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

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a Red Herring.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

“As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant diversionary tactic.”

Oh no, It is right on point - you just don’t want to admit it. One error leads to another.

Linus2nd.

 

[empther]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

Quote:
Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

Is God the esse of all contigent essences?

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Previously I wrote the following in the thread :

Quote:
A Challenge to Philosophers / Theologians / Others

which challenges this pantheistic humbug.

On Linuseht2nd’s recommendation,
I will copy this post to the other two threads listed above.

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.

All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Quote:
Quote:
I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man’s tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.

Here, Aquinas points out that the human intellect cannot be material or it could not know everything humans know, virtually any idea that is presented to it.
Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is ) of God.

---

 

[Linux]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Another red herring.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Previously I wrote the following in the thread :

which challenges this pantheistic humbug.

On Linuseht2nd’s recommendation,
I will copy this post to the other two threads listed above.

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.

All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Here, Aquinas points out that the human intellect cannot be material or it could not know everything humans know, virtually any idea that is presented to it.
Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is ) of God.

---

Amen.

Linus2nd

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t know if this contradicts or confirms the OP’s argument, but it is important to consider I think if we are going to use Aristotelian and Thomistic categories:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly. newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

Reply to Objection 1. God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article3

It seems that St. Thomas is stating that God is continuously present as the cause of being of all essences, yet God’s essence is not identical to the essence of the things themselves. I think this defeats any charges of Pantheism. On the other hand, I suspect that there is more to the story here that I have missed.

 

[Linux]

I don’t know if this contradicts or confirms the OP’s argument, but it is important to consider I think if we are going to use Aristotelian and Thomistic categories:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an** agent **is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that…
​

This coupled with the fact that God is his esse, which is his nature, which is his power, which is his will…

Also coupled with the fact that God is a sustainer…

Also coupled with the fact that you cannot get an act of existing out of absolutly nothing…

Also coupled with the fact that creation cannot have as its nature that which is identical with God (esse/the act of existing)…

It follows that God is indeed the esse of all contingent essences.

I think i just heard somebodies bubble pop! Very strange indeed.​

 

[tdgesq]

I think that maybe people were confused by this language:

It follows that God is indeed the esse of all contingent essences.

When you say God “is” something else, then it’s easy to take it as a claim of identity. God certainly continuously causes being that is different from Himself, effects being different from causes; which I think is what are getting at by contingent essences.

I think i just heard somebodies bubble pop! Very strange indeed.

Well, not mine since everything you’ve explained thus far is consistent with my understanding.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know if this contradicts or confirms the OP’s argument, but it is important to consider I think if we are going to use Aristotelian and Thomistic categories:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly. newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

Reply to Objection 1. God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article3

It seems that St. Thomas is stating that God is continuously present as the cause of being of all essences, yet God’s essence is not identical to the essence of the things themselves. I think this defeats any charges of Pantheism. On the other hand, I suspect that there is more to the story here that I have missed.

No because the O.P has said that God’s esse is the esse of created beings. That is not what Thomas taught ( see my prior posts ) here and elsewhere. If you are familiar with Thomas you should know that he said that God’s presence is not to be understood as saying or thinking that God and creatures are mixed in any way.

Of course He is present to us and most intimately, this is Catholic Teaching. It is also Catholic teaching that God and creatures are absolutely different and separate.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This coupled with the fact that God is his esse, which is his nature, which is his power, which is his will…

Also coupled with the fact that God is a sustainer…

Also coupled with the fact that you cannot get an act of existing out of absolutly nothing…

Also coupled with the fact that creation cannot have as its nature that which is identical with God (esse/the act of existing)…

It follows that God is indeed the esse of all contingent essences.

I think i just heard somebodies bubble pop! Very strange indeed.

Not mine. The poster has misinterpreted Thomas. If he agrees with what you say here, it proves he has misunderstood. Thomas disagrees with much of what you say here. on top of that much of it is contradictory. I have underlined where you are worng and where you contradict Catholic teaching…

Also you the following statement is misleading:

" Also coupled with the fact that creation cannot have as its nature that which is identical with God (esse/the act of existing)…" You said that God’s esse is the esse of creatures. That is contraductory to Catholic teaching. It is also irrational.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know if this contradicts or confirms the OP’s argument, but it is important to consider I think if we are going to use Aristotelian and Thomistic categories:

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly. newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1

Reply to Objection 1. God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article3

It seems that St. Thomas is stating that God is continuously present as the cause of being of all essences, yet God’s essence is not identical to the essence of the things themselves. I think this defeats any charges of Pantheism. On the other hand, I suspect that there is more to the story here that I have missed.

But Linux is saying something entirely different. He says that this means that God’s Esse, is the esse of creatures. Perhaps that is not technically Pantheism but it is certainly contrary to Catholic teaching.

