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

[Linux]

Oh boy, the pot calling the kettle black .

What does that mean linus, this phrase your using. What are you calling me?

True, but I know what is acceptable for Catholics to hold in these matters.

Supposedly you know and i don’t. Yet there is no real evidence, just empty accusations.

Of course I have only persuasive influence. No one has to believe me.

Nobody should believe anything you say simply because the kind of tactics you use reveals a weakness in your ability to reason.

To you perhaps, not to me or orthodox Catholics.

You haven’t proven that i don’t count among orthodox Catholics; you are just begging the question.

Of course I realize that.

I don’t think you do; your face value interpretation of Aquinas, and your exclusion of anybody who has a different interpretation, would imply there is only one school with absolutely no room for critical thinking.

None of this is true. I used Thomas’ arguments because I happen to agree with them.

Perhaps you agree with them to the degree that you can understand it, but it is at least evident to me that you do not fully understand the logical or ontological implications involved in the esse and essence distinction and what it really means to make that distinction.; or perhaps you are unwilling to accept them for fear of what it might represent in your opinion.

Your interpretation of esse and how it relates to essence reduces the distinction to a mere abstract differentiation from a logical standpoint which leads to contradictions which you refuse to admit to. You want to say that esse is not identical to actuality but is instead non-actual and is what causes actuality in a thing (something i have never seen any Thomist say let alone Aquinas), and you want to also say that actuality is distinct from essence, and at the same time you what to imply that there is no ontological difference between a substance and its actuality.

But this can only be the case if the esse and essence distinction is merely a logical one like distinguishing between one side of a triangle in reference to the other two sides, as opposed to a real ontological distinction between two separate natures entirely. But this contradicts the real distinction between esse and essence, and in fact it makes the whole concept uneventful and hardly worthy of making Aquinas stand out from Aristotle.

Because it will let others know what kind of prejudices you may have. And it is clear you have some. At the moment, we are free to assume the worst.

I have no prejudices accept perhaps against blind conformity and sentimentality. If i disagree with you it is because i don’t think that what you are saying is reasonable. Its got nothing to do with supporting a religious or philosophical preference. A particular philosophy is only as useful to me as much as it demonstrates itself as reasonable, and the same is true of religion.

I have no interest in rolling over merely because some person on some forum claims to be an authority on the matter and that my argument should be rejected on the basis of that claim.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What does that mean linus, this phrase your using. What are you calling me?

Supposedly you know and i don’t. Yet there is no real evidence, just empty accusations.

Nobody should believe anything you say simply because the kind of tactics you use reveals a weakness in your ability to reason.

You haven’t proven that i don’t count among orthodox Catholics; you are just begging the question.

I don’t think you do; your face value interpretation of Aquinas, and your exclusion of anybody who has a different interpretation, would imply there is only one school with absolutely no room for critical thinking.

Perhaps you agree with them to the degree that you can understand it, but it is at least evident to me that you do not fully understand the logical or ontological implications involved in the esse and essence distinction and what it really means to make that distinction.; or perhaps you are unwilling to accept them for fear of what it might represent in your opinion.

Your interpretation of esse and how it relates to essence reduces the distinction to a mere abstract differentiation from a logical standpoint which leads to contradictions which you refuse to admit to. You want to say that esse is not identical to actuality but is instead non-actual and is what causes actuality in a thing (something i have never seen any Thomist say let alone Aquinas), and you want to also say that actuality is distinct from essence, and at the same time you what to imply that there is no ontological difference between a substance and its actuality.

But this can only be the case if the esse and essence distinction is merely a logical one like distinguishing between one side of a triangle in reference to the other two sides, as opposed to a real ontological distinction between two separate natures entirely. But this contradicts the real distinction between esse and essence, and in fact it makes the whole concept uneventful and hardly worthy of making Aquinas stand out from Aristotle.

I have no prejudices accept perhaps against blind conformity and sentimentality. If i disagree with you it is because i don’t think that what you are saying is reasonable. Its got nothing to do with supporting a religious or philosophical preference. A particular philosophy is only as useful to me as much as it demonstrates itself as reasonable, and the same is true of religion.

I have no interest in rolling over merely because some person on some forum claims to be an authority on the matter and that my argument should be rejected on the basis of that claim.

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

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd

For Catholics, other Christians, Jews, and Muslims

Linus2nd Responds
You cannot say that and hold the following positions:

LINUX has put forward a number of propositions which cannot be held by Catholics.

