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

[Linux]

First things first. You may see words that are used by Aquinas, but that does not mean i am from the school of Aquinas. I am not a Thomist; at least I am not one in the sense of being an unquestioning loyal follower. And I wouldn’t call my self one even if all my philosophical beliefs where 100% consistent with Aquinas. I am simply a philosopher seeking the truth. If that truth happens to fall in line with the teachings of Aquinas, then so be it. If not, I don’t care. Aquinas is only as valuable to me as much as he allows me to see the truth. I may use concepts and arguments from Aquinas from time to time, but my doing so does not come from the belief that Aquinas is unquestionable dogma. Those of you who want to dogmatically dictate the teachings of Aquinas as a rebuttal without presenting a genuine refutation of my argument, please don’t. An argument from authority or dogma holds no interest for me. I am only interested in the truth in so far as it is logical, and I couldn’t care less whether or not my arguments or concepts are consistent with those of Aquinas or anybody else since that is not my goal in the first place. Take my argument for what it is and give a genuine rebuttal.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing
3. Esse cannot begin to exist.
4. Esse self-evidently exists.
5. Premise 1, 2, 3 and 4 necessitates that in order for esse to exist it must exist eternally
6. Contingent essences exist.
7. I can conclude from premise 5 that contingent essences are not objectively identical with the act of being real, since those essences begin to exist and esse must exist eternally. Therefore it is not the act of being real (esse) that begins to exist, but rather it is the essence of a created thing (the nature of it) that begins to be real when conjoined with esse (God).
8. God is the act of being real (esse). Since esse is eternal, it cannot be contingent and therefore cannot be objectively identical to the nature (essence) of contingent things. Neither can a contingent thing have in it that which is essentially identical to God. Thus contingent beings are only analogously real; they have no esse of their own.
9. Just like esse, essences cannot come out of nothing.
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.

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.

 

[empther]

This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God

Quick answer to the thread’s title’s question: NO !!

The “argument” ( cough, choke! ) of the first post is easily torn apart,
and has been many times on this forum,
but I’ll let others have the fun,
if they think it’s worth bothering at this late date.

 

[Linux]

This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God

Quick answer to the thread’s title’s question: NO !!

The “argument” ( cough, choke! ) of the first post is easily torn apart,
and has been many times on this forum,
but I’ll let others have the fun,
if they think it’s worth bothering at this late date.

whoops, i thought this was a rebuttal…
just some angry person with a chip on their shoulder.
I’ll keep waiting.

 

[empther]

whoops, i thought this was a rebuttal…
just some angry person with a chip on their shoulder.
I’ll keep waiting.

If you’re looking for the truth,
you may be waiting forever.

I feel like that Navajo Native American who worked with a particle physics research team.
A PBS documentary showed him back among his people trying to explain what he did. They didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. But that wasn’t their fault. They weren’t resisting him. They were in simply over their heads, as I would be in a lecture about particle physics.

 

[Linux]

If you’re looking for the truth,
you may be waiting forever.

If your looking for a career in comedy…I think that boat has sailed.

 

[empther]

Oh, hi, Linux. You’re there, hunh?

Tell you what.
Buy a copy of Wooden Boat magazine. Order plans for a row boat or something simple like that for a first project and build a boat. You’ll find it far more rewarding than stumbling around on the philosophy section with theories full of leaks…

 

[Linux]

Oh, hi, Linux. You’re there, hunh?

Tell you what.
Buy a copy of Wooden Boat magazine. Order plans for a row boat or something simple like that for a first project and build a boat.

Very kind of you, but its not my thing. Plus I get the feeling your already in the game of building boats…

…no wonder you haven’t provided a rebuttal yet. You would rather build rafts to escape my storm.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

My small post on this topic, as I do not have time for a longer post, I also will be unable to respond today.

1: Physics tells use that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, nor can it create more of itself. Therefore, it is impossible for nothing to come from nothing.

2: This in no way flows from your first point, it is a completely separate case, not dependent on the first. You provide no rational reason that this would be true, so the remainder of your argument falls apart. I will, however, continue to answer your points as though this one actually made sense.

3: Why not? You provide no reason for this…

4: Agreed, to a degree. We do exist, and it is self-evident that we exist because we exist.

5: As the first three points you made have no logical basis, this point fails as well.

6: In order for this to have any meaning, you would have to define contingent essences.

