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

[prodigalson2011]

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

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.

God can create from nothing, but nothingness itself cannot create anything, which is all that point 1 is saying.

 

[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.

Linux,
I prefer to critique your thesis rather than discuss it, so I intend to respond only to you. Here is my understanding of your first statement, please tell me if I am on the right track. If you agree with my assessment I will continue onto step#2. Otherwise, I will bow out and you will have more time to respond to those that don’t understand your thesis.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
   This apparently simple thought is the source of centuries of discussion. The problem comes from the ambiguous meaning that we attach to the word “nothing”. John Barrow in his book, “The Book of Nothing” begins with this little poem by Hugh Bearns:

“As I was going up the stair/
I met a man who wasn’t there/
He wasn’t there again today/
I wish, I wish he’d stay away.”

For statements like, “nothing exists” or “nothing is real” are pure paradoxes in that they express with equal weight the conflicting ideas that: nothing is the absence of everything (the negative connotation) or nothing is something (the positive connotation). The statement that “nothing comes from nothing” involves both uses of the word “nothing”. It means nothing (the positive connotation) comes from nothing (the negative connotation) or, in other words, "something cannot come from nothing, which strongly implies your statement #2 and hence #3, namely that something (Esse, the pure form of existence) always existed.

In regard to some of your detractors, remember: He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he who thinks he knows everything.

Yppop

 

[empther]

God can create from nothing, but nothingness itself cannot create anything, which is all that point 1 is saying.

Go back to your post 10

You supported Linux’s points 1 and 2, or at least didn’t disagree,
however, you failed to mention that God’s creativity cancels out Linux’s points 1 and 2.

But the thread itself is about God, or a pantheistic God. Linux is trying to argue for a pantheistic God, and if points 1 and 2 are true then the rest of his argument necessarily follows too.

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

 

[prodigalson2011]

Go back to your post 10

You supported Linux’s points 1 and 2, or at least didn’t disagree,
however, you failed to mention that God’s creativity cancels out Linux’s points 1 and 2.

But the thread itself is about God, or a pantheistic God. Linux is trying to argue for a pantheistic God, and if points 1 and 2 are true then the rest of his argument necessarily follows too.

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

Why don’t you go back to my post 10 and look at my response to point number 3. Number 3 does not follow from points 1 and 2, so no, the rest of his argument does not necessarily follow. I can see how one would have the impression that premise 3 follows from the prior 2, but that is only due to a misunderstanding of the truism presented in premise 1. That statement only affirms the obvious truth that out of pure nothingness (in which not even God exists), nothing comes. It does not imply that something that does exist (i.e. God) cannot create new realities from nothing.

To reiterate, points 1 and 2 establish that nothing can come from pure nothingness. Point 3 attempts to establish that nothing can come from anything, which does not follow. Since nothingness is the absence of anything (e.g. space, time, matter, causal power, intellect, etc.) it is a matter of obvious logic that existence cannot be created by nonexistence. Linux needs to provide a logical reason for believing that an eternal and omnipotent being cannot create entirely new and separate beings from nothing.

 

[empther]

I can see how one would have the impression :bigyikes: see my note 1 below ] that premise 3 follows from the prior 2, but that is only due to a misunderstanding of the truism presented in premise 1. That statement only affirms the obvious truth that out of pure nothingness (in which not even God exists), nothing comes. It does not imply that something that does exist (i.e. God) cannot create new realities from nothing. :bigyikes: see my note 2 below ]

Note 1: I’m glad you used the word impression. What if an impressionable sixteen year old stumbled on Linux’s post 1., sees the “obvious logic” in it, and is lead to disbelieve in a Providential God? This is serious business. I take it seriously. That’s why I slammed the OP with the first line of my first post: “This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God.”

Note 2: Your first statement in your analysis of the OP argument should have been that God does create something out of nothing, in order to make it plain from square one that the OP argument was trash. That’s why I slammed the OP with the first line of my first post: “This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God.”

 

[prodigalson2011]

Note 1: I’m glad you used the word impression. What if an impressionable sixteen year old stumbled on Linux’s post 1., sees the “obvious logic” in it, and is lead to disbelieve in a Providential God? This is serious business. I take it seriously. That’s why I slammed the OP with the first line of my first post: “This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God.”