1. God cannot create an " act of existing " which is not His Own Act of Existing
2. God cannot create an " act of existing " ex nihilo.
3. We exist, ontologically, in the mind of God.
4. The universe exists, ontologicallly, in the mind of God.
5. God’s " Act of Existing " is the " act of existing " of creatures.
6. God is the only Esse
7. There are no created esses that are separate and distinct from God’s own Esse.
   8, That God creates Essences by sharing with them His Own Esse
8. To excape the odium of an heresy akin to Pantheism because of point # 8, he says that Essence is distinct from Esse.

Linus2nd

 

[JamesCaruso]

I s the gist of the Battle of the Linuses whether ‘from nothing’ really means ‘from nothing’ -or- ‘virtually from nothing’ or ‘quite nearly from nothing’? I have no training in theology, but I would think that St. Thomas was a very exacting individual (it’s part of the reason I don’t enjoy laboring through his arguments, and I mean ‘laboring’, besides the archaic language) and he would never say ‘from nothing’ if he meant something else, or at the very least we would have endless pages of St. Thomas explaining exactly what he meant by ‘from nothing’ if in fact he meant anything other than ‘from nothing’. Definitions are of paramount importance in philosophy/theology, and especially so when they are foundational. To suppose that St. Thomas was remiss in this respect is tantamount to saying he was amateurish, like myself, or else overrated. I have no idea what ‘from nothing’ meant to people living in those centuries around the time of Thomas, but the Church surely did, and it too seemed content with ‘from nothing’ without the need for lengthy elaborations, either then or later as language evolved, if there was any evolution of Latin in the first place. Am I making any sense?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I s the gist of the Battle of the Linuses whether ‘from nothing’ really means ‘from nothing’ -or- ‘virtually from nothing’ or ‘quite nearly from nothing’? I have no training in theology, but I would think that St. Thomas was a very exacting individual (it’s part of the reason I don’t enjoy laboring through his arguments, and I mean ‘laboring’, besides the archaic language) and he would never say ‘from nothing’ if he meant something else, or at the very least we would have endless pages of St. Thomas explaining exactly what he meant by ‘from nothing’ if in fact he meant anything other than ‘from nothing’. Definitions are of paramount importance in philosophy/theology, and especially so when they are foundational. To suppose that St. Thomas was remiss in this respect is tantamount to saying he was amateurish, like myself, or else overrated. I have no idea what ‘from nothing’ meant to people living in those centuries around the time of Thomas, but the Church surely did, and it too seemed content with ‘from nothing’ without the need for lengthy elaborations, either then or later as language evolved, if there was any evolution of Latin in the first place. Am I making any sense?

You are correct, Thomas meant exactly what he said and the Chuch also understands what he meant and what she means. The battle your refer to is about more than that however. But hopefully that has died a quiet death. We are all sick and tired of it.

Linus2nd

 

[JohnMichaels]

I believe that such an act would violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing, and therefore I would say that it is metaphysically impossible; no more rational than saying the universe popped out of nothing.

That being said I agree with creatio ex nihilo if by that it is meant that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials. But I reject what I would call “the rabbit out of the hat interpretation” of creation. I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.

Hello. This is a looooong thread, & has a lot of interesting points. However, I don’t wanna read it all and catch up. Only make a small comment on the OP.

I would ask if the magician himself counts as a pre-existing physical material? If you allow he himself, then I’d agree he cannot create another physical object from nothing, but he can create something from nothing.

Sound, for example. If the magician claps his hands, he creates sound where there was none.
If the magician is God, & God claps his hands, I could argue it would be rational to think that cause, had an affect

Just saying
Cheers

 

[JamesCaruso]

Hello. This is a looooong thread, & has a lot of interesting points. However, I don’t wanna read it all and catch up. Only make a small comment on the OP.

I would ask if the magician himself counts as a pre-existing physical material? If you allow he himself, then I’d agree he cannot create another physical object from nothing, but he can create something from nothing.

Sound, for example. If the magician claps his hands, he creates sound where there was none.
If the magician is God, & God claps his hands, I could argue it would be rational to think that cause, had an affect

Just saying
Cheers

But if God creates out of the stuff that is Himself, we are getting into the area of whatever that heresy was that said all creation is an emanation from or of God. If only God existed pre-creation, then how would you account for matter being made out of God unless you considered God to be just another form of matter, such as some scientists hypothesize, considering God to be energy. But the Church is clear in saying that God created the universe from nothing, not from Himself. Is spirit energy? No, energy belongs to the physical universe.

