Is God the esse of all contingent essences? (Debate)

[Linusthe2nd]

I never said he was a part of the created universe.

Correct. God is not the nature (essence) of the universe. I said that much in my argument.

No it isn’t pantheism. Pantheism makes no distinction between esse and essence; and pantheism views the nature (essence) of the universe as being identical to Gods nature.

I never said otherwise.

That’s Metaphysically impossible for 2 reasons

1. Nothing of Gods essence is in the essence of created things. God’s esse and essence are one and the same thing that’s why he is eternal because his essence is the very act of existing. He is realness itself; He is identical with existence or reality if you like. The act of Existence is what God is metaphysically speaking. God is the antithesis of nothing/existence is the antithesis of nothing.

Thus God cannot create what he already is essentially since existence is a necessary act. Therefore it is logically impossible for there to be a new existence. That’s why the distinction between esse and contingent essences is absolutely necessary before we can even consider the logical possibility of creation. There cannot be two esse, because there is no rational distinction between them. There can only be distinctions between essences that are not themselves intrinsically real, but instead contingently participate in reality.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing. Existence is the antithesis of nothing.
2. What does it mean for God to keep creation “in” existence if in fact God gives creation its own existence? Your argument contradicts that belief and makes no sense of it. Perhaps pride is blinding you.
3. This does not discuss the esse/essence distinction as I presented it. It certainly says nothing about God giving essences their own act of reality. Thus it is unreasonable to think that it is a rejection of my thesis out of hand.

Well, you are wrong. I’ll come back later, I’m listening to CA Radio which is featuring two hours for Atheists only. After that I’m going to indulge one of my weakenesses by listening to the K.C. Royals and the White Sox game and the after game talk.

Pax until later.

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nothing is not a thing in and of its self, but rather it is a word that represents the comparative distinction between the real and that which is the absence of being real. Real is the absolute antithesis of nothing; nothingness cannot share in anything that is real. Therefore that which is real, is either real by nature (and hence is eternal) , or is real by participation in that which is real by nature (contingent).

I see where you’re coming from now, but I think there are still a few unqualified leaps being made in your argument.

Natures or essences that are contingent cannot be identical to the act of being real. If they where, then it would be in their nature to be real and thus would not begin or cease to be real, since realness is apart of their nature.

I disagree with your definition of “nature”; it seems unnecessarily narrow. Working through this section point by point, it does not seem necessary to me that the act of being real must be an eternal act unless the act in question is the very foundation of all reality. The brick needs ground upon which to be set, but that doesn’t mean that the brick is only real insofar as it participates in the reality of the ground.

Second, I would argue that becoming, actuality and dissipation can all be a part of something’s nature. I don’t see why we should assume that natures must be static. They must be fixed inasmuch as they must be consistent throughout each individual permutation, i.e. a dog is a dog is a dog, but permanence does not seem to be a necessary prerequisite for an independent esse, in my opinion.

Because there are natures that do begin to exist and cease exist, we have to make an objective metaphysical distinction between realness and natures that begin to be real. By doing so this removes the contradiction involved in suggesting that realness can essentially begin to be realness. When one says that realness has a beginning, they are literally removing the absolute logical distinction between real and unreal.

I don’t see a contradiction in this. By analogy, while there is a logical distinction between being born and unborn or, perhaps more appropriately, conceived or unconceived, a transition from the latter to the former does not entail a contradiction.

Because of this it is understandable that some people would become pantheists. But pantheism errors in the fact that it makes no distinction between the act of being real and the contingent natures that begin to be real. To move on rationally one is required to acknowledge the esse and essence distinction.

But we can’t stop there, since we still have to explain why that which is essentially not realness begins to be real without being identical to reality.

I explain how this is possible with number 10:

“10. Therefore the only way a contingent essence can exist is if Esse is essentially a mind that conjoins the idea of a thing with the act of being real. In other words creative abstractions in the mind of God are conjoined with the actuality of God.”

If we assume God to be an omnipotent force, why should we limit his ability to create lesser realities/actualities, distinct from and yet dependent on Him?

Now someone could say that if God is the realness of a dog, then would that not make God and the dog identical?

I would reply that while the realness of the dog is identical with God, the nature (or essence) of the dog is not, since God is not by nature a dog.

