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

[prodigalson2011]

A creatures essence is its intrinsic identity and esse is not.

A creature is an existing substance, therefore it is not identical to its essence. However, it is only a contingently existing substance, therefore neither is it identical to its existence. It is identical only to what it actually is.

Men can be different because the essence of man is not identical to existence and its principle of differentiation is matter. Thus there can be actual differentiation of the same nature. Esse actualizes natures. Differentiation in turn occurs because of the inherent principles involved in the nature of that which is being created. As far as i can tell you have a flawed understanding of how a universal is differentiated among many substances since you seem to think that esse as distinct from God is the principle of differentiation.

Yet another case of very sloppy logic. Intellectual substances, such as angels or man’s rational soul, are immaterial, and thus it is impossible that matter could the principle of differentiation for those things. Moreover, even in things that are individuated by matter, the matter which individuates them accrues to their being, not their essence. Indeed, as Aquinas says in his “Quaestiones Disputatae De Anima” (Article I):

The act of existing (esse) and individuation (individuatio) of a thing are always found together. For universals do not exist in reality inasmuch as they are universals, but only inasmuch as they are individuated.

As for immaterial things, if not by matter, then by what are they individuated? In “De Unitate” (Chapter V) he writes:

Separate substances, therefore, are individual and singular, but they are individuated not by matter but by this: that it is not their nature to exist in another and consequently to be participated in by many.

Let’s stop right here. For here we have it: immaterial things are individuated by their individual existence. This is why Aquinas says, in the same Article of “…De Anima” previously cited, that the rational soul “has a complete act of existing of its own.”

Now, from the previous statement, Aquinas concludes:

*From which it follows that if any form is of a nature to be participated in by something, such that it be the act of some matter, it can be individuated and multiplied by comparison with matter. *

This, by extension, affirms the impossibility of God’s being the esse of created things. That which is an act unto itself (God) cannot be the act of something else. Similarly, each individual intellect must have (though not be) its own act of existence, or else it could have no being, or will, of its own.

Also it does not follow logically that if the essence of man is identical with that which is actually man that therefore essence is identical with esse.

Yes, it does. That which is actual is in act. So if the essence of man is identical with actual man, it must include that act.

That would only follow if being actual was an intrinsic expression of a things nature,

Do you realize you just supported my argument? Precisely because being actual is not intrinsic to the essence of a thing, the essence of man is not identical to actual man. The actual man has actuality, the essence does not. Therefore, they are not identical.

but what sense then does it make for that nature to begin or cease to exist. It makes no sense.

You’re right. And that’s why the essence of a man is not identical to an actual man.

Esse is God’s essence, and so there can be only one.

He is immortal, born in the Highlands of Scotland 400 years ago. He is not alone. There are others like him: some good, some evil. For centuries he has battled the forces of darkness with holy ground his only refuge. He cannot die unless you take his head, and with it his power. In the end there can be only one. He is Duncan MacLeod–the Highlander.

But seriously, though. I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here. Your wording is ambiguous. If it is that there can be only one thing in which essence and existence are identical, then I agree. If you are saying that there can only be one esse, then it amounts to nothing but a baseless assertion.

Acts, in a general sense, can always be multiplied, provided that there is something receptive of such an act. But once it is received into some determinate form, it has been individuated. So, for instance, when one billiard ball strikes another and sets it into motion, the act of rolling has been multiplied, in general, but individuated in a particular thing, i.e. the act of rolling of one ball is not the act of rolling of the other.

Just so, God’s act of existing is His own, and that of His creations is the immediate effect of His activity. For God, who can do anything possible, anything which does not entail a logical contradiction is receptive of His activity. Thus, he may impart unto anything which is not a logical impossibility an act of existing.

In any case, the point to which this was addressed was that nothing is identical to its essence except God, as there is no distinction in Him whatsoever.

 

[prodigalson2011]

No it would not, since esse is not identical with substances. A substance is an essence that has been given actuality; it is not an essence that is actuality itself.

An existent thing is an actuality because it has an act of existence. Dictionary.com defines actuality as:

1. actual existence; reality.
2. an actual condition or circumstance; fact: Space travel is now an actuality.

We are actual existences. Creation is a reality.

