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

[Linusthe2nd]

And for those who think the universe is infinite, we must remember that creation shares in God’s being: we believe that God alone is.

Catholics may not believe this. Quite frankly, that is heresy. God and the universe are entirely different realities. Certainly God works in the universe but it and God do not mix in any way.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The universe does not have essence, there is nothing eternal in it as materialists believe
It is like forms out of nothing, in nothing;

For a little philosophical understanding you need to read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. But to be brief, every created being has an essence. More properly, every created being is a substance composed of essence and existence.

Linus2nd

 

[Ion]

For a little philosophical understanding you need to read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. But to be brief, every created being has an essence. More properly, every created being is a substance composed of essence and existence.

Linus2nd

What would have been the proper word instead of essence?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What would have been the proper word instead of essence?

I don’t know because it appears your understanding of Thomistic philosophy is so scant that you are unable to say what you really mean. My intention is not to be critical but it does seem to be the case. You need to understand more about Thomas before you can comment meaningfully.

Linus2nd

 

[Ion]

I don’t know because it appears your understanding of Thomistic philosophy is so scant that you are unable to say what you really mean. My intention is not to be critical but it does seem to be the case. You need to understand more about Thomas before you can comment meaningfully.

Linus2nd

Depends also on whos terms you are trying to use too; I remember “matter” defined in materialistic way as “what is common to everything that exists” If there is such "common’ thing then you have to put it somewhere; Heisenberg said “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible… atoms are not things.” I plan to read Aquinas, I already downloaded his Summa…

 

[Linux]

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.

Linus2nd

So according to you the universe exists “inside” the universe…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Depends also on whos terms you are trying to use too; I remember “matter” defined in materialistic way as “what is common to everything that exists” If there is such "common’ thing then you have to put it somewhere; Heisenberg said “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible… atoms are not things.” I plan to read Aquinas, I already downloaded his Summa…

What Heisenberg means by matter is somewhat different from what Thomas and the Scholastics meant. Get Edward Feser’s " Aquinas, " it is reasonable. No need to download any of Thomas’s works, those that have been translated are on line. Heisenberg was denying the nature or form of things. Sure you and I contain within our being innumerable atomic and subatomic elements, but all of them are subject to the direction of our human nature, with the soul as the substantial form and governing factor.

The same is true for any material being or substance, their atomic and subatomic elements are part of a whole and governed by the substantial fom of the being ( i.e. oxygen-ness, gold-ness, tree-ness, tomato-ness, horse-ness, etc).

newadvent.org/summa/

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm

dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm

dhspriory.org/thomas/DeAnima.htm#21

dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#130

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.asp

If you need more help P.M. me.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

What would have been the proper word instead of essence?

I think you’d just say that the universe is not eternal. In the Thomistic sense, this is simply because the universe is material and so has potencies, and so can change.

Essence refers to the nature, quiddity, or “whatness” of a thing, and things in the universe have natures.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
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.

Linus2nd

So according to you the universe exists “inside” the universe…

Do I really need to point out the obvious. First of all you will notice the quotes around " outside. " This should have alerted you that I am speaking figuratively. But if that was not obvious in itself, I went on to explain how this was to be interpreted. The meaning is clear. It is just that you don’t agree with it. And you are free to disagree but then you are back on the horns of the inescapable delimma you created for yourself.

Linus2nd

 

[R_C]

Catholics may not believe this. Quite frankly, that is heresy. God and the universe are entirely different realities. Certainly God works in the universe but it and God do not mix in any way.

Linus2nd

I never intended to share anything that is not in line with orthodox apostolic tradition. I may be expressing something in an unclear way, though.

Now I made two statements:

• creation shares in God’s being
• we believe that God alone is

I would presume you criticize the first one and now I’d be prone to criticize it too, specifically I’d strike down the term shares as very unclear.

This is what I found in Summa contra Gentiles:

We are now able to refute the error of certain persons who said that God is nothing other than the formal being of each thing. …] Four factors seem to have contributed to the rise of this error. …] The second cause leading them to this error is a failure of reason. For, since that which is common is specified or individuated through addition, they thought that the divine being, which receives no addition, was not some proper being but the common being of all things. …] we can rather conclude that God is not common being but proper being; for His being is distinguished from all the rest by the fact that nothing can be added to it. …] out of the purity of its goodness, the first cause is distinguished from the rest and in a manner individuated. …] A fourth factor that could have led them to their error is the mode of expression we use when we say that** God is in all things**. By this we do not mean that God is in things as a part of a thing, but as the cause of a thing that is never lacking to its effect.