It seems to me it would make the dog a figment of God’s imagination. And that, I believe, is why this really amounts to pantheism. If the dog… no, more to the point, if the human being does not have its own actuality, whence comes its freedom? Abstractions cannot have will, and if the only actuality is God, what other will can there be? The will, by definition, actualizes. And actualization, as the very term implies, requires actuality. Hence, in order for the individual self, as well as free will, to be real, they must be distinct in both essence and esse.

Hence creation is truly distinct from God, but only in essence, not in esse.

Then they are not truly distinct. Are your thoughts distinct from you? No, they are only real insofar as they are conjoined to your esse, and thus have no independence.

I don’t see why that would be a contradiction of Christianity. It certainly is not pantheism. It also solves the problem of how God creates without pre-existing physical materials.

See my second to last response.

I guess I am the only one here that sees the logical problem involved in God creating realness in the absence of realness. Its a metaphysical contradiction.

Not necessarily so. This is only the case if you are working with a very limited God. Further, God is not creating in the absence of realness. His reality is the foundation upon which other realities are built. Think back to the brick and the ground. To illustrate further, for the sake of analogy, let’s set the implications of your argument aside and imagine a conjurer, if you will, who can cause his thoughts to become manifest realities. Suppose he thinks of a rabbit and the rabbit appears. Though the rabbit is the product of an idea in the mind of a conjurer, it now has a completely separate existence.

 

[yppop]

Linux,
Thank you for the response. I need to study it in more depth than time will presently allow. I am heading for a week at the Jersey shore tomorrow. I have all your posts and will spend the quiet time during the week going over them. I think we are on parallel paths heading in the same direction.
I will contact you when I return.
Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I never said he was a part of the created universe.

You said, " … Conclusion: It therefore follows that God does not create new acts of reality, but rather he creates essences which are actual only by being conjoined to his esse. Hence the only distinction between God and creation is the essences of things and not the reality of things…" in your O.P. This means that you have said, in so many words, that God is part of His created universe. I don’t know how else your statement can be interpreted. This statement of yours is Pantheism.

Therefore God is the esse of all contingent essences.

What does, " … Therefore God is the esse of all contingent essences…" mean if you are not saying that God is a part of the created, contingent universe? And that is Pantheism!

No it isn’t pantheism…

There are many forms of Pantheism. You have said that God’s esse is a part of the created universe, as I pointed out above and here : " Therefore God is the esse of all contingent essences…" That not only is Pantheism, it is absolutely wrong. Created being have an act of existence ( esse ) that is given to them by God but is not His esse or a part of His esse.

I never said otherwise.

You are responding to a red herring. You picked this up out of another post of mine. I was making a statement which you picked out of context. My statement was: " God’s esse is his own esse, He does not bestow it on His creation…" That is what I wanted you to answer. The problem is that you did not answer it.

That’s Metaphysically impossible for 2 reasons

Not only metaphysical impossible but ontologically impossible and contrary to Faith.

1. Nothing of Gods essence is in the essence of created things. God’s esse and essence are one and the same thing that’s why he is eternal because his essence is the very act of existing. He is realness itself; He is identical with existence or reality if you like. The act of Existence is what God is metaphysically speaking. God is the antithesis of nothing/existence is the antithesis of nothing.

Here is another place where you are wrong: " …He is realness itself; He is identical with existence or reality if you like …"

First of all you needed to define " realness, " what do you mean exactly? And " …He is identical with existence or reality…"

Are you saying that God is identical to all that exists? It reads that way and that is Pantheism.

Thus God cannot create what he already is essentially since existence is a necessary act. Therefore it is logically impossible for there to be a new existence.

No, He cannot create another God but he can create beings which have an existence he gives them, which is not his existence but is their own. And the esse of each created being is limited by its form. So, yes, in a sense, he does create a new esse for each being. The problem is that, though their esse is a part of their being it is not a principle of their composit natures. The problem is that we do not exactly know what the esse of created beings is. We know that it is an act, a limited act given to the form of each created being. Perhaps it can best be described as a " power, " it cannot be a form nor a part of a form, yet it is a real limiting factor giving existence to created beings. We do know that it is not any part of God’s esse.

QUOTE]That’s why the distinction between esse and contingent essences is absolutely necessary before we can even consider the logical possibility of creation.

You are right here but you have failed to make the proper distinction.

There cannot be two esse, because there is no rational distinction between them.

There certainly is a rational distinction between the Pure Subsistent Act ( Esse ) which is God and the limited, contingent esse of created beings.

There can only be distinctions between essences that are not themselves intrinsically

real, but instead contingently participate in reality.