You are, again, committing the fallacy of reification. Expressions like “an essence has been given actuality” cannot be taken literally. An essence is an abstraction, and this is why the Church, as well as Aquinas, teaches that God creates things “according to their whole substance.” So you are arguing against a straw man when you say that a substance is not “an essence that is actuality itself.” The created thing (which is not identical to its essence) is an actuality.

Well there obviously is, since a creature cannot act unless its potency to act is actualized

Which it has been once it has been created. Potency can be reduced to act only by another thing which is in act; something that has been created is in act.

And no, there is no such thing as activity which does not reduce potency to act. That is what an act does, and act is the root word of activity. “Activity” is active by its very definition. You are again committing the fallacy of “argument by gibberish (prestigious jargon)”; you are using all the right words but in self-contradictory ways that really say nothing at all.

and since an essence as it is actual is not its actuality it cannot be that which actualizes its potency.

An essence is never actual. A substance is actual. Its act of existing actualizes its primary power (i.e. it becomes an actual thing), and once it is an actual thing, it can act according to the passive powers it possesses. These passive powers (potencies) belong to it by its very nature, and, in the case of intellectual substances, can be activated without the influence of any external power, excepting the power which sustains them in existence and thus allows them to perform secondary acts on their own. For God has given them such dignity as to be able to make their own choices.

What you are saying here does not make any sense and completely undermines the esse and essence distinction.

No, I am not. A creature is a real thing. A real thing is an actuality. An esse is not an actuality in itself, it is the “is” of some thing. A certain thing is an actuality because it has (not is) an act of existing. The act of existing of anything must come to it from outside, therefore it is not identical to that act.

You simply must maintain such a cloudy (lack of) distinction between terms to attempt to salvage your argument. Clarity is revealing.

You are saying that a creature is not distinct from the act of existence.

As I just showed, no I am not.

In and of itself a creature is not a real thing. It is actual because esse has been conjoined to essence, and the two remain distinct even when conjoined.

Reification, reification, reification. You can do it all day, but like the abstractions it employs, it will get you nowhere.

I have not argued against that.

Yes, you have. You have said there is no power other than God. But to have freedom of the will is to have a power of one’s own.

No, it means that God actualizes the potential actions of your nature.

Which means that God actualizes your every thought, your every motion, etc. You are a puppet. God must give you your thoughts, make your choices, carry out your actions. But, on the contrary, God has given us a nature such that we have our own will and thus our own ability to act (actualize) our passive powers (thinking, willing, knowing, acting, loving, etc.)

Secondly i did not say that creatures do not have some kind of Act, but their act is not identical to the act of existence.

So what, pray tell, is the act of a creature? The “act of kind of, but not really, existing”?

And since power comes from the act of existence (more does not come from less) it must come from that which is pure actuality and this power cannot be distinct from it.

This is very poor argumentation. An “act of existence” and “pure actuality” are not synonymous terms.

Creatures have power only in an analogous sense*(they do not really
have power, only something like it*).

Your constant abuse of the term “analogous” is grating.

This is to say they have kinds of “actions” intrinsic to their nature. But this is a completely passive power in the sense that a things activity is absolutely contingent on something else external to its nature. Its like a car that can make certain actions once it is moving, but it cannot act at all if it does not have the fuel or power to generate that activity.

The ability to perform an action is, simply, a power. A passive power is a potential to perform some kind of action. An active power is that potential put into act. A car has the power to move provided it is being sustained by the fueling power of gas. Likewise, creatures have the power to act, provided they continue to simply be, and thus exercise their own powers, through the sustaining power of God.

 

[prodigalson2011]

If they truly have their own distinct power to exist and act, it make no sense to speak of God as sustaining them. Because then you are speaking of two principles that are not truly the act of existence or power as it relates to creatures intrinsic nature; they completely impotent concepts and are completely other than the labels you have arbitrarily placed upon them.

You are just twisting definitions to fit your own very muddy philosophy. The power of a car to move is really distinct from, though dependent upon, the power of gas to combust. An act of existence gives power to a thing according to its nature, just as the gas’s act of combustion gives the car its own power to act according to its nature (for it is not of the nature of gas to turn wheels, etc. These are the powers inherent to the car).