7: As point five is not true, any premises drawn from it also cannot be true; or, if there are true, it is not on the merit of point five, and therefore cannot be used to support your claim.

8: Your understanding of God’s essence is limited by the constraints of your feeble intellect (feeble not used as an insult, simply to illustrate that we are bound by the existence in which we operate. We cannot understand God’s existence any more than a 2D entity could understand ours; it is simply beyond us.)

9: You haven’t adequately defined essences, so I cannot speak to this.

10: Due to your lack of definition, I cannot really speak on this point either. However, I will say that you have given absolutely no evidence to support your assumption that esse is intrinsically linked to God’s mind, or any mind, for that matter.

This has been covered many times by many people far more knowledgeable than me, do a search on teh forums to find your answers.

God bless, and I hope you open your heart to the Truth in time.

 

[Linux]

My small post on this topic, as I do not have time for a longer post, I also will be unable to respond today.

Its a shame, because if you had took your time, you might have had something more substantial than what you say next…

1: Physics tells use that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, nor can it create more of itself. Therefore, it is impossible for nothing to come from nothing.

First of all, I was not making a scientific statement, I was making a metaphysical statement. The idea that nothing can destroy or create energy is a scientific statement (expressed solely in the context of methodological naturalism), as in, nothing physical can destroy or create energy; and that’s where the epistemological reach of that statement ends. What it is not saying is that no logically conceivable being can create or destroy energy; because that would be a metaphysical statement which goes beyond the epistemological grasp of science and therefore would result in being an unfounded claim, not to mention a fallacy.

But thanks anyway, since you have giving me the opportunity to experience first-hand what people mean by the term pseudo-science.

The rest of your arguments…are not arguments at all, but rather they are mere assertions claiming my argument is wrong while at the same time excusing yourself from explaining why they are wrong. So…I skipped them.

An essence is the “whatness” of a thing (its distinct nature or quiddity) as opposed to the “isness” of a thing (the fact that it is real). But I wouldn’t expect your poor mind to understand that since you cannot even grasp the epistemological distinction between scientific statements and metaphysical statements.

You could have saved yourself the embarrassment if you had never posted at all.

This has been covered many times by many people far more knowledgeable than me, do a search on teh forums to find your answers.

God bless, and I hope you open your heart to the Truth in time.

I smell arrogance. I wouldn’t mind if you actually had a rebuttal worth considering. At least then there would be some meaningful substance to you arrogance instead of empty gestures of superiority.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Hi, Linux. Please don’t mind empther. He’s our resident philosophy forum troll.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

I’m with you so far.

1. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing.

Still with you.

1. Esse cannot begin to exist.

This is not self-evident, and even in light of the preceding premises is a non-sequitur. So this claim is essentially (pun intended) unsubstantiated. Provide a reason for believing that no being can begin to exist.

1. Esse self-evidently exists.

Check.

1. Premise 1, 2, 3 and 4 necessitates that in order for esse to exist it must exist eternally

Premise 3 has not been established, so no such necessity yet exists.

1. Contingent essences exist.

Clearly.

1. I can conclude from premise 5 that contingent essences are not objectively identical with the act of being real, since those essences begin to exist and esse must exist eternally. Therefore it is not the act of being real (esse) that begins to exist, but rather it is the essence of a created thing (the nature of it) that begins to be real when conjoined with esse (God).

1. God is the act of being real (esse). Since esse is eternal, it cannot be contingent and therefore cannot be objectively identical to the nature (essence) of contingent things. Neither can a contingent thing have in it that which is essentially identical to God. Thus contingent beings are only analogously real; they have no esse of their own.

1. Just like esse, essences cannot come out of nothing.

1. 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.

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.

Your argument falters at step 3, so it would be redundant to address the rest of these points individually. You need to provide a logical basis for the belief that God cannot create separate beings before this debate can move any further.

 

[Linux]

Hi, Linux. Please don’t mind empther. He’s our resident philosophy forum troll.

I’m with you so far.

Still with you.

This is not self-evident, and even in light of the preceding premises is a non-sequitur. So this claim is essentially (pun intended) unsubstantiated. Provide a reason for believing that no being can begin to exist.

Check.

Premise 3 has not been established, so no such necessity yet exists.

Clearly.

Your argument falters at step 3, so it would be redundant to address the rest of these points individually. You need to provide a logical basis for the belief that God cannot create separate beings before this debate can move any further.

