If the finite universe does not exist in God, then where does it exist?

[jonathan_hili]

God has always been both immanent (in presence) and transcendent (in being) with regards to the universe. If by saying God is “mixed” with the universe, you mean He is inextricably involved since the Incarnation, I suppose that is true to a degree - Jesus does have a fully human nature. However, God is obviously within His provenance to stop sustaining the universe at any moment.

 

[empther]

Save the antagonistic tone for someone who might be intimidated by it.

How can anybody be intimidated by a stranger on the internet whom they’ll never meet? It makes no sense.
You create a cause from thin air and then bluster about it.

I noticed you didn’t answer the question.

So one or two “existents?” One being or two? God’s nature existed, i.e., was in being, and the human nature existed, as well? Separately or only as one being or esse?

Actually, I did answer the question. I said God the Son took up to himself a human nature.
So the divine nature is eternal and the human nature was created 2,000 years ago. They are not one being or esse. The two natures are distinct. But the human will is in total agreement with the divine will, and there is only a divine person there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God remains uncontaminated by the universe? He does not come into contact with it for fear of what? That it will lessen his transcendent existence?

Have I intimated that I thought anything like this? Perhaps the fault is with the one who is reading my comments? Just a thought.

God “mixed” with the universe quite insolubly by becoming a man some 2000 years ago and by remaining incarnate in the Church since. That, to me, seems to indicate that God and the universe do, indeed, “mix.”

Really, I would have thought you understood that the Incarnation was a special case, a Miracle of the First Order. You cannot logically use that to conclude that it is the normal condition for created beings to be ontologically mixed with the Divine. Your thinking here, if that is what you think, has never been supported by Church teaching and is heretical. Show me something in the Catechism that indicates otherwise. And don’t confuse the presence of God by Grace as proof of your theory or speculation. God can act on the soul without being ontologically mixed with it.

I am not convinced that your understanding of “transcendent” as necessarily and only completely “other” fully captures Church teaching, since it smacks of deism as much as you accuse Linux of pantheism.

Fiddle Sticks. I had a thread not long ago entitled,
" Philosophy/ Theology can endanger your soul! " It is something to ponder. God is absolutely transcendent to His creation. That means he is not ontologically mixed with it in any way, yet He operates most intimately within it. I refer you to the many quotations I have given from Thomas Aquinas. Go back and check my posts over the past months. But I refer you to one in particualr: www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html . This is a commentary of Thomas on the Sentences of Peter Lombard and proves my point.

" Smaks of deism, " my left foot !!!

The opposite view to yours, that God is fully and solely immanent, is pantheism. Church teaching is that God is both immanent and transcendent.

And that is exactly what I have been saying for months. You know, instead of trying to set some kind of record for posting, you really should attend more carefully to what people actually do say. You clearly have not done so. Neither has Linux !!!

I am not clear that Linux’ view is heretical since he does not deny creation ex nihilo nor the transcendence of God. He is not a pantheist as far as I can tell from his writings.

That tears it. He most certaingly does deny creation ex nihilo and he certainly does deny the transcendence of God. I refer you to Linux’s post #1 on this thread, " .Is God the esse of all contingent essences? (Debate " I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves. Perhaps he is not a Pantheist according to Wikipedia ( the highest authority on everything ), but his thoughts are certainly heretical. Even Openminded77, a Hindu, thinks his thoughts are acceptible to Hinduism. That should tell you something. And, Oh by the way, Linux never denied it!

On the other hand, I am not clear that your view is fully Aquinas friendly, either, since Aquinas, at least according to Edward Feser, views creation, not as a self-sustaining, self-existent entity, but more as a piece of music being played that only exists as it is being played by the musician. In other words, it exists only as the act of the musician playing it and does not subsist as a “separate” entity. Feser goes to great lengths to show that Aquinas did not view creation according to Paley’s model of clock and clockmaker, but rather as a “performance” piece that requires the continual action of God to sustain it in existence. In other words, it does not subsist in being “on its own.” That is more of a deist view, which some might accuse you of.