God, unlike gas, though, can do anything he wants. But since He is pure goodness, His will is to give things their own being and their own power that they might share in freedom and, thus, share in love. Specifically, His love. Thus, through creation, God gives his creatures power according to their nature.

 

[Linux]

An existent thing is an actuality because it has an act of existence. Dictionary.com defines actuality as:

1. actual existence; reality.
2. an actual condition or circumstance; fact: Space travel is now an actuality.

We are actual existences. Creation is a reality.

The act of Existence, in reference to creatures, is analogy and is not to be taken literally.

You are in fact arguing that a creatures nature is identical with the act of existing.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The act of Existence, in reference to creatures, is analogy and is not to be taken literally.

You are in fact arguing that a creatures nature is identical with the act of existing.

You can keep repeating that all day long, it’s not going to make it true. I’ve already demonstrated, via Aquinas himself, that your understanding of the analogy of being is completely wrong.

And I have also already demonstrated that a creature’s nature is not identical with the act of existing.

 

[Linux]

You are just twisting definitions to fit your own very muddy philosophy. The power of a car to move is really distinct from, though dependent upon, the power of gas to combust. An act of existence gives power to a thing according to its nature, just as the gas’s act of combustion gives the car its own power to act according to its nature (for it is not of the nature of gas to turn wheels, etc. These are the powers inherent to the car).

God, unlike gas, though, can do anything he wants. But since He is pure goodness, His will is to give things their own being and their own power that they might share in freedom and, thus, share in love. Specifically, His love. Thus, through creation, God gives his creatures power according to their nature.

You are making a straw-man of my argument. I never said that God determines the particular activities of each nature; this is to say the way a thing behaves once it has the power to do so. It is you who has a flawed understanding of secondary causes as it relates to metaphysics. Secondary causes deals specifically with the nature of that which has been conjoined to the act of existence. It deals with the inherent behavior of natures, not the act of existence.

I argued that more power/existence cannot come from less, and therefore all power comes from God (not nothing) and this power cannot be distinct from God because it is what he is; his power is his actuality. Power cannot come from nothing; it can only come from that which is pure actuality because there is no power in nothing just like there is no existence in nothing. There is only power in that which is identical with the act of existence. God treating nothing like a distinct object (which he would have to do if it is not through his existence and power alone by which essences act) and turning it into a distinct intrinsic act of existence with its own extrinsic power is clearly a metaphysical contradiction no matter how much you try to ignore it (*it contradicts the principle that more existence/power cannot come from less).

The act of a creature is a completely passive power in the sense that it cannot act at all without God actualizing its activity. You argument amounts to saying that creatures have their own distinct intrinsic power to perform creatio-exnihilo, and that my friend is certainly a heresy.*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And I agree. But the key is that he gives you your own power. He sustains you, and thus he sustains that power. But that power is yours alone. God’s is the supreme power and the cause of all other powers, but he has given his creation the dignity of exercising its own power. But you already know that.

Always good to reiterate .

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

And I have also already demonstrated that a creature’s nature is not identical with the act of existing.

No you have not. You rendered esse into that which is not an actual thing (and thus not really that much different from a pure abstraction posing as a power) and then claimed that it has an intrinsic active power (power only exists in being) to bring potency to act while being completely contingent on the nature of that which it is bringing to act!!!

And then you want to say that an actual nature is actuality itself but is not identical with the act of existence.

That is clearly irrational. You are playing a game of semantics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linux, you are just wrong here. We’ve gone all through that many times here. we are well aware of your view, which I think results from either your failure to understand what Thomas says or you just think he is wrong ( not very wise since every responsible Thomis since agrees with him) or you have some ulterior motive.

Linux says: " You are making a straw-man of my argument. I never said that God determines the particular activities of each nature; this is to say the way a thing behaves once it has the power to do so. It is you who has a flawed understanding of secondary causes as it relates to metaphysics. Secondary causes deals specifically with the nature of that which has been conjoined to the act of existence. It deals with the inherent behavior of natures, not the act of existence.