Okay, will do tomorrow evening. Going to sleep.

 

[empther]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

… unless God creates it. You gratuitously dismiss this possibility.

1. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing

… unless God creates it. You gratuitously… oh, I already said that.

1. Esse cannot begin to exist.

Since 1 and 2 are false, 3 is no good either. And there is no point in going on with this.

 

[empther]

prodigal adds to the comedy.

Hi, Linux. Please don’t mind empther. He’s our resident philosophy forum troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linux

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

I’m with you so far.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes:

So God can’t create?

Quote:
2. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing.

Still with you.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes:

So God can’t create?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think I mentioned to you once before that you should not try to invent your own philosophy. So until you have established yourself as a philosopher of renown, I advise that you not belittle Thomas. Has it ever occurred to you that people use Thomas’ arguments because they happen to be true ? And why would people try to invent an argument when Thomas has already covered the ground better than they ever could.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

I think you need to prove that. And how do you define " nothing ? "

1. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing

What do you mean by the " act of being real ? "

1. Esse cannot begin to exist.

That depends on how you answer my question to point # 1

1. Esse self-evidently exists

And that dependes on how you answer my question to point # 2. And what do you mean by " self evident? "

1. Premise 1, 2, 3 and 4 necessitates that in order for esse to exist it must exist eternally

Perhaps - if you answer all the objections.

1. Contingent essences exist.

And how do you define " essences ? " And how do you define " contingent ? " And you need to prove that such things actually exist. It won’t do to just make a bald statement.

1. I can conclude from premise 5 that contingent essences are not objectively identical with the act of being real, since those essences begin to exist and esse must exist eternally.

So, you are saying we are supposed to believe that " essences ( however you define them) really exist but they are not identical to " the act of being real. " you seem to be saying that " essences " exist but they are not real because they cannot be identical to the " act of being real. " You seem to be contradicting yourself.

And how did your " essences " begin to exist since you said " out of nothing comes nothing." ( point #1 )

Therefore it is not the act of being real (esse) that begins to exist, but rather it is the essence of a created thing (the nature of it) that begins to be real when conjoined with esse (God).

But you said in point # 1 that " out of nothing comes nothing. " So how could your " essences " exist ? How can something be " created " out of nothing? And what do you mean by the " nature of it ( essence ? ) ? "

So now you are saying that your " essences " are " conjoined with " esse " or " ( God ) "

Wow, that is a jump. You claim that " esse " is " eternal " and " God. " And then you say that the " eternal " is conjoined to the contingent. Seems contradictory, how can the eternal and the contingent be united in one " essence? " Seems that is the same as saying that one thing can be contingent and eternal at the same time. This is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. Nothing can be and not be the same thing at the same time.

And where did " God " come from? You haven’t proven " God " exists. Nor have you defined what you mean by " God. " And you haven’t proven that " esse " is God.

1. God is the act of being real (esse).

Really? You haven’t proven that. And if true, then God would be the only real thing, right?

So " contingent " things are not real then?

Since esse is eternal, it cannot be contingent and therefore cannot be objectively identical to the nature (essence) of contingent things. Neither can a contingent thing have in it that which is essentially identical to God.

Wow, so " esse " really doesn’t enter into composition with " contingent " things, it just sort of sits on the outside of " essence ? " And that is supposed to make " essence " real? So you are saying that " essence " has no " esse " because that is " God. " If essence has no esse of its own, how can it exist? Does it exist just because " God " happens to be standing just outside of it? Seems very convoluted to me.

Thus contingent beings are only analogously real; they have no esse of their own.

So they can’t exist then, right?

1. Just like esse, essences cannot come out of nothing.

You haven’t proven that. You are just making a bald statement.

1. 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.

Why must " Esse " be a " mind ? " Whoa there! How do we know " Esse " is mind firstly, and secondly, how do we know it has ideas? And how do we know it joins ideas with the “act of being real? " And I thought you said that " esse " was conjoined with " essences ?” Now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying it is ideas that are conjoined with " esse, " which you defined with the " act of being real. " You can’t have it both ways.

In other words creative abstractions in the mind of God are conjoined with the actuality of God.

What exactly do you mean? And you need to prove it, you can’t just make a bald statement.

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.

Neither of which you have proven.

Hence the only distinction between God and creation is the essences of things and not the reality of things.