If an impressionable sixteen year old stumbled onto this thread, they would probably think that Linux seems calm, collected and intelligent while you seem aggressive, reactionary and insecure. You do not counter heresy with dismissal and hostility. You counter it with logic and charity. As St. Paul preached to the Ephesians, we “speak the truth in love.”

What employing such an attitude as you have done communicates to people is, “I cannot respond logically to this person so I’m going to lash out at him.” Like a schoolyard bully who beats up the nerdy kids. It doesn’t project a very favorable image, either of you or the faith you claim to represent.

Note 2: Your first statement in your analysis of the OP argument should have been that God does create something out of nothing, in order to make it plain from square one that the OP argument was trash. That’s why I slammed the OP with the first line of my first post: “This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God.”

“Slamming” people does nothing to further an argument, resolve a dispute or correct an error. And don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t say, thank you very much.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are more likely to drive people away from the Catholic Church than someone like Linux, when you insist on being so belligerent and vitriolic.

 

[empther]

As St. Paul preached to the Ephesians, we “speak the truth in love.”

His boss told the Pharisees: “…you brood of vipers…”
And his boss told his apostles “shake the dust from your sandals and leave that place”. Doesn’t sound like using logic.

That impressionable 16 year old would soon lose interest in the bland “logic” being used in responses and only remember the original post.
The impressionable are the people I worry about. I don’t care about anybody else. I’m not here to be loved. The Holy Spirit is good enough for me.

 

[prodigalson2011]

His boss told the Pharisees: “…you brood of vipers…”

Context, empther. He was talking to moral hypocrites, not people with different views.

And his boss told his apostles “shake the dust from your sandals and leave that place”. Doesn’t sound like using logic.

Again, context. That passage has nothing to do with philosophical debate. This same God also said, “Come, let us reason together.”

That impressionable 16 year old would soon lose interest in the bland “logic” being used in responses and only remember the original post.

You seem to know everything about everyone, empther. It must be nice being God.

The impressionable are the people I worry about. I don’t care about anybody else. I’m not here to be loved. The Holy Spirit is good enough for me.

If you’re worried about the impressionable people, then you should be mindful of what kind of impression you’re making. And having witnessed your behavior and the responses it has garnered here over the past couple of years, I have to say that I don’t think you communicate any of the following: a) patience b) charity c) kindness d) humility. These are 4 of the 7 virtues that every Christian is bound, to the best of their ability, to express to the world through their words and actions. Let’s review their meanings:

patience - resolving conflicts peacefully … creating a sense of peaceful stability and community rather than suffering, hostility, and antagonism.

charity - in Christian theology, charity—or love (agäpé) – is the greatest of the three theological virtues. Love, in the sense of an unlimited loving kindness towards all others, is held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit.

kindness - Having positive outlooks and cheerful demeanor; to inspire kindness in others.

humility - Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. … It is a spirit of self-examination; a hermeneutic of suspicion toward yourself and charity toward people you disagree with.

Exercising the virtues is the means by which the “impressionable” should be drawn towards Christ. “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” By love, not by shouting and “” faces.

 

[empther]

That impressionable 16 year old would soon lose interest in the bland “logic” being used in responses and only remember the original post.

You seem to know everything about everyone, empther. It must be nice being God.

You spent a lot of time responding to my last post, ( because it hit home ? )
but you could say nothing intelligent about my comment on the 16 year old. You certainly didn’t address the point of it either, although it’s clear enough.

You just don’t care about him. And I don’t find many others around here who do. That’s sad.

It’s amazing how a single remark from an adult can change a teenager’s life.

The first page of my book *Empress Theresa *has Theresa saying: “My job as a kid was to figure out what the heck was going on and what to do about it. It’s not easy when you’re young and everything is brand new.”

“everything is brand new” That’s the key. When everything is brand new, nothing has been written in granite, and a youth can be set off in any direction.

 

[Linux]

Note 1: I’m glad you used the word impression. What if an impressionable sixteen year old stumbled on Linux’s post 1., sees the “obvious logic” in it, and is lead to disbelieve in a Providential God? This is serious business. I take it seriously. That’s why I slammed the OP with the first line of my first post: “This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God.”

Note 2: Your first statement in your analysis of the OP argument should have been that God does create something out of nothing, in order to make it plain from square one that the OP argument was trash. That’s why I slammed the OP with the first line of my first post: “This is the same old pantheist garbage that keeps getting thrown in our face by people who don’t want a Providential God.”