I argued that more power/existence cannot come from less, and therefore all power comes from God (not nothing) and this power cannot be distinct from God because it is what he is; his power is his actuality. Power cannot come from nothing; it can only come from that which is pure actuality because there is no power in nothing just like there is no existence in nothing. There is only power in that which is identical with the act of existence. God treating nothing like a distinct object (which he would have to do if it is not through his existence and power alone by which essences act) and turning it into a distinct intrinsic act of existence with its own extrinsic power is clearly a metaphysical contradiction no matter how much you try to ignore it (*it contradicts the principle that more existence/power cannot come from less).

The act of a creature is a completely passive power in the sense that it cannot act at all without God actualizing its activity. You argument amounts to saying that creatures have their own distinct intrinsic power to perform creatio-exnihilo, and that my friend is certainly a heresy. "

Wrong on many counts.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Linux, you are just wrong here. We’ve gone all through that many times here. we are well aware of your view, which I think results from either your failure to understand what Thomas says or you just think he is wrong ( not very wise since every responsible Thomis since agrees with him) or you have some ulter motive.

Linux says: " You are making a straw-man of my argument. I never said that God determines the particular activities of each nature; this is to say the way a thing behaves once it has the power to do so. It is you who has a flawed understanding of secondary causes as it relates to metaphysics. Secondary causes deals specifically with the nature of that which has been conjoined to the act of existence. It deals with the inherent behavior of natures, not the act of existence.

I argued that more power/existence cannot come from less, and therefore all power comes from God (not nothing) and this power cannot be distinct from God because it is what he is; his power is his actuality. Power cannot come from nothing; it can only come from that which is pure actuality because there is no power in nothing just like there is no existence in nothing. There is only power in that which is identical with the act of existence. God treating nothing like a distinct object (which he would have to do if it is not through his existence and power alone by which essences act) and turning it into a distinct intrinsic act of existence with its own extrinsic power is clearly a metaphysical contradiction no matter how much you try to ignore it (*it contradicts the principle that more existence/power cannot come from less).

The act of a creature is a completely passive power in the sense that it cannot act at all without God actualizing its activity. You argument amounts to saying that creatures have their own distinct intrinsic power to perform creatio-exnihilo, and that my friend is certainly a heresy. "

Wrong on many counts.

Linus2nd
Claiming that it is wrong does not make it so. In fact it is right whether you like it or not. And you have not refuted it, but instead evaded the argument with the assertion that you have refuted it elsewhere.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Claiming that it is wrong does not make it so. In fact it is right whether you like it or not. And you have not refuted it, but instead evaded the argument with the assertion that you have refuted it elsewhere.

I do not have to prove it to that your position is incorrect. You do not have to agree with me or anyone else. And we do not have to agree with your personal interpretation. You have tried to prove your point but failed as far, as some of us are concerned. That is the way of all debates.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

I do not have to prove it to that your position is incorrect. You do not have to agree with me or anyone else. And we do not have to agree with your personal interpretation. You have tried to prove your point but failed as far, as some of us are concerned. That is the way of all debates.

Linus2nd

Another evasion.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You are making a straw-man of my argument. I never said that God determines the particular activities of each nature; this is to say the way a thing behaves once it has the power to do so. It is you who has a flawed understanding of secondary causes as it relates to metaphysics. Secondary causes deals specifically with the nature of that which has been conjoined to the act of existence. It deals with the inherent behavior of natures, not the act of existence.

Natures do not behave; things behave according to their natures. They behave by virtue of their existence. As I said to Peter Plato:

God does not actualize all potentials, otherwise creation would not have, as the Catechism says, “the dignity of acting on its own.” There is no meaningful freedom if creation plays no active (actualizing) part in its unfolding. God actualizes everything that exists, but he does not actualize every passive power (potency) contained in those things. That is left to secondary causes. That is precisely where the freedom of creation, and consequently, freedom of the will, enters in.

It makes no sense to speak of anything “behaving” in any way unless it its own power to act. And it can only act if it has its own act.

I argued that more power/existence cannot come from less, and therefore all power comes from God (not nothing) and this power cannot be distinct from God because it is what he is; his power is his actuality. Power cannot come from nothing; it can only come from that which is pure actuality because there is no power in nothing just like there is no existence in nothing.

A creature’s power does not come from nothing; it comes from the same place its existence does: God. And, yes, it can be distinct from God, because God has infinite creative power. To create means to make something from nothing, not to “share” something you already have. God creates secondary powers, because he can create whatever he wants.