And I have not disagreed with any of that, I agree totally, I agree with Thomas totally, The problem is that you can’t comprehend what you are reading and neither can Linux.

Personally, I don’t make that accusation because my suspicion is that we are all sincerely trying to understand a great mystery. I am only bothered by the fact that you (and Empther) are quite content to launch accusations of heresy without fully understanding what you are doing, based upon a limited conception if what you suppose you fully grasp.

Well I must say, that is mighty wide of you, considering the load you have been saving up, which would require a complete rehashing of everything that we have been debating ( what a joke) for the last three months.

The deist “… maintains that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes…” From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Could you explain how your view is distinct from deism?

Have I ever said the world does not need God’s sustaning power? Never. It absolutely does need God’s sustainging power. I agree with Thomas Aquinas entirely, that is why Linux keeps accusing me of using Thomas as my authority. It is Linux who rejects Thomas, not me, see his first post here: " .Is God the esse of all contingent essences? (Debate "

You know, at one time I had some respect for your learning and ability. You have absolutely destroyed that. Thanks a lot.

Socrates my hat! You need to change your moniker; somehow it doesn’t fit anymore. It gives Socrates a bad rap.

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

In case this hasn’t been said already,

even scientists tell us that matter creates space. That is, space is where matter is.
Looked at another way, space and matter are in the same place.
Looked at another way, there is no “where” if there is no matter.

I think the point should be clear by now.

God is neither matter nor space. To say the world is “in” God, or “outside” God has no meaning whatsoever.

Our past quibbles aside, empther, I have to say you hit the nail on the head with this. I was about to post something to similar effect, but I don’t think I could put it any more cogently than you have.

All I can think to add is that Linux has created a false conundrum by applying a very literalistic/material interpretation to the notions of “inside” and “outside” in reference to God. These terms, when they are employed in Catholic theology, are used analogously.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So these two natures came together in the same being? They shared the same esse? Or were there two beings? Two esses?

As to the word “mix,” Linus brought that word into the discussion. Bring it up with him!

To reiterate, " mixed " is Thomas’ terminology, not mine. See here, www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

Go down to the part which says, " Solution. " Enough said.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God has always been both immanent (in presence) and transcendent (in being) with regards to the universe. If by saying God is “mixed” with the universe, you mean He is inextricably involved since the Incarnation, I suppose that is true to a degree - Jesus does have a fully human nature. However, God is obviously within His provenance to stop sustaining the universe at any moment.

No that is not it. We are talking about an " ontological " mixing, the mixing of the very substance of different beings, one created and contingent, the other uncreated and Infinite and Eternal. See Thomas here: www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

Go down to " Solution, "

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think it would be more proper to envision all creation as being a gigantic ball, in which are contained all created beings ( individual essenses that have existence ). This would thus include what we tend to imagine as " empty space " between individuals. Whether or not such empty space actually exists is problamatic. All we have to keep in mind is that no matter how we imagine it or how science defines it, God and His creation do not mix ontologically. " God is in His heaven, " as the saying goes, and we are in our contingent universe. Except that God carries His heaven around with Him wherever He is, to stretch a similie, even as he acts most intimately within His created universe.

Aquinas does not characterize Creation as a “purse,” “briefcase” nor as a gigantic ball that God carries with him. The following is from the source you cited in your last post.

From all these points, it is plainly inferred that God is most intimate to every thing just as the being that is proper to a thing is most intimate to the thing itself, which can neither begin nor last except by God’s operation through which he is united to his work so that he is in it.

www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/Sententiae/ISentd37q1a1.html

We just have to be very careful how we speak of these things or we lead people into errors as I pointed our here:

This is a continuation of three or four other threads Linux has introduced. As far as Christians, Jews, and Muslims are concerned the universe was created out of absolutely nothing, not even God’s own Substance. This means that the universe exists " outside " the Mind of God, it exists in the universe of time, space and contingent beings. God is absolutely transcendent and other than the universe. Yet He operates most intimately within it. Yet in such a way that His Substance and the substance of the universe are not mixed in any way. Each remains in its proper sphere of existence.