Whether you happen to be right or wrong it is clear that your altitude is trash. In a debate you don’t assert that you are right and cry victory. You simply have no respect for philosophical discourse, and so your presence on this thread is more like that of a troll or an insecure attacker rather than a concerned rational personal. You add no value to this discussion. Please go away.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You spent a lot of time responding to my last post, ( because it hit home ? )

Actually, the entirety of that post took me about 5 minutes. Nevertheless, no I did not respond because what you said “hit home.” It is because I’m tired of seeing you turn what should be perfectly civil discussions into flame wars.

but you could say nothing intelligent about my comment on the 16 year old. You certainly didn’t address the point of it either, although it’s clear enough.

Um, I believe that’s what I’ve been doing this whole time. But first things first, I think you need to realize that this “impressionable 16 year old” of yours is really just a projection you use to justify your contentious behavior. If you were really so concerned about people going astray, you would be equally concerned about Linux’s spiritual state. Let’s say (hypothetically–I’m not actually saying you are, Linux) that Linux was one of your imagined “impressionable teens” who has been led astray? Do you think talking to him like a piece of trash is going to help him?

And while we’re at it, for the record, I once was one of those people, having been on the agnostic-atheist spectrum from the ages of 13-26, and as I’ve been repeating over and over, people who acted as you are now did more to drive me away from the faith than people with other religious beliefs. Between my personal life and my growing intellectual curiosity, which was met time and again with dismissal and anger whenever I would sincerely question something about Christianity that I didn’t understand, it was an easy slide into atheism.

You just don’t care about him. And I don’t find many others around here who do. That’s sad.

Oh, please. Just because everybody isn’t as angry at everything that isn’t Christian as you doesn’t mean we don’t care about the well being of others. I seem to recall Blessed JPII venerating the Koran, not spitting on it. Pope Benedict XVI prayed with Hindus (pantheists), he didn’t tell them their religion was garbage. The Church calls us to acknowledge those elements of truth and beauty wherever they may be found in other religions without compromising on the absolute Truth that is Jesus Christ. We do not do this by calling those of other beliefs idiots.

And if you want to talk about someone not addressing a point, I note that you had nothing to say about the Church’s teaching on the virtues, of which all of those I listed directly contradict your behavior.

It’s amazing how a single remark from an adult can change a teenager’s life.

Indeed. You should think about that.

The first page of my book *Empress Theresa *has Theresa saying: “My job as a kid was to figure out what the heck was going on and what to do about it. It’s not easy when you’re young and everything is brand new.”

“everything is brand new” That’s the key. When everything is brand new, nothing has been written in granite, and a youth can be set off in any direction.

And again, you should take your own advice. What kind of impression does this make on someone?:

“ Garbage! I don’t agree with this, so it’s stupid! :banghead: You’re all idiots!”

Because I can assure you, that’s exactly what most people will take away from your outbursts. It doesn’t help anyone. All a confused young person will see is a bitter and angry person who can’t deal with opinions besides his own. Needless to say, you’re not doing them any favors.

Anyway, I’ve got nothing else to say on the matter. This will be the last time I respond to you on this particular subject. If and when you decide to discuss the topic of this thread or others in a charitable manner, I’ll look forward to having a fruitful dialogue. Until then, any further attempts to goad me or anyone else into a personal battle will be duly ignored.

Take care, empther, and God bless you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

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.

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.

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.

As much as I’ve been chiding empther, I hadn’t even read this post. Can we not have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks?

Linux, I hope the irony of that last paragraph isn’t lost on you. I’ll admit that ProdglArchitct’s post came across a bit condescending, but launching a flat out personal assault is both unnecessary and inappropriate. We’re all adults here (I assume); let’s act like it. This kind of toxic atmosphere is what leads to certain topics (and people) being banned from discussion. Keep it civil, guys.

 

[empther]

Anyway, I’ve got nothing else to say on the matter. This will be the last time I respond to you on this particular subject.

Took on more than you bargained for when you wrote this trash in post 10, hunh?

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

Next time, watch what you say!

 

[Linux]

As much as I’ve been chiding empther, I hadn’t even read this post. Can we not have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks?