 

[JohnMichaels]

But if God creates out of the stuff that is Himself, we are getting into the area of whatever that heresy was that said all creation is an emanation from or of God. If only God existed pre-creation, then how would you account for matter being made out of God unless you considered God to be just another form of matter, such as some scientists hypothesize, considering God to be energy. But the Church is clear in saying that God created the universe from nothing, not from Himself. Is spirit energy? No, energy belongs to the physical universe.

Given the nature of “God” any God, is it really irrational to believe God could do anything? He’s GOD. If you assume God must follow the rules of the magician, then he isn’t God. He IS the magician.

In my opinion, from an atheist mind you, it’s a losing question from it’s onset and it baffles me it lasted this long. The sheer premise of the question eliminates it.
“How does God create”

(I know you didn’t start the thread, just stating my opinion on it in general)

You allowed God, meaning the flood gates opened and all possibilities of God came in.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Given the nature of “God” any God, is it really irrational to believe God could do anything? He’s GOD. If you assume God must follow the rules of the magician, then he isn’t God. He IS the magician.

In my opinion, from an atheist mind you, it’s a losing question from it’s onset and it baffles me it lasted this long. The sheer premise of the question eliminates it.
“How does God create”

(I know you didn’t start the thread, just stating my opinion on it in general)

You allowed God, meaning the flood gates opened and all possibilities of God came in.

Well, yes, if you start with the premise that there is a God, all things are possible. If you start with the premise that God may or may not exist, you have a far different kettle of fish and the argument goes more to his existence than to the question of where the material world came from. I can appreciate your atheism, but I have always considered the existence of God to be self-evident. What I can’t explain is why you can’t see that.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Well, yes, if you start with the premise that there is a God, all things are possible. If you start with the premise that God may or may not exist, you have a far different kettle of fish and the argument goes more to his existence than to the question of where the material world came from. I can appreciate your atheism, but I have always considered the existence of God to be self-evident. What I can’t explain is why you can’t see that.

The only reason i brought up being an atheist is that, even without faith I can dismantle that argument. It was poorly worded.

I can’t tell you why I can’t see what you see. Against the rules =P
I believed most of my life however, so I can easily see your position. & I can argue it’s defense so long as God is assumed.

Does that make sense to you, in a way?

 

[Linux]

Without an evident correlate between the existence of God and the possibility of creating the act of existing out of nothing, any claim that God can do it because he is God is an assertion and one that is taken for granted.

The idea that God can do the logically impossible is not a Catholic belief and it is an irrational belief. I would reject the Catholic faith in a heartbeat as an irrational form of supernaturalism if i thought for a second that Catholic Dogma claimed that God can create a square triangle.

Secondly, i am not rejecting creation ex-nihilo, that is to say the creation of the “universe” out of nothing, since i do not believe that existence is identical in nature to the nature of the universe. I believe the universe participates in existence, but it is not existence itself, and cannot be since it has a beginning; and that which is by nature existence cannot cease to be existence for to exist is its very nature.

I am rejecting the idea that God can create that which is identical to existence out of nothing, that God can create more reality from less; or actualize the negation of existence. You cannot get more reality from less, or esse from nothing; for nothing by definition is the absence and the antithesis of reality. Out of nothing comes nothing for it is nothing at all. Thus it is a contradiction to manifest reality from nothing.

God isn’t just one particular act of existence among many, but rather he is existence itself through which the universe is actual.

God is not one particular power among other powers, but rather God is power itself through which the universe is animated and acts.

Creatures are absolutely contingent on God for existence and power; they do not have these things in their own nature as distinct from God.

Since nothing is the absolute negation of power and existence i know there is only one existence and one power and that is God.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Without an evident correlate between the existence of God and the possibility of creating the act of existing out of nothing, any claim that God can do it because he is God is an assertion and one that is taken for granted.

God isn’t just one particular act of existence among many, but rather he is existence itself through which the universe is actual.

God is not one particular power among other powers, but rather God is power itself through which the universe is animated and acts.

Creatures are absolutely contingent on God for existence and power; they do not have these things in their own nature.

I read and I read & finally you got around to defining God. Fine, your version of God cannot create from nothing.
The problem is you’re asking a wide audience. In the OP, you did not define God. You just said God. That leaves that particular part to interpretation. Or as I said “All possibilities of God”

I did not pretend to speak for the Catholic Church.