My sense is that you are putting emphasis on the idea of substance to the point that you are creating a kind of substance dualism between God and creation. That God is one substance and creation is of a different substance.

This is not the way I read Aquinas, nor is it the way that I have read Linux’s points.

Material things are a composite substance (matter and form). Their composition (substance) is their limiting feature. God does not have substance in this sense at all. God is pure act (Actus Purus) God is not composed of anything. He does not have substance, in anything like the same sense that created things do, but rather God is Pure Act, Existence simpliciter. It would not be proper to create “spheres or realms of existence” as you have in the above analogy because God is not set up in some distinct substantial reality that is to be contrasted to the material reality of creation. God is that which actualizes or brings into existence everything that exists.

If we can speak of God’s Substance at all it is not to be used in the same manner as we would speak of composite substances. Creation cannot share the “substance” of God because God is not and does not have substance in the same sense at all.

For God that is the Infinite and Eternal, for the universe it is the contingent and dependent sphere of time and space.

Certainly, but contingent and dependent upon the Infinite and Eternal, not in contrast to the Infinite and Eternal as if God wouldn’t be caught dead in the same reality.

Linux’s various assertions seem to be some form of Solipsism, perhaps that of Meister Eckhart, or some other form of Idealism.

If anything, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere between your characterization of Aquinas and that of Linux. I don’t see that his assertions are solipsistic or idealist in the least, unless you are presuming that Linux’s position is that God is nothing but human consciousness itself, which is not at all what I read him to be saying.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aquinas does not characterize Creation as a “purse,” “briefcase” nor as a gigantic ball that God carries with him. The following is from the source you cited in your last post.

My sense is that you are putting emphasis on the idea of substance to the point that you are creating a kind of substance dualism between God and creation. That God is one substance and creation is of a different substance.

This is not the way I read Aquinas, nor is it the way that I have read Linux’s points.

Material things are a composite substance (matter and form). Their composition (substance) is their limiting feature. God does not have substance in this sense at all. God is pure act (Actus Purus) God is not composed of anything. He does not have substance, in anything like the same sense that created things do, but rather God is Pure Act, Existence simpliciter. It would not be proper to create “spheres or realms of existence” as you have in the above analogy because God is not set up in some distinct substantial reality that is to be contrasted to the material reality of creation. God is that which actualizes or brings into existence everything that exists.

If we can speak of God’s Substance at all it is not to be used in the same manner as we would speak of composite substances. Creation cannot share the “substance” of God because God is not and does not have substance in the same sense at all.

Certainly, but contingent and dependent upon the Infinite and Eternal, not in contrast to the Infinite and Eternal as if God wouldn’t be caught dead in the same reality.

If anything, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere between your characterization of Aquinas and that of Linux. I don’t see that his assertions are solipsistic or idealist in the least, unless you are presuming that Linux’s position is that God is nothing but human consciousness itself, which is not at all what I read him to be saying.

Unfortunately I will not be able to respond until much later today. But much needs to be said.

Linus2bd

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Peter Plato,

Have you read Bonaventure’s Itinerarium Mentis ad Deum? I am thinking of chapter 5 Of the Reflection of the Divine Unity in Its Primary Name, Which Is Being ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/ROAD.TXT I took a look at this recently

1. If you wish then to contemplate the invisible traits of God in so far as
   they belong to the unity of His essence, fix your gaze upon Being itself,
   and see that Being is most certain in itself; for it cannot be thought not
   to be, since the purest Being occurs only in full flight from Non-Being,
   just as nothingness is in full flight from Being. Therefore, just as the
   utterly nothing contains nought of Being nor of its conditions, so
   contrariwise Being itself contains no Non-Being, neither in actuality nor
   in potency, neither in matters of fact nor in our thinking. Since, however,
   Non-Being is the privation of Being, it cannot enter the intellect except
   through Being; Being, however, cannot enter through anything other than
   itself. For everything which is thought of is either thought of as Non-
   Being or as Being-in-potency or as Being-in-actuality. If, therefore, Non-
   Being is intelligible only through Being, and if Being-in-potency can be
   understood only through Being-in-actuality, and if Being is the name of
   that pure actuality of Being, Being then is what first enters the
   intellect, and that Being is pure actuality. But this is not particular
   Being, which is restricted Being, since that is mixed with potentiality.
   Nor is this analogous Being, for such has a minimum of actuality since it
   has only a minimum of being. It remains, therefore, that that Being is
   divine Being.