I have no idea what you mean by the first clause. But the second part needs to be defined. Yes, it is true that contingent beings " participate " in being but " participate " means having a limited existence, which differs from being to being, not by definition but by more or less, according to the limiting power of their respective forms. Those with the greatest participation would be the pure intelligences who are closest to God…

1. What does it mean for God to keep creation "in

" existence if in fact God gives creation its own existence? Your argument contradicts that belief and makes no sense of it.

What it means is that if God stops thinking about something, it will go out of existence. And this contradicts nothing I have said.

Perhaps pride is blinding you.

Really! That is certainly uncalled for. Perhaps you should try that shoe on yourself.

1. This does not discuss the esse/essence distinction as I presented it. It certainly says nothing about God giving essences their own act of reality. Thus it is unreasonable to think that it is a rejection of my thesis out of hand.

No one is rejecting your " thesis " out of hand. You asked for a debate. Now you have one. Please answer my post #14, point by point. Remember, you are the one designing a new Philosophy, you will have to do a much better job of defending it. Right now it isn’t going anywhere, I wouldn’t spread it far and wide. You might not like the reaction.

If you care to read Thomas’ " Being and Essence " you will see that each created being has its own limited act of existence given to it by God.

Linus2nd
m

 

[inocente]

Conclusion: It therefore follows that God does not create new acts of reality, but rather he creates essences which are actual only by being conjoined to his esse. Hence the only distinction between God and creation is the essences of things and not the reality of things.

Therefore God is the esse of all contingent essences.

Unless you can you demonstrate that essence, esse and nothingness are more than just ideas inside our heads, I think your argument doesn’t say anything about God but only about how you picture God.

 

[Linux]

What it means is that if God stops thinking about something, it will go out of existence. And this contradicts nothing I have said.

The truth can be right in front of some people, they will even say it, and yet they will not see the logical implications of what they are saying.

In other-words, in respect of what you have said here, it really does not make any logical sense whatsoever to say that God gives creatures there own esse. The “esse” that you you claim these creatures to have has no existential function at all. What is the point of this so called “creature-esse” if God is the only act of reality sustaining their essence in existence? As I have been saying all long, they do not have their own existential sustenance; they do not have their own esse. God is the only being making their essence real. This creaturely esse you speak of is meaningless. Let those who can reason see it. God is the esse of all essences.

I notice that you tend to just dictate to people what you think is true rather than reason that truth to your opponents or give logical reasons for why you think an opponents thesis is wrong, so I am not going to waste any-more time with you.

 

[empther]

Linux wrote in response to linusthe2nd;

I notice that you tend to just dictate to people what you think is true rather than reason that truth to your opponents or give logical reasons for why you think an opponents thesis is wrong, so I am not going to waste any-more time with you.

You’re wrong on every point you make in your posts,
yet you keep dictating your panthesit ( actually, atheist ) garbage to us.

I’m glad that 16 year old stopped reading on my post 2. He suspected there was something wrong with your theory, and only needed somebody to confirm his suspicions.

Why don’t you go to the pantheism forum:
I’ll give you the link:
pantheist.net/forum/

I’ve read a few posts over their. People say they feel no attachment to God, and God does nothing. That’s not God. So, they’re really atheists.

 

[Linux]

Linux wrote in response to linusthe2nd;

You’re wrong on every point you make in your posts,
yet you keep dictating your panthesit ( actually, atheist ) garbage to us.

I’m glad that 16 year old stopped reading on my post 2. He suspected there was something wrong with your theory, and only needed somebody to confirm his suspicions.

Why don’t you go to the pantheism forum:
I’ll give you the link:
pantheist.net/forum/

I’ve read a few posts over their. People say they feel no attachment to God, and God does nothing. That’s not God. So, they’re really atheists.

Why do I get the feeling that this sixteen year old you keep speaking about is your imaginary friend.

 

[polytropos]

In other-words, in respect of what you have said here, it really does not make any logical sense whatsoever to say that God gives creatures there own esse. The “esse” that you you claim these creatures to have has no existential function at all. What is the point of this so called “creature-esse” if God is the only act of reality sustaining their essence in existence? As I have been saying all long, they do not have their own existential sustenance; they do not have their own esse. God is the only being making their essence real. This creaturely esse you speak of is meaningless. Let those who can reason see it. God is the esse of all essences.