Since, as the philosophers teach, “the infinite accompanies quantity,” infinity cannot be attributed to God on the ground of multitude. For we have shown that there is only one God and that no composition of parts or accidents is found in Him. Nor, again, according to continuous quantity can God be called infinite, since we have shown that He is incorporeal.

Now, the Catholic faith professes this truth, namely, it asserts that God has created all things, not out of His own substance, but out of nothing.

God is the maker of things inasmuch as He is in act. But by virtue of His actuality and perfection God embraces all the perfections of things …] and thus He is virtually all things. He is, therefore, the maker of all things. …]

“Of Him, and by Him, **and **in Him are all things: to Him be glory for ever” (Rom. 11:36).

And also on omnipresence:

Divine immensity means on the one hand that God is necessarily present everywhere in space as the immanent cause and sustainer of creatures, and on the other hand that He transcends the limitations of actual and possible space, and cannot be circumscribed or measured or divided by any spatial relations. To say that God is immense is only another way of saying that He is both immanent and transcendent in the sense already explained.

According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation — immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act. But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.

(All emphasis above is mine.)

So the expression “creation and God don’t mix in any way” is no more precise than “creation shares in God’s being” - both are unable to express the idea they intend to express, and depending on our interpretation they can both be shown to be valid or invalid

 

[jonathan_hili]

It doesn’t make any sense to ask: “Where does the universe exist?” If the universe is the totality of everything, then there is no where for it to exist. Moreover, where would usually mean - as I’m taking it - a space-time location, which does not apply to the universe.

 

[jonathan_hili]

For a little philosophical understanding you need to read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. But to be brief, every created being has an essence. More properly, every created being is a substance composed of essence and existence.

Linus2nd

True, but is the universe a “created being”? Isn’t it the sum total of creation? If so, it would be more akin a group of individual things rather than an individual entity. And groups of this kind don’t have essences apart from their individual constituents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I never intended to share anything that is not in line with orthodox apostolic tradition. I may be expressing something in an unclear way, though.

Now I made two statements:

• creation shares in God’s being
• we believe that God alone is

I would presume you criticize the first one and now I’d be prone to criticize it too, specifically I’d strike down the term shares as very unclear.

This is what I found in Summa contra Gentiles:

Correct. I have often used the same quotations to prove that God and things are not mixed in any ontological way eventhough God is immanent throughout His creation. This is what I am saying 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.

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

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

Linus2nd

And also on omnipresence:

(All emphasis above is mine.)

So the expression “creation and God don’t mix in any way” is no more precise than “creation shares in God’s being” - both are unable to express the idea they intend to express, and depending on our interpretation they can both be shown to be valid or invalid

 

[Linusthe2nd]

True, but is the universe a “created being”? Isn’t it the sum total of creation? If so, it would be more akin a group of individual things rather than an individual entity. And groups of this kind don’t have essences apart from their individual constituents.

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.

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.

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

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

Linus2nd
Linus2nd .

 

[empther]

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.

Linux is a pantheist who equates the universe with God. His God is definitely not the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Catholics may not believe this. Quite frankly, that is heresy. God and the universe are entirely different realities. Certainly God works in the universe but it and God do not mix in any way.

Linus2nd

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?

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

 

[empther]

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.”

Jesus has two natures: one divine and one human. They are not “mixed”, whatever the hell that means.

You see how easy that was? Why couldn’t you see it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Jesus has two natures: one divine and one human. They are not “mixed”, whatever the hell that means.

You see how easy that was? Why couldn’t you see it?

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!

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
Jesus has two natures: one divine and one human. They are not “mixed”, whatever the hell that means.

You see how easy that was? Why couldn’t you see it?

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

You adopted the lingo of your new guru Linux?

The Son of God was God, and the human nature was a man, but there was only one person, a divine person. It’s called the hypostatic union. It is because a man’s nature was taken up into the personhood of God that we could be saved.

Yeah, I know this is all very mysterious. Which makes me wonder why you’re posting on the philosophy section.

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

You used the word mix, so I bring it up with you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You adopted the lingo of your new guru Linux?

The Son of God was God, and the human nature was a man, but there was only one person, a divine person. It’s called the hypostatic union. It is because a man’s nature was taken up into the personhood of God that we could be saved.

Yeah, I know this is all very mysterious. Which makes me wonder why you’re posting on the philosophy section.

You used the word mix, so I bring it up with you.

Save the antagonistic tone for someone who might be intimidated by 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?