That is contradictiory and has not been proven.

Therefore God is the esse of all contingent essences.

On the contrary, God is entirely transcendent to contingent essences, which he creates out of nothing, and which have their own acts of existence given to them by God as a part of their essence.

Linus2nd

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Its a shame, because if you had took your time, you might have had something more substantial than what you say next…

First of all, I was not making a scientific statement, I was making a metaphysical statement. The idea that nothing can destroy or create energy is a scientific statement (expressed solely in the context of methodological naturalism), as in, nothing physical can destroy or create energy; and that’s where the epistemological reach of that statement ends. What it is not saying is that no logically conceivable being can create or destroy energy; because that would be a metaphysical statement which goes beyond the epistemological grasp of science and therefore would result in being an unfounded claim, not to mention a fallacy.

The same principle applies, a thought cannot create itself any more than a rock can create itself. However, I will admit that in my haste I misread your first point. I will agree that nothing comes from nothing.

But thanks anyway, since you have giving me the opportunity to experience first-hand what people mean by the term pseudo-science.

No need to get snarky, I have been cordial and polite. It was not a matter of pseudo science, but rather derived from a misunderstanding of your first statement.

The rest of your arguments…are not arguments at all, but rather they are mere assertions claiming my argument is wrong while at the same time excusing yourself from explaining why they are wrong. So…I skipped them.

The rest of my points were not intended to be arguments. You asked for a rebuttal, which does not necessarily require additional arguments on the part of the person doing the rebutting. You failed to provide valid reasoning behind your assertions on points two and three; in light of this lack of reasoning there was nothing to which I could offer a rebuttal. Rather than skip them entirely, I chose to tell you why I was unable to provide rebuttals to them. Essentially, they are non-points because you provide no rational backing to them.

An essence is the “whatness” of a thing (its distinct nature or quiddity) as opposed to the “isness” of a thing (the fact that it is real). But I wouldn’t expect your poor mind to understand that since you cannot even grasp the epistemological distinction between scientific statements and metaphysical statements.

Once again, you are being insulting whereas I have only been polite. If you would like to be insulting I will gladly engage with you over pm, however I am under strict watch for not being charitable, and therefore will be abstaining from rudeness in the public forums.

However, I will say that science, while being limited, can inform and improve upon the metaphysical and the philosophical; to reject it simply because you chose not to incorporate it into your own thought process is a bad decision, and one which will limit how well you can understand and seek the Truth.

You could have saved yourself the embarrassment if you had never posted at all.

It’s funny, I don’t feel embarrassed at all. Perhaps embarrassed for you, but not on behalf of myself.

I smell arrogance. I wouldn’t mind if you actually had a rebuttal worth considering. At least then there would be some meaningful substance to you arrogance instead of empty gestures of superiority.

No arrogance, I stopped being arrogant a long time ago; it didn’t mesh well when I considered my place in the scheme of things. I genuinely hope that you are able to accept the Truth, because there is no greater joy in life than knowing God.

 

[polytropos]

… unless God creates it. You gratuitously dismiss this possibility.

… unless God creates it. You gratuitously… oh, I already said that.

1 and 2, insofar that I can tell, are compatible with Catholicism. I do not understand why everyone is trying to reject them. A misguided conclusion does not invalidate (nor necessitate the rejection of) every step of the argument.

Out of nothing comes nothing, therefore esse did not come out of nothing. That does not contradict the Catholic faith. God, as pure being/esse, had to exist (outside of time and space) so that there could be something. If God did not exist, there would be nothing.

Since 1 and 2 are false, 3 is no good either. And there is no point in going on with this.

1 and 2 are not false. 3 is false.

 

[yppop]