Could you reiterate why creaturely esses have “no existential function at all” and are “meaningless” if they are contingent on God? I understand that esse is the act of existence, but it is the act of existence of a thing. I do not see how it is impossible to have contingent esses so long as they are ultimately contingent upon some absolute esse. Their contingence does not make them meaningless.

 

[empther]

Why do I get the feeling that this sixteen year old you keep speaking about is imaginary.

He is imaginary. He was an example of what could happen: some kid might stumble on your first post and be influenced by it.

Of course, it’s not likely to happen.
I notice that this thread with 48 posts has only 700 views which is pathetic considering the forum claims 400,000 members and the bottom of the page indicates there are 1,100 viewers online this minute.

This thread is a miserable failure, because nobody wants pantheist theories.

 

[polytropos]

I’m glad that 16 year old stopped reading on my post 2. He suspected there was something wrong with your theory, and only needed somebody to confirm his suspicions.

I’m not a 16 year old, but I am a 19 year old who frequently struggles with belief. And since you persist in claiming the righteousness of your response, it seems necessary to strip you of your illusions: When I read your first post on this thread, I wondered why anyone would reject a formal proof by attacking its conclusion rather than by pointing out where the argument goes wrong. I wondered why a Catholic confident in his or her beliefs would be so obstinate about something that was written in a way so as to generate discussion about whether or not it is valid.

Your conduct is not helping anyone. Your 16 year old is wondering why you are attacking a belief rather than trying to disprove it.

 

[Linux]

Could you reiterate why creaturely esses have “no existential function at all” and are “meaningless” if they are contingent on God?

Have I not explained it already?

You could say that God is the first cause of their ontologically distinct esse (which I reject because I don’t see how it is logically possible to have a positively distinct number of esse). But if you’re going to go down that road then that is where God as an existential cause stops since it becomes meaningless and pointless to then say that God also sustains creation in existence, and I say this because they already have an “act of reality” of their own however limited that act may be. Existential sustenance, in this particular context, only makes sense if creatures do not have their own intrinsic esse.

If God sustains essences in existence then the idea of a creaturely-esse has no existential function and it is therefore meaningless to speak of it. To have an esse is to have existence or actuality; therefore if creatures have their own esse then Gods function as a sustainer of actuality becomes meaningless since their actuality, once created, exists independently. So what need is there for a sustainer? Clearly there is no need if creatures have their own esse.

 

[Linux]

700 views…is pathetic considering the forum claims 400,000 members and the bottom of the page indicates there are 1,100 viewers online this minute.

.

So you’re are saying that 700 views out of 1,100 viewers on-line (considering that people visit other forums on Catholic answers) is pathetic?

I think that you are sorely underestimating the interest that my thread has generated. It is far from pathetic.

Also, while there might appear to be similarities with pantheism, you actually have not proven that my thesis amounts to pantheism. I think it is your rebuttal that is failing.

First rule of fame: all responses, positive or negative, is a good thing. Thanks for participating.

 

[polytropos]

You could say that God is the first cause of their ontologically distinct esse (which I reject because I don’t see how it is logically possible to have a positively distinct number of esse).

Hm. You defined esse as “the act of being real.” The way you are treating it is as though, if anything is real, as would be necessary for anything and everything to exist, then everything must be the same act; there can be only one act of being real, everything that is real must be one. I do not see multiple acts of existence, some of which being contingent on some other act of existence, as logically impossible.

But if you’re going to go down that road then that is where God as an existential cause stops since it becomes meaningless and pointless to then say that God also sustains creation in existence, and I say this because they already have an “act of reality” of their own however limited that act may be. Existential sustenance, in this particular context, only makes sense if creatures do not have their own intrinsic esse.

If God sustains essences in existence then the idea of a creaturely-esse has no existential function and it is therefore meaningless to speak of it. To have an esse is to have existence or actuality; therefore if creatures have their own esse then Gods function as a sustainer of actuality becomes meaningless since their actuality, once created, exists independently. So what need is there for a sustainer? Clearly there is no need if creatures have their own esse.

To have an esse is to have existence or actuality, but it is not necessarily to have independent existence or actuality. The existential function of creaturely esse would be to be distinct from, though contingent upon, God. It need not be independent to be meaningful. It is not evident to me that that which is real must actually be God and can only differ essentially.

You will have to forgive me. I don’t have the greatest fluency with this vocabulary, but I am not seeing as logically problematic what you are seeing as logically problematic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The truth can be right in front of some people, they will even say it, and yet they will not see the logical implications of what they are saying.