The idea that God can do the logically impossible is not a Catholic belief and it is an irrational belief. I would reject the Catholic faith in a heartbeat as an irrational form of supernaturalism if i thought for a second that Catholic Dogma claimed that God can create a square triangle.

Miracles are logically impossible, no?
I don’t know if a Catholic would claim God could create a square triangle, but I bet they’d say

*Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God **all *things are possible.

 

[Linux]

*Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God **all ***things are possible.

And i am saying if that is taken to mean that God can exist and not exist at the same time then the Catholic conception of God irrational.

 

[Linux]

Miracles are logically impossible, no?

That depends on how you define miracles. I am not aware that the Catholic church defines them as logically impossible events.

 

[JohnMichaels]

And i am saying if that is taken to mean that God can exist and not exist at the same time then the Catholic conception of God irrational.

How it’s “taken to mean” is not something I’m qualified to answer.
All I was saying was, you should have stated those objections. you know all this

that is to say the creation of the “universe” out of nothing, since i do not believe that existence is identical in nature to the nature of the universe. I believe the universe participates in existence, but it is not existence itself, and cannot be since it has a beginning; and that which is by nature existence cannot cease to be existence for to exist is its very nature

You say that to a degree in the OP, but end it with " no more rational than saying the universe popped out of nothing."
Which puts the belief on equal footing. Now you’re claiming it less rational. Because you got around to defining God

God isn’t just one particular act of existence among many, but rather he is existence itself through which the universe is actual.
God is not one particular power among other powers, but rather God is power itself through which the universe is animated and acts.
Creatures are absolutely contingent on God for existence and power; they do not have these things in their own nature

In the light of your new evidence, I would answer differently than I did in my first post in the thread. But you left the door open.

Furthermore you stated

I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.

Without first defining God, and thus comparing God to mortal. This seemed to be more geared towards a “personal god”
& if it was my personal God, you made him sound pretty weak comparing him to some guy pulling a rabbit out of a hat

Cheers!

 

[JohnMichaels]

That depends on how you define miracles. I am not aware that the Catholic church defines them as logically impossible events.

You got me there, idk what they say. But to me, someone dying and then being alive is quite logically impossible. so, just my opinion

 

[Linux]

You got me there, idk what they say. But to me, someone dying and then being alive is quite logically impossible. so, just my opinion

Why?

 

[JohnMichaels]

doesn’t happen. cannot be demonstrated.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Without an evident correlate between the existence of God and the possibility of creating the act of existing out of nothing, any claim that God can do it because he is God is an assertion and one that is taken for granted.

Thomas Aquinas has shown that this is what God has done and the reasons for it. But you reject it.

The idea that God can do the logically impossible is not a Catholic belief and it is an irrational belief. I would reject the Catholic faith in a heartbeat as an irrational form of supernaturalism if i thought for a second that Catholic Dogma claimed that God can create a square triangle.

The Catholic Church teaches that God is transcendent to his creation. He does not share his existence with them, that would be a heresy similar to Pantheism.

Secondly, i am not rejecting creation ex-nihilo, that is to say the creation of the “universe” out of nothing, since i do not believe that existence is identical in nature to the nature of the universe. I believe the universe participates in existence, but it is not existence itself, and cannot be since it has a beginning; and that which is by nature existence cannot cease to be existence.

Your statement here is nearly incoherent. As a matter of fact, you do reject creation ex-nihilo as defined by the Catholic Church and as taught by Thomas Aquinas.

You have perverted the term " participate " in this context. Creatures participate in existence by having their own existence which is similar to God’s own and which has been given to them by God.

I am rejecting the idea that God can create that which is identical to existence out of nothing, that God can create more reality from less; or actualize the negation of existence. You cannot get more reality from less, or esse from nothing; for nothing by definition is the absence and the antithesis of reality. Out of nothing comes nothing for it is nothing at all.

Creation ex-nihilo as defined by the Catholic Church and Thomas Aquinas is not " more from less, " it is something from nothing. God can create, creatures cannot. You are intentionally confusing the issues to save your pet ideas, which I will repeat. The phrase " …out of nothing comes nothing…" is applied to creatures. You have just admitted that you reject " creation ex-nihilo " here. You have just contradicted what you said above. Your thinking is totally incoherent.

God isn’t just one particular act of existence among many, but rather he is existence itself through which the universe is actual.