There is only power in that which is identical with the act of existence.

A completely baseless assertion. There is power in that which is in act. Every act is a kind of power, pure and simple. A power may be active (act) or passive (potency).

God treating nothing like a distinct object (which he would have to do if it is not through his existence and power alone by which essences act) and turning it into a distinct intrinsic act of existence with its own extrinsic power is clearly a metaphysical contradiction no matter how much you try to ignore it (*it contradicts the principle that more existence/power cannot come from less). *

Let’s set aside the fact that your argument here is completely erroneous and just assume it’s valid. Even then, by your argument, God still has to treat “nothing” as a distinct object which he then conjoins to Himself. So your argument makes no more sense out of things. But as I have already said:

God’s act of existing is His own, and that of His creations is the immediate effect of His activity. For God, who can do anything possible, anything which does not entail a logical contradiction is receptive of His activity. Thus, he may impart unto anything which is not a logical impossibility an act of existing.

God, being of infinite power, can do or create anything he can think of (which is everything possible). Whereas limited acts (creatures) need a real potency to receive their activity, God needs only a logical potency to receive His, because His power is infinite.

The act of a creature is a completely passive power in the sense that it cannot act at all without God actualizing its activity.

An act cannot be a passive power, for “passive power” is just another term for “potency”. Once a creature has been brought into existence (has been actualized), it is an active power.

The act of existing of a creature must be actualized by God; so long as God sustains the existence of that creature, it is free to actualize the passive powers (potencies) of its nature. This is not to say that God can’t or doesn’t intervene in guiding His creation. It means that He gives His creation the dignity of acting on its own.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your argument amounts to saying that creatures have their own distinct intrinsic power to perform creatio-exnihilo, and that my friend is certainly a heresy.

You are really unbelievable sometimes, Linux. For starters, wasn’t it you who complained about trying to evade an argument with charges of heresy?

Secondly, as I have already shown, creation ex nihilo means the making of an object with no prior materials presupposed. There is nothing a creature can do that does not presuppose the existence of something else. And I already explained this at length:

*Creation is not a change. On the contrary, “what is created, is not made by movement, or by change. For what is made by movement or by change is made from something pre-existing.” (Summa Theologiae, First Part, Q. 45, Art. 3)

“Creation ex nihilo” is the making of something in its whole substance (with nothing presupposed). The movement from potency to act in creatures is simply an accidental change within a substance, with the substance of both the agent and recipient of the act presupposed.

I don’t know where you’re coming up with this stuff. *

And here, I might add, would be a good point to reflect on where you go wrong with the analogy of being: while the act of existing of a creature (that which has been created ex nihilo) must be imparted by God, artifices (those things made by humans) receive their esse from their artisans. Thus a chair, which is made entirely from preexisting materials, exists, but it receives its “esse” from its crafter and through its form. Thus, the chair really exists, but its mode of existence is analogous, not identical, to that of its material constituents and even moreso to its maker, whose intellect exists not in virtue of any composite of preexisting materials, but as an individual act, complete in itself. Hence, also, why Aquinas says that forms are part of the cause of existence. It is because these materials have taken the form of a chair that the chair exists.

No you have not. You rendered esse into that which is not an actual thing (and thus not really that much different from a pure abstraction posing as a power) and then claimed that it has an intrinsic active power (power only exists in being) to bring potency to act while being completely contingent on the nature of that which it is bringing to act!!!

Yes, I have. You have just completely ignored every very lengthy and detailed analogy I have offered you on the subject.

An esse is not an abstraction because it is the effect of God’s activity. But it is only realized in some form (be it material or immaterial) in which God shapes and sustains it. It is contingent a) on God, as its agent, and b) a form in which it can act, just as an “act of rolling” is contingent upon the thing which rolls.

And then you want to say that an actual nature is actuality itself but is not identical with the act of existence.

That is clearly irrational. You are playing a game of semantics.

No, I did not. Don’t lie to try to win an argument. I very clearly and strongly opposed even the idea of an “actual nature”:

You are, again, committing the fallacy of reification. Expressions like “an essence has been given actuality” cannot be taken literally. An essence is an abstraction, and this is why the Church, as well as Aquinas, teaches that God creates things “according to their whole substance.” So you are arguing against a straw man when you say that a substance is not “an essence that is actuality itself.” The created thing (which is not identical to its essence) is an actuality.

