up with Fesser.

How can potency be moved to act if act is not a thing in itself? You are not making any sense. If neither essence or esse are actual things in creatures then what sense does it make to speak of substances as being real? It makes no rational sense whatsoever. How can esse be the act of a thing if it is not real. Cleanly your understanding of esse makes no rational sense.

It can make sense if we say that esse is a thing in itself and can bring potency to act by conjoining itself with potential essences.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If esse is not created as a distinct thing, then esse is identical to substances. You cannot have it both ways.

What do you mean by “principle”. Act is a real thing and it is absolutely distinct from substances. If it is distinct then it follows necessarily that it is a thing in itself.

There really is no escaping that fact.

One thing is clear, you do not understand Thomas. That is why, a long time ago, I asked you to give us the source of your " philosophy. " Knowing that I or we might be able to diagnose the problem better.

As I said, esse is a principle of being. It is not a thing or a being or a substance. Yet is distinct from form, from essence, from prime matter, from the actual being or substance created. Thomas makes all that abundantly clear. Futher, none of these things have any reality at all in separation from the others. And they all exist only as principles of the created substances.

A principle is a cause, not an efficient or making cause, but a cause in the sense that they must be present or the substance would not exist.

Act is a real thing only in God, Who is Pure Subsisting Act. Act in creatures is the power or principle which turns an essence or form into an actually existing substance or being. I cannot make it any more clear than that.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

One thing is clear, you do not understand Thomas. That is why, a long time ago, I asked you to give us the source of your " philosophy. " Knowing that I or we might be able to diagnose the problem better.

As I said, esse is a principle of being. It is not a thing or a being or a substance. Yet is distinct from form, from essence, from prime matter, from the actual being or substance created. Thomas makes all that abundantly clear. Futher, none of these things have any reality at all in separation from the others. And they all exist only as principles of the created substances.

A principle is a cause, not an efficient or making cause, but a cause in the sense that they must be present or the substance would not exist.

Act is a real thing only in God, Who is Pure Subsisting Act. Act in creatures is the power or principle which turns an essence or form into an actually existing substance or being. I cannot make it any more clear than that.

Linus2nd

The problem is you are just making assertions and ignoring the logical problems that are being raised. If esse is not a thing in itself then it cannot be said to be that which perfects potency, since only actuality (a real being) perfects potency and esse cannot be objectively identical to created substances. Therefore it makes no sense to speak of esse as a potency and not actuality itself. Thus esse is a thing in itself and not just an aspect of a substance, and therefore esse is identically an essence.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You are just making it up as you go along. What do you mean by active and operative principles?

No, I am trying to find as many ways as I can to express my point. Regardless, I have been using the term “operative principle” throughout this thread.

Active or operative principles are exactly what they sound like: actions or operations which are principles of something. Almost any, if not all, Scholastic/Aristotelian literature you care to consult will refer to both esse and essence as principles within a thing; being that esse is an act it is therefore an active principle. And what is meant by principle? There are many definitions but the following are particularly helpful as well as relevant:
*
6. a source or fundamental cause; origin: ex: principle of life

1. chem. a constituent of a substance that gives the substance its characteristics and behaviour: bitter principle*

While definition # 9 refers specifically to chemistry, it is still suitable, for esse is a constituent of a substance that gives that substance the characteristic of existence.

For an analogy, we might say that “growing” is an operative principle of life.

It seems you want to say that esse is not a real thing, but at the same time claim that it causes potency to become actual. That does not make any sense.

Any Latin dictionary you care to consult will tell you that esse is a verb (action), not a noun (thing). That is why I say that esse is an active principle: it is an action that comprises a part of a substance.

As Armand Maurer notes in his footnotes on Aquinas’ “On Being and Essence”:

“[t]o translate esse by a noun is to reify it and to conceive it as if it were a substance or abstract essence. Esse, however, is a verb, and it designates, not an essence or substance, but the act which is the to be of the substance.”

God is simply esse. His essence is esse; in other-words his identity is the act of existence; and he is refereed to as such. He is not an essence and an esse. His essence is simply esse.

God is not simply esse, because God is a noun; He is personal. You are committing one of the fundamental errors Aquinas warns against in discussing this question: that we can know God’s nature. That esse and essence are identical in God is something we know through a logical survey of creatures. However:

• But with all this talk of God being “ipsum esse subsistens,” Aquinas believes that we should be on guard against two mistakes.

First, that God’s transcendence means that He is utterly unknowable. Aquinas’ claim that God is utterly transcendent is a conclusion and corollary of arguments that all things are caused by God. Nevertheless, Aquinas believes that creatures can provide us with genuine knowledge about God.

“Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God whether He exists, and on to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.” (S.T. Ia, 12, 12)

In a way, the only positive knowledge contained in the claim “God is transcendent” is really a claim about creatures: “The cause of creatures is utterly unlike creatures.”

This brings us to the second mistake against which we should guard ourselves. It would be a mistake to think that we know what we are talking about when we say that God is His own act of existence. For Aquinas, we know that such a claim about God is true since it follows from what we know about creatures.

“We know that this proposition which we form about God when we say God is, is true; and this we know from His effects…”(S.T. Ia, 3, 4 Reply to objection 2. See also S.T. Ia, 2, 2 Reply to objection 3.)

But we do not know what “His own act of existence” is, i.e. we do not know His nature.* (Dr. Joseph Magee, Aquinas Online)