I find this thought interesting. He seems to be equating being itself with truth itself. We can only truly reason in light of being itself. But we who reason are restricted beings. So there is a point of connection with pure actuality, but not identity…or at least it appears that way to me.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Another good one from Bonaventure…

1. But you have ground for rising in wonder. For Being itself is first and
   last, is eternal and yet most present, is simplest and greatest, is most
   actual and immutable, is perfect and immense, is most highly one and yet
   all inclusive. If you wonder over these things with a pure mind, while you
   look further, you will be infused with a greater light, until you finally
   see that Being is last because it is first. For since it is first, it
   produces all things for its own sake alone; and therefore it must be the
   very end, the beginning and the consummation, the alpha and the omega.
   Therefore it is most present because it is eternal. For since it is
   eternal, it does not come from another; nor does it cease to be nor pass
   from one thing to another, and therefore has no past nor future but only
   present being. Therefore it is greatest because most simple. For since it
   is most simple in essence, therefore it is greatest in power; because
   power, the more greatly it is unified, the closer it is to the infinite.
   Therefore it is most immutable, because most actual. For that which is most
   actual is therefore pure act. And as such it acquires nothing new nor does
   it lose what it had, and therefore cannot be changed. Therefore it is most
   immense, because most perfect. For since it is most perfect, nothing can be
   thought of which is better, nobler, or more worthy. And on this account
   there is nothing greater. And every such thing is immense. Therefore it is
   all-inclusive (“omnimodal”), because it is one to the highest degree. For
   that which is one to the highest degree is the universal source of all
   multiplicity. And for this reason it is the universal efficient cause of
   all things, the exemplary and the final cause, as the cause of Being, the
   principle of intelligibility, the order of living.[2] And therefore it is
   all-inclusive, not as the essence of all things, but as the superexcellent
   and most universal and most sufficient cause of all essences, whose power,
   because most highly unified in essence, is therefore most highly infinite
   and most fertile in efficacy.

1. Recapitulating, let us say: Because, then, Being is most pure and
   absolute, that which is Being simply is first and last and, therefore, the
   origin and the final cause of all. Because eternal and most present,
   therefore it encompasses and penetrates all duration, existing at once as
   their center and circumference. Because most simple and greatest, therefore
   it is entirely within and entirely without all things and, therefore, is an
   intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference
   nowhere. Because most actual and most immutable, then “remaining stable it
   causes the universe to move” [Boethius, Cons. III, met. 9]. Because most
   perfect and immense, therefore within all, though not included in them;
   beyond all, but not excluded from them; above all, but not transported
   beyond them; below all, and yet not cast down beneath them. Because most
   highly one and all-inclusive, therefore all in all, although all things are
   many and it is only one. And this is so since through most simple unity,
   clearest truth, and most sincere goodness there is in it all power, all
   exemplary causality, and all communicability. And therefore from it and by
   it and in it are all things. And this is so since it is omnipotent,
   omniscient, and all-good. And to see this perfectly is to be blessed. As
   was said to Moses, “I will show thee all good” [Exod. 33, 19].

Interesting… cause of all essences…

God bless,
Ut

 

[Peter_Plato]

Another good one from Bonaventure…

Interesting… cause of all essences…

God bless,
Ut

There is much in Bonaventure that appears to be a precursor to what Aquinas has developed more completely.