In other-words, in respect of what you have said here, it really does not make any logical sense whatsoever to say that God gives creatures there own esse. The “esse” that you you claim these creatures to have has no existential function at all. What is the point of this so called “creature-esse” if God is the only act of reality sustaining their essence in existence? As I have been saying all long, they do not have their own existential sustenance; they do not have their own esse. God is the only being making their essence real. This creaturely esse you speak of is meaningless. Let those who can reason see it. God is the esse of all essences.

I notice that you tend to just dictate to people what you think is true rather than reason that truth to your opponents or give logical reasons for why you think an opponents thesis is wrong, so I am not going to waste any-more time with you.

Well, I guess we will just have to allow the readers to judge for themselves.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is not the esse of contingent essences, He is the cause of their existence or their act of being, to state it differently, and the act of being of created beings is not the esse of God. The esse that is God is absolutely distinct from and other than the esse or act of being of created beings. If God’s esse were the act of being of created beings, God would be One with His creation and that would be Pantheism.

Support for this contention is found throughout the writings of St. Thomas. For example, we find in the Summa Contra Gentiles the following in Book 1, ch 25:

" THAT GOD IS NOT THE FORMAL BEING OF ALL THINGS

[1] 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.

[2] This being is divided into the being of substance and the being of accident. Now, we have proved that the divine being is neither the being of substance nor that of accident. God, therefore, cannot be that being by which each thing formally is.

[3] Furthermore, things are not distinguished from one another in having being, for in this they agree. If, then, things differ from one another, either their being must be specified through certain added differences, so that diverse things have a diverse being according to their species, or things must differ in that the being itself is appropriate to natures that are diverse in species. The first of these alternatives is impossible, since, as we have said, no addition can be made to a being in the manner in which a difference is added to a genus. It remains, then, that things differ because they have diverse natures, to which being accrues in a diverse way. Now, the divine being does not accrue to a nature that is other than it; it is the nature itself, as we have said. If, therefore, the divine being were the formal being of all things, all things would have to be absolutely one.

[4] Then, too, a principle is naturally prior to that whose principle it is. Now, in certain things being has something that is as its principle. For the form is said to be a principle of being, and so is the agent, that makes things to be in act. If, therefore, the divine being is the being of each thing, it will follow that God, Who is His own being, has some cause. Thus, He is not through Himself a necessary being. But, we have proved the contrary of this conclusion above.

[5] Moreover, that which is common to many is not outside the many except by the reason alone. Thus, animal is not something outside Socrates and Plato and the other animals except in the intellect that apprehends the form of animal stripped of all its individuating and specifying characteristics. For man is that which truly is animal; otherwise, it would follow that in Socrates and Plato there are several animals, namely, common animal itself, common man, and Plato himself. Much less, then, is common being itself something outside all existing things, save only for being in the intellect. Hence, if God is common being, the only thing that will exist is that which exists solely in the intellect. But we showed above that God is something not only in the intellect but also in reality. Therefore, God is not the common being of all things.

[6] Again, strictly speaking, generation is the way to being and corruption the way to non-being. For form is not the terminus of generation, and privation is not the terminus of corruption, except because a form causes being and privation non-being. If a form did not cause being, a thing which received such a form would not be said to be generated. Hence, if God is the formal being of all things, He will consequently be the terminus of generation. This is false, since, as we have shown above, God is eternal.

[7] It will also follow that the being of each thing has existed from eternity. Generation or corruption is therefore impossible. If it does exist, pre-existing being must accrue to something anew. It will therefore accrue either to something pre-existing or to something in no way pre-existing. In the first instance, since according to the above position the being of all existing things is one, it will follow that a thing that is said to be generated acquires, not a new being, but a new mode of being. The result is alteration, not generation. But, if the generated thing in no way pre-existed, it will follow that it is produced from nothing—which is contrary to the nature of generation. This position, therefore, entirely ruins generation and corruption and, as a consequence, is evidently impossible.

[8] Sacred Teaching as well casts aside this error in confessing that God is “high and elevated,” according to Isaiah (6:1), and that He is “over all,” according to Romans (9:5). For, if He is the being of all things, He is part of all things, but not over them.

[9] So, too, those who committed this error are condemned by the same judgment as are the idolaters who “gave the incommunicable name,” that is, of God, “to wood and stones,” as it is written (Wis. 14:21). If, indeed, God is the being of all things, there will be no more reason to say truly that a stone is a being than to say that a stone is God.