A substance is created in full; neither essence or act exists apart from it, except in a logical fashion (i.e. as ideas). As I have said again and again, God, being of infinite power, does not need a real potential (a potency latent in something already existing) to receive His act. He only needs a logical potency (an idea which is logically possible) to receive His act. His unlimited power brings things into being out of no prior existing thing, including Himself. It is a doctrine of the Church that creation does not emanate from the divine substance (i.e. God is not a part of His creation).

 

[prodigalson2011]

All that said, I think this is the final straw for me. I like discussing philosophy but when someone persistently ignores and outright distorts the other side’s arguments, it’s no fun, not to mention pointless.

And that is exactly what this has become. Your tactics are intellectually dishonest, Linux, and in many ways. Here are a few:

Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes.

As you have done with creation ex nihilo, the analogy of being, passive power, etc…

That your definitions of these things is completely erroneous has been shown, not by my opinion, but by the very words of those whose “intellectual property”, so to speak, these concepts are.

Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.

As you have most recently done by attacking some dreamed up argument about “actual natures” which I never made.

Badgering: This is repeating the same intellectually-dishonest debate tactic again and again in an attempt to wear out the opponent. There seems to be an implicit notion that if you say the same incorrect thing over and over enough times, that makes it true or that by saying it enough times you can make an incorrect statement have more weight in the debate.

This seems to be a particular favorite of yours. Even after I, or someone else, has responded to and resolved an objection, you ignore it, never reply to it and continue to voice the same erroneous idea over and over.

Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):* over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.*

It has been repeatedly shown to you that your understanding of several different ideas was incomplete or insufficient, but you have refused to engage the ideas any further. You have insisted on maintaining your very oversimplified understanding of the concepts at play in this debate even when explanatory resources have been offered to you.

Reifying: an abstract thing is talked about as if it were concrete.

This fallacy you have persistently committed by talking about “the behavior of natures” or an act apart from the thing of which it is the act.

Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause): * trying to use one cause to explain something, when in fact it had several causes.*

Not only have you done this with your own arguments, but you’ve used it to make straw men out of mine.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Argument By Selective Reading:* making it seem as if the weakest of an opponent’s arguments was the best he had*

This, along with badgering, seems to be your modus operandi. Numerous times throughout this thread I have offered carefully thought-out, thoroughly sourced and lengthily explained arguments which you have then virtually ignored. Consider that I offered one series of posts, spanning 6 or 7 separate posts, out of which you chose 2 or 3 sentences to which to respond. You have done this again with the last series of my posts and numerous other times throughout the thread.

And it’s not even that you pick my weakest arguments, it’s that you pick the weakest expression of my arguments, as the statements you attack are usually much more fully fleshed out and supported elsewhere. And that’s intellectually dishonest.

By contrast, I have endeavored, whenever possible, to respond to your arguments in their entirety. You could at least afford others the same respect.

Affirming The Consequent: * logic reversal. A correct statement of the form “if P then Q” gets turned into “Q therefore P”.*

God is Esse, therefore esse is God. Classic example of affirming the consequent.

Argument By Uninformed Opinion:* the arguer hasn’t bothered to learn anything about the topic.*

This goes hand in hand with your oversimplification and redefining of words. While I’m sure there are others, your notions of “creation ex nihilo” and “the analogy of being” have been shown more than once to be entirely wanting. Resources have been recommended to you to increase and refine your understanding of these things, but to which you have obviously refused to do make recourse.

Changing the subject

Yet another of your favorite tactics. This usually goes right along with your cherry picking/selective reading. Countless logical inconsistencies and problematic areas within your argument have been brought to your attention, but you never reply to them. Rather than addressing a criticism, you just look for some perceived “chink in the armor” of a correlating positive argument from the other person (which is usually not even what you make it out to be) and drill away at that point.

In sum, there’s no point in debating if the other party is not interested in an intellectually honest debate. I debate philosophy because I enjoy it and because it helps me better develop my understanding and ability to articulate my ideas. But it stops being enjoyable when your interlocutor is not interested in an honest discussion. Your refusal to engage not only my own arguments, but those of the men who fathered the very ideas we are discussing, is nothing short of frustrating and highly indicative of a lack of concern for true understanding, but rather a concern for being right.