I read some of his works back in my undergrad years. More recently, nine years ago, together with my family, I visited his birthplace in Civita de Bagnoregio. A very interesting place. One of the hill towns in central Italy, just north of Rome, founded in Etruscan times. Most of the hill has been eroded away, leaving only a fragment of the community. Only about 20 residents still live there but Bonaventure’s former home (a hovel cave, really) has been preserved and accessible to viewing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civita_di_Bagnoregio

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: If the finite universe does not exist in God, then where does it exist?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
I think it would be more proper to envision all creation as being a gigantic ball, in which are contained all created beings ( individual essenses that have existence ). This would thus include what we tend to imagine as " empty space " between individuals. Whether or not such empty space actually exists is problamatic. All we have to keep in mind is that no matter how we imagine it or how science defines it, God and His creation do not mix ontologically. " God is in His heaven, " as the saying goes, and we are in our contingent universe. Except that God carries His heaven around with Him wherever He is, to stretch a similie, even as he acts most intimately within His created universe.

Plato resoponds
Aquinas does not characterize Creation as a “purse,” “briefcase” nor as a gigantic ball that God carries with him. The following is from the source you cited in your last post.

Linus2nd answers: This was merely a similie to help the poster see a point. I never intimated that this was the way Thomas would describe it. In fact, I don’t believe he ever attempted to explain exactly how he would describe it.

Plato continues his objection.
From all these points, it is plainly inferred that God is most intimate to every thing just as the being that is proper to a thing is most intimate to the thing itself, which can neither begin nor last except by God’s operation through which he is united to his work so that he is in it.www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/lo…ntd37q1a1.html

So? Have I ever denied this? One might add that this is Catholic Doctrine as well.
Of course you omitted the other important point ( Why the omission?):

" Solution: I answer that it should be said that God is essentially in all things, not nonetheless so that he is mixed together with things as if he were a part of any thing…"

So we can conclude that God is not mixed with creatures ontologically, yet He operates throughout His creation, causing their being, and ordering and directing them to their final end. This is Catholic Doctrine

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
We just have to be very careful how we speak of these things or we lead people into errors as I pointed our here:

This is a continuation of three or four other threads Linux has introduced. As far as Christians, Jews, and Muslims are concerned the universe was created out of absolutely nothing, not even God’s own Substance. This means that the universe exists " outside " the Mind of God, it exists in the universe of time, space and contingent beings. God is absolutely transcendent and other than the universe. Yet He operates most intimately within it. Yet in such a way that His Substance and the substance of the universe are not mixed in any way. Each remains in its proper sphere of existence.

Plato responds
My sense is that you are putting emphasis on the idea of substance to the point that you are creating a kind of substance dualism between God and creation. That God is one substance and creation is of a different substance.

Linus2nd answers
If by " substance dualism " you mean that God and creation are absolutely other than each other ontologically; yes, that is what I am saying and that is what Thomas is saying. Creation consists of the universe of contingent beings existing in space and time, God exists in His Infinite, Eternity. Yet this does not prevent God from operating most intimately throughout His creation. But He does not operate so as to be a part of it or to be ontologically mixed with it. This does not happen even when God is acting on the soul through inspiration or Grace. He never mixes His being with our being.

Plato continues the previous response
This is not the way I read Aquinas, nor is it the way that I have read Linux’s points.

Linus2nd answers
Well, you are reading him incorrectly. And you have read Linux incorrectly also. If God is the act of existence of creatures ( as Linux insists), then he is mixing the Substance of God with the substance of creatures. And that is heretical. No Catholic may believe that.

End Part I

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part II of response to Plato
Re: If the finite universe does not exist in God, then where does it exist?

Plato questions again.
Material things are a composite substance (matter and form). Their composition (substance) is their limiting feature. God does not have substance in this sense at all. God is pure act (Actus Purus) God is not composed of anything. He does not have substance, in anything like the same sense that created things do, but rather God is Pure Act, Existence simpliciter. It would not be proper to create “spheres or realms of existence” as you have in the above analogy because God is not set up in some distinct substantial reality that is to be contrasted to the material reality of creation. God is that which actualizes or brings into existence everything that exists.