I think the error of the O.P. is that it misinterprets the meaning of the word " participation, " which is a favorite of Thomas but no where defined. It is obvious from the above quotation that " participation, " in the context of the " act of being of created beings is a sharing of the " common esse, " which is proper to created beings but which is not the esse of God.

So there is no such thing as one esse for God and for created beings. There is the esse of God and the " common esse " of created beings, which are two absolutely distinct and separate realities. And the " common esse " of created beings is the esse they " participate " in.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Hm. You defined esse as “the act of being real.” The way you are treating it is as though, if anything is real, as would be necessary for anything and everything to exist, then everything must be the same act; there can be only one act of being real, everything that is real must be one.

I am saying that there is only one intrinsic act of reality. I am also saying that there are many distinct essences that are dependent on that one intrinsic act of reality in-order to be real since their natures by themselves have no reality.

To have an esse is to have existence or actuality, but it is not necessarily to have independent existence or actuality.

That is simply false. If God gives an essence its own esse, then by definition it has its own independent act of reality because that is what it is to have its own esse. Otherwise the word is functionally meaningless.

The existential function of creaturely esse would be to be distinct from, though contingent upon, God.

Again that is a false definition of esse. It has nothing to do with being distinct from God and has everything to do with an essence being actual or real. Real does not have distinctions in it; there are no quantities in it; there is simply real and not real.

The act of reality is not a genus - a class of objects divided into several subordinate species.

It need not be independent to be meaningful.

If a thing is only real because God is thinking it then what sense is there to speak of a thing having its own esse? Its very clear to me at least that the idea of a creaturely esse is false and functionally meaningless. If a thing has its own esse then it has its own independent act of reality or existence; it does not make sense that God needs to sustain it in esse or existence in order for it to be real, since that contradicts the fact that it has its own independent act of esse.

For example if the only reason you were real is because I was thinking about you, it would obviously follow from that fact that you have no reality of your own; you have no esse of your own. You essence is real only because I am sharing my esse with you, because that is what a loving person does; they share their existence (get the hint?).

It is not evident to me that that which is real must actually be God and can only differ essentially.

Again I said that the act of being real is God. I never said that the nature of created things are essentially God. I am not a pantheist, and only somebody who doesn’t fully understand what pantheism is would claim that I am.

As for you disagreement we will have to agree to disagree. That which is essentially God cannot be an essential part of a creatures nature (essence). This is why I can’t agree with you when you say that a creature has its own esse. There is only one act of reality and that is God.

You will have to forgive me. I don’t have the greatest fluency with this vocabulary, but I am not seeing as logically problematic what you are seeing as logically problematic.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Linux]

So there is no such thing as one esse for God and for created beings. There is the esse of God and the " common esse " of created beings, which are two absolutely distinct and separate realities. And the " common esse " of created beings is the esse they " participate " in.

Linus2nd

Nobody can here you when you shout. Read the first paragraph of the OP.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If a thing is only real because God is thinking it then what sense is there to speak of a thing having its own esse? Its very clear to me at least that the idea of a creaturely esse is false and functionally meaningless. If a thing has its own esse then it has its own independent act of reality or existence; it does not make sense that God needs to sustain it in esse or existence in order for it to be real, since that contradicts the fact that it has its own independent act of esse.

For example if the only reason you were real is because I was thinking about you, it would obviously follow from that fact that you have no reality of you own; you have no esse of your own. You essence is real only because I am sharing my esse with you, because that is what a loving person does; they share their existence (get the hint?). . .

Are we talking about things or persons?

God can maintain or eternally create things that have their own independent reality.
Talking about things, we would have to appeal to physics for some insight and, as far as I understand, it would support an idea of independent existence. God would know them all in His omniscience.

As to persons, we were created as a dyad, as a church, meant to love each other as ourselves and God with all hearts.

God is Love and Beauty, and out of His love, He created all things. Things are expressions of and do not contain His love and beauty.

We were created with His spirit within us; we are very different from things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nobody can here you when you shout. Read the first paragraph of the OP.

I thought that you had put me on your " do not respond " list? I read your first paragraph several times. I’m more interested in the rest of your O.P. That is why I have asked you several times to respond to my post #14.

And by the way, Thomas may raise questions in some minds on a few points but he shows where you are essentially wrong and I showed you where in my " shot out. " The readers who post and who just stop by will judge.

Linus2nd