Now, while I have been insistent on the correctness of my position, it is not just because it is my position. Truthfully, I can’t even begin to take pride in or credit for my arguments and ideas because they are not really my own: they all come, first and foremost, from the Church, and secondly from the development of those ideas by Aquinas and his intellectual descendants. The difference here is that I have devoted a fair amount of time to studying a) the Church’s teaching and b) Thomistic philosophy, to the point where, even though I am no expert, I am at least confident in my understanding of its basic tenets. But it is evident from your blatant misrepresentation of the ideas of both that you have not.

So with that said , I think I’m done here. No progress has been made in this debate for some time, because you refuse to actually engage the objections to your own argument or even attempt to attain a proper understanding of the other side’s position. If you ever decide to stop cherry-picking my arguments and actually take them on in whole, maybe I’ll reconsider.

 

[spring01]

Ever thought that perhaps human brains are limited to fully understand the process of creation?

 

[Linux]

Countless logical inconsistencies and problematic areas within your argument have been brought to your attention, but you never reply to them. Rather than addressing a criticism, you just look for some perceived “chink in the armor” of a correlating positive argument from the other person (which is usually not even what you make it out to be) and drill away at that point.

In sum, there’s no point in debating if the other party is not interested in an intellectually honest debate. I debate philosophy because I enjoy it and because it helps me better develop my understanding and ability to articulate my ideas. But it stops being enjoyable when your interlocutor is not interested in an honest discussion. Your refusal to engage not only my own arguments, but those of the men who fathered the very ideas we are discussing, is nothing short of frustrating and highly indicative of a lack of concern for true understanding, but rather a concern for being right.

Now, while I have been insistent on the correctness of my position, it is not just because it is my position. Truthfully, I can’t even begin to take pride in or credit for my arguments and ideas because they are not really my own: they all come, first and foremost, from the Church, and secondly from the development of those ideas by Aquinas and his intellectual descendants. The difference here is that I have devoted a fair amount of time to studying a) the Church’s teaching and b) Thomistic philosophy, to the point where, even though I am no expert, I am at least confident in my understanding of its basic tenets. But it is evident from your blatant misrepresentation of the ideas of both that you have not.

So with that said , I think I’m done here. No progress has been made in this debate for some time, because you refuse to actually engage the objections to your own argument or even attempt to attain a proper understanding of the other side’s position. If you ever decide to stop cherry-picking my arguments and actually take them on in whole, maybe I’ll reconsider.

So, are you actually going to deal with the argument in 839? Or you going to keep on evading and demonising you opponents. You have done everything you are accusing me of.

 

[Linux]

Secondly, as I have already shown, creation ex nihilo means the making of an object with no prior materials presupposed.

No it does not; it means creating something from nothing, and thus no materials.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So, are you actually going to deal with the argument in 839? Or you going to keep on evading and demonising you opponents.

I already did, in 846. “Keep evading” you? You make me laugh. There is not a single argument or objection you have made which I have not addressed. You cannot honestly say the same.

Linux:

You have done everything you are accusing me of.

I have redefined terms? I don’t think so: I have shown you the very definitions of them as offered by either the Church or Aquinas.

I have “cherry picked” your arguments? Find an instance where I did not respond to one of your posts line for line. On the other hand, as I already said, look where I offered a series of objections and counterarguments spanning 7 posts. How much of that did you bother to engage? Less than a paragraph.

I have been “badgering”? On the contrary, I have offered numerous different analogies and explanations, seeking to express my points in as many ways as possible and addressing any and all apparent problems they may seem to have.

I have responded to every single one of your objections, you have responded to virtually none of mine.

I have “reified” abstractions? On the contrary, I have insisted on the distinction between real things and ideas.

I have “argued from uninformed opinion”? Then why am I the only one who has offered primary sources which affirm my arguments? Why have all those sources (especially the Catechism and Aquinas himself) contradicted you?

I could go on, but as I said, I’m done. You go on thinking I’m “evading” you. I just know when an argument isn’t going anywhere and I have better things to do with my time.