Linux, I hope the irony of that last paragraph isn’t lost on you. I’ll admit that ProdglArchitct’s post came across a bit condescending, but launching a flat out personal assault is both unnecessary and inappropriate. We’re all adults here (I assume); let’s act like it. This kind of toxic atmosphere is what leads to certain topics (and people) being banned from discussion. Keep it civil, guys.

Okay. Its just that these guys are getting on my nerves.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You spent a lot of time responding to my last post, ( because it hit home ? )
but you could say nothing intelligent about my comment on the 16 year old. You certainly didn’t address the point of it either, although it’s clear enough.

You just don’t care about him. And I don’t find many others around here who do. That’s sad.

You are wrong there. Most of us here care indeed and have often pointed out that Linux’s analysis of reality is Pantheistic and is contrary to constant Catholic teaching and cannot be held by any Catholic nor, indeed, by any Christian, nor by any believer in the One God of Abraham.

We have also showed that Linux’s line of argument is incoherent and therefore fallacious.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

You are wrong there. Most of us here care indeed and have often pointed out that Linux’s analysis of reality is Pantheistic and is contrary to constant Catholic teaching and cannot be held by any Catholic nor, indeed, by any Christian, nor by any believer in the One God of Abraham.

Can you please explain why the argument as it is presented amounts to what is commonly understood to be pantheism?

 

[Linux]

You are wrong there. Most of us here care indeed and have often pointed out that Linux’s analysis of reality is Pantheistic and is contrary to constant Catholic teaching and cannot be held by any Catholic nor, indeed, by any Christian, nor by any believer in the One God of Abraham.

I am not arguing for pantheism, but even if i was i fail to understand why your dislike for it has any relivance in this debate.

Can you please explain why the argument as it is presented amounts to pantheism?

 

[Linux]

Linux,
I prefer to critique your thesis rather than discuss it, so I intend to respond only to you. Here is my understanding of your first statement, please tell me if I am on the right track. If you agree with my assessment I will continue onto step#2. Otherwise, I will bow out and you will have more time to respond to those that don’t understand your thesis.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
   This apparently simple thought is the source of centuries of discussion. The problem comes from the ambiguous meaning that we attach to the word “nothing”. John Barrow in his book, “The Book of Nothing” begins with this little poem by Hugh Bearns:

“As I was going up the stair/
I met a man who wasn’t there/
He wasn’t there again today/
I wish, I wish he’d stay away.”

For statements like, “nothing exists” or “nothing is real” are pure paradoxes in that they express with equal weight the conflicting ideas that: nothing is the absence of everything (the negative connotation) or nothing is something (the positive connotation). The statement that “nothing comes from nothing” involves both uses of the word “nothing”. It means nothing (the positive connotation) comes from nothing (the negative connotation) or, in other words, "something cannot come from nothing, which strongly implies your statement #2 and hence #3, namely that something (Esse, the pure form of existence) always existed.

In regard to some of your detractors, remember: He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he who thinks he knows everything.

Yppop

Hello yppop.

I had some difficulty understanding your distinction between a positive nothing and a negative nothing. but i will try to explain what i mean.

When I speak of nothing I mean, in general, the absence of what it is to be objectively real. So when I say that out of nothing comes nothing, I am simply saying that in nothingness there is nothing to be produced because nothing is a negation of reality.

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).

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. 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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

There can be only one esse. There can be only one God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Can you please explain why the argument as it is presented amounts to what is commonly understood to be pantheism?

I have explained it before but will do it again. God is not a part of the created universe, he is absolutley transcendent to it. But you said that God’s esse is the esse of all essences. That is Pantheism.

God’s esse is his own esse, He does not bestow it on His creation. He gives His creation ( your essences ) their own existence. The Catholic Church describes it thusly: God created the world in time out of nothing. He continues to work most intimately in his creation keeping it in existence and guiding it to its proper end - Himself.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

God is not a part of the created universe,

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

he is absolutley transcendent to it.

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

But you said that God’s esse is the esse of all essences. That is Pantheism.

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.

God’s esse is his own esse,

I never said otherwise.

He does not bestow it on His creation.
He gives His creation ( your essences ) their own existence.

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.

The Catholic Church describes it thusly: God created the world in time out of nothing. He continues to work most intimately in his creation keeping it in existence and guiding it to its proper end - Himself.

Linus2nd

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. Perhaps pride is blinding you.
2. 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.