No one said he was, as you well know. He is Pure Existence, we are beings which have been given their own, but dependent, act of existence, which we have explained and which Thomas teaches and which the Catholic Church understands.

God is not one particular power among other powers, but rather God is power itself through which the universe is animated and acts.

Indeed, God is supreme power. And he gives creatures the power to act on their own as secondary causes. .

Creatures are absolutely contingent on God for existence and power; they do not have these things in their own nature.

Creatures are absolutely contingent, that is agreed. But they have been given their own power and existence by God, as Thomas points out endlessly…

I had hoped this thread was dead. I hope you get a big kick out of needlessly dragging it own.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since Linux has decided to come back and repeate his numerous errors, I will repeat my own summary statement.

For Catholics, other Christians, Jews, and Muslims

It is Defined Catholic Dogma that God created, in time, all creatures out of nothing ( with no parsing of the word " nothing. " It means from no prior existing matter of any kind, including the " near nothing " states proposed by some " wild eyed," popular cosmologists of the day.

So Catholics must believe that God and His creatures are absolutely other than each other. God is no part of His creatures and they are no part of Him. God and His creatures are absolutely distinct, but His creatures are absolutely dependent upon Him for their existence, and they prosper by His Providence and Government…

It is Defined Catholic Dogma that the essential nature of God is that He is One and Simple. Other attributes are also defined but are not essential to this debate.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching about God’s " Esse, " or His " Act of Existence. " These are philosophical terms and no Catholic is bound to accept them. These same terms have been applied to creatures as well. And we are not bound to acknowledge their validity. However it would be foolish to deny their validity in either case, if they are correctly applied. And that is just where the problem lays.

It is interesting that the O.P. useses the term " act of exisiting " and asks us to prove how God could create the " act of exiting " out of nothing. This term was originated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and showed that God ( the Pure Subsisting Act of Exising ) created the entire universe of creatures ex nihilo, absolutely. And when He did so, He created entire substances, including their " act of existing. " That this is the correct interpretation has been shown in my post # 17. Thomas Aquinas showed in the S.T. Part 1that God is the First Cause of all creatures. In Part 1, he also shows that God created all creatures out of nothing.

Now to demand a blow by blow account as to just how God pulled off these stupendous miracles is asking us to examine the mind of God and that is just spurious in the extreme. All the best minds the world has ever known can do is demonstrate that this is a necessary conclusion. That is, because God exists, we exist.

The O.P. has put forward a number of propositions which cannot be held by Catholics.

1. God cannot create an " act of existing " which is not His Own Act of Existing
2. God cannot create an " act of existing " ex nihilo.
3. We exist, ontologically, in the mind of God.
4. The universe exists, ontologicallly, in the mind of God.
5. God’s " Act of Existing " is the " act of existing " of creatures.
6. God is the only Esse
7. There are no created esses that are separate and distinct from God’s own Esse.
   8, That God creates Essences by sharing with them His Own Esse
8. To excape the odium of an heresy akin to Pantheism because of point # 8, he says that Essence is distinct from Esse. And so God’s Esse is not a part of the created Essence. He fails to see that this has left him in the realm of Prue Ideas, that the world is nothing but a collection of Forms without real substance, a world of non-being, because for a being to exist, it must have its own Esse. But under his philosophy, this is impossible.

• It is possible that I have overlooked other errors.

** It should be noted that Thomas Aquinas teaches that essence and esse are distinct, yet esse is the most important principle of a substance, it is most interior to it and is that whereby an essence becomes a being or substance. It composes with the form and the matter, if any, to make one substance, one being.

*** St Thomas, contrary to what the O.P. says, teaches that God creates entire substances in His act of creation, and the first of His created effect, interior to the substance, is the substance’s very own act of existence, which is limited by the form or nature of each particualr substance. And further, Thomas teaches that we must hold on Faith, that God has created the universe ex nihilo in time.

He futher teaches that God, though operating most intimately in His creation. is absolutely transcendent to it and does not mix with it in any ontological way. This is also the teaching of the Church.

**** All the arguments against his positions have been given by myself, Utunumsint, Hicetnunc, and Prodigal Son, and Polytropos earlier in this thread. You can read them for yoursef, they are St. Thomas’ own arguments.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

doesn’t happen. cannot be demonstrated.

It doesn’t happen naturally. But lack of demonstration is not synonymous to logically contradictory. I asked why do you consider it a contradiction.