Linus2nd Responds

Creatures have a created substance, God is Uncreated or Perfect Substance. And yes, they are entirely different and that is the exact point.

You comment here: " It would not be proper to create “spheres or realms of existence” as you have in the above analogy because God is not set up in some distinct substantial reality that is to be contrasted to the material reality of creation. God is that which actualizes or brings into existence everything that exists. " is unwarranted.

God is one actuality, creation is another reality. The two do not mix ontologically. God has made the universe absolutely other than Himself. That is what it means to create and to cause. God does not cause Himself, He causes creatures. And futher, no creature causes itself, but it may cause the " coming to be " ( Thomas’ phraseology) of another creature.

Plato continues his objection
If we can speak of God’s Substance at all it is not to be used in the same manner as we would speak of composite substances. Creation cannot share the “substance” of God because God is not and does not have substance in the same sense at all.

Linus2nd Answers
Thomas speaks of God’s Substance all the time. I refer you to Book II of the S.C.G. And of course, we do not speak of God’s Substance and that of creatures in the same sense, but each is a real substance. What we say of God and of creatures is said anologically.
I have never implied anything else.

{QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
For God that is the Infinite and Eternal, for the universe it is the contingent and dependent sphere of time and space.

Plato objects
Certainly, but contingent and dependent upon the Infinite and Eternal, not in contrast to the Infinite and Eternal as if God wouldn’t be caught dead in the same reality.

Linus Answers
Certainly we contrast the two realities. He is God, we are creatures. He is transcendent to us, that is Catholic Doctrine. And it is not as to say, “…God wouldn’t be caught dead in the same reality.” God does all things properly according to His Will. The fact is, He is not a part of His creation, nor is He mixed with it in any ontological manner. That was His Will. It is not a question of " … not being caught dead in the same reality, " it is a question of what is proper to God and what is proper to creation.

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
Linux’s various assertions seem to be some form of Solipsism, perhaps that of Meister Eckhart, or some other form of Idealism.

Plato responds
If anything, I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere between your characterization of Aquinas and that of Linux.

Linus2nd Answers
I disagree totally and I suspect Linux would disagree heartily.

Plato continues his objection
I don’t see that his assertions are solipsistic or idealist in the least, unless you are presuming that Linux’s position is that God is nothing but human consciousness itself, which is not at all what I read him to be saying.

Linus2nd Answers
All I can say is that Linux’s position seems a little like that of Bishop George Berkeley ( early 17th century idealist ) and that of Meister Eckhart. Anyway, his views are heretical. No Catholic may hold them.

Linus2nd

 

[z_0101]

Part II of response to Plato
Re: If the finite universe does not exist in God, then where does it exist?
Linus2nd Answers
All I can say is that Linux’s position seems a little like that of Bishop George Berkeley ( early 17th century idealist ) and that of Meister Eckhart. **Anyway, his views are heretical. No Catholic may hold them.**Linus2nd

and basically what I said a few pages ago and Linux accused me of being paranoid and dishonest.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

and basically what I said a few pages ago and Linux accused me of being paranoid and dishonest.

Don’t let that bother you. Stick to your guns.

Linus2nd

 

[z_0101]

and basically what I said a few pages ago and Linux accused me of being paranoid and dishonest.

Don’t let that bother you. Stick to your guns.

Linus2nd

Ran out of bullets…
It has however been a very interesting read, especially with the material from St. Bon, and the other fathers of phlosphy being posted. It has been two, almost three, decades since I had a chance to read any of them. Four children, three under the age of 5, and a full time job - not a lot of time left for prayer let alone reading for pleasure!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ran out of bullets…
It has however been a very interesting read, especially with the material from St. Bon, and the other fathers of phlosphy being posted. It has been two, almost three, decades since I had a chance to read any of them. Four children, three under the age of 5, and a full time job - not a lot of time left for prayer let alone reading for pleasure!

Good for you. Maybe you can take it up after the kids are on their own.

Linus2nd