First things first. You may see words that are used by Aquinas, but that does not mean i am from the school of Aquinas. I am not a Thomist; at least I am not one in the sense of being an unquestioning loyal follower. And I wouldn’t call my self one even if all my philosophical beliefs where 100% consistent with Aquinas. I am simply a philosopher seeking the truth. If that truth happens to fall in line with the teachings of Aquinas, then so be it. If not, I don’t care. Aquinas is only as valuable to me as much as he allows me to see the truth. I may use concepts and arguments from Aquinas from time to time, but my doing so does not come from the belief that Aquinas is unquestionable dogma. Those of you who want to dogmatically dictate the teachings of Aquinas as a rebuttal without presenting a genuine refutation of my argument, please don’t. An argument from authority or dogma holds no interest for me. I am only interested in the truth in so far as it is logical, and I couldn’t care less whether or not my arguments or concepts are consistent with those of Aquinas or anybody else since that is not my goal in the first place. Take my argument for what it is and give a genuine rebuttal.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing
3. Esse cannot begin to exist.
4. Esse self-evidently exists.
5. Premise 1, 2, 3 and 4 necessitates that in order for esse to exist it must exist eternally
6. Contingent essences exist.
7. I can conclude from premise 5 that contingent essences are not objectively identical with the act of being real, since those essences begin to exist and esse must exist eternally. Therefore it is not the act of being real (esse) that begins to exist, but rather it is the essence of a created thing (the nature of it) that begins to be real when conjoined with esse (God).
8. God is the act of being real (esse). Since esse is eternal, it cannot be contingent and therefore cannot be objectively identical to the nature (essence) of contingent things. Neither can a contingent thing have in it that which is essentially identical to God. Thus contingent beings are only analogously real; they have no esse of their own.
9. Just like esse, essences cannot come out of nothing.
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.

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.

Linux
At first glance, this seems brilliant. I plan to give it the depth of thought that I think it deserves before I comment further. I hope my first glance is correct.
Yppop

 

[prodigalson2011]

prodigal adds to the comedy.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes:

So God can’t create?

:bigyikes: :bigyikes:

So God can’t create?

God is not nothing, empther.

Leave it to you to take issue with one of the most common premises of theistic philosophy.

 

[openmind77]

First things first. You may see words that are used by Aquinas, but that does not mean i am from the school of Aquinas. I am not a Thomist; at least I am not one in the sense of being an unquestioning loyal follower. And I wouldn’t call my self one even if all my philosophical beliefs where 100% consistent with Aquinas. I am simply a philosopher seeking the truth. If that truth happens to fall in line with the teachings of Aquinas, then so be it. If not, I don’t care. Aquinas is only as valuable to me as much as he allows me to see the truth. I may use concepts and arguments from Aquinas from time to time, but my doing so does not come from the belief that Aquinas is unquestionable dogma. Those of you who want to dogmatically dictate the teachings of Aquinas as a rebuttal without presenting a genuine refutation of my argument, please don’t. An argument from authority or dogma holds no interest for me. I am only interested in the truth in so far as it is logical, and I couldn’t care less whether or not my arguments or concepts are consistent with those of Aquinas or anybody else since that is not my goal in the first place. Take my argument for what it is and give a genuine rebuttal.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. Therefore esse (the act of being real) cannot begin to exist from nothing
3. Esse cannot begin to exist.
4. Esse self-evidently exists.
5. Premise 1, 2, 3 and 4 necessitates that in order for esse to exist it must exist eternally
6. Contingent essences exist.
7. I can conclude from premise 5 that contingent essences are not objectively identical with the act of being real, since those essences begin to exist and esse must exist eternally. Therefore it is not the act of being real (esse) that begins to exist, but rather it is the essence of a created thing (the nature of it) that begins to be real when conjoined with esse (God).
8. God is the act of being real (esse). Since esse is eternal, it cannot be contingent and therefore cannot be objectively identical to the nature (essence) of contingent things. Neither can a contingent thing have in it that which is essentially identical to God. Thus contingent beings are only analogously real; they have no esse of their own.
9. Just like esse, essences cannot come out of nothing.
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.

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.

In Hinduism we call this original ‘esse’ - Brahman. But we also say that this Brahman is totally unknowable and indescribable, so we can neither say that it is a thing or that it is not a thing (nothing).

Brahman, this original substance (esse?) is impersonal so you can neither worship it nor have a relationship with it. At the beginning of a new universe, the Trinity emerges from this original esse and it is the Trinity that creates the rest of the universe. But you are right, Brahman is the basis of all other essences, but we can never know what Brahman actually is (except that it exists).

Ultimately Brahman is the only ‘real’ thing. All else is illusion.

 

[empther]

More comedy from prodigal, post 18
( yesterday, I actually anticipated somebody might say something like this, and sure enough here it is )

God is not nothing, empther.

Leave it to you to take issue with one of the most common premises of theistic philosophy.

But the universe doesn’t come from him, that is, from his esse, substance, whatever you want to call it. .
Rather, he creates something where there was nothing.