He futher interprets this to mean that we exist in the Mind of God. Also contrary to Catholic teaching.

He is interpreting these quotations from Thomas in an entirely different way than Thomas and from your own understanding.

He further denies creation from ex nihilo.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

---

I think that maybe people were confused by this language:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linux
It follows that God is indeed the esse of all contingent essences.

When you say God “is” something else, then it’s easy to take it as a claim of identity. God certainly continuously causes being that is different from Himself, effects being different from causes; which I think is what are getting at by contingent essences.

Quote:
I think i just heard somebodies bubble pop! Very strange indeed.

Well, not mine since everything you’ve explained thus far is consistent with my understanding.

Then you are wrong. God is not the esse of all creatures. That is not what Thomas taught. Indeed that means that God and creatures are the same. And this is contrary to Catholic dogma.

Linus2nd

 

[tdgesq]

But Linux is saying something entirely different. He says that this means that God’s Esse, is the esse of creatures. Perhaps that is not technically Pantheism but it is certainly contrary to Catholic teaching.

I see. I was having trouble understanding why this was such a big deal since Aquinas pretty clearly states that God is the ever-present cause of the essence of all things; which is why I posted this:

On the other hand, I suspect that there is more to the story here that I have missed.

Apparently there is more to the story. Why did Linux pretend like he was agreeing with those quotes from Aquinas I just cited if he meant something else?

I mean, if we aren’t talking about a causal relationship between God and other things, exactly how is it that God “is” the esse of all other essences? Somebody’s going to have to describe exactly how that works.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see. I was having trouble understanding why this was such a big deal since Aquinas pretty clearly states that God is the ever-present cause of the essence of all things; which is why I posted this:

Apparently there is more to the story. Why did Linux pretend like he was agreeing with those quotes from Aquinas I just cited if he meant something else?

I mean, if we aren’t talking about a causal relationship between God and other things, exactly how is it that God “is” the esse of all other essences? Somebody’s going to have to describe exactly how that works.

Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Not mine. The poster has misinterpreted Thomas. If he agrees with what you say here, it proves he has misunderstood. Thomas disagrees with much of what you say here. on top of that much of it is contradictory. I have underlined where you are worng and where you contradict Catholic teaching…

Also you the following statement is misleading:

" Also coupled with the fact that creation cannot have as its nature that which is identical with God (esse/the act of existing)…" You said that God’s esse is the esse of creatures. That is contraductory to Catholic teaching. It is also irrational.

Linus2nd

I have notice that you guys are very skilled at not rationally addressing an arguments logical structure and instead asserting error and heresy. I applaud you :clapping:

Nevertheless the conclusion of my argument follows necessarily. If you feel it contradicts your faith, there is not much I can do about that sorry.

 

[Linux]

I mean, if we aren’t talking about a causal relationship between God and other things, exactly how is it that God “is” the esse of all other essences? Somebody’s going to have to describe exactly how that works.

Well, metaphysically speaking, we know that esse is never identical with the nature of a created thing even after it is conjoined. How esse does not become identical with an essence is not clear, but we know its true because things pass in an out of the act of existing and would not do so if their nature was the act of existing.

Esse cannot begin to exist because it is existence, and existence is the antithesis of nothing. Existence is a “nature” in and of itself.

 

[utunumsint]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

I don’t agree with this. I would restate it to say 1-Nothing cannot cause anything to be.

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

I don’t agree with this. I would restate it to say 2-Nothing cannot be the cause of esse.

1. Esse cannot begin to exist.

Yes it can, given a sufficiently powerful cause.

1. Esse self-evidently exists.

Yes it does, because it is caused by something else.

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

No. The cause of contingent esse must exist eternally.

1. Contingent essences exist.

Yes

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).

I disagree with this conclusion because I believe esse can be contingent along with contingent essences.

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.

I disagree, because I think esse can be necessary for God and contingent for created beings because caused by God.

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

Essences cannot be caused by nothing. It must be caused by God.

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.

God certainly knows all contingent essense, but does not create them out of himself. He causes them to be from his power out of nothing.

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

No. Creative abstractions in the mind of God are caused to be by 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.

Look, if the essences are abstractions in the mind of God, then they are not contingent. Right? They are eternal! Perfect. Consubstantial with God! Common! How can anything in God be contingent?

Therefore God is the esse of all contingent essences.

No. Absolutely not! Otherwise God would be contingent.

God bless,
Ut

 

[empther]

Linusthe2nd says it like it is ( post 93 in “Is God the esse of all contingent things?” ) …

Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

I don’t agree with this. I would restate it to say 1-Nothing cannot cause anything to be.

Ut

Neither can something cause nothing to be something. Nothing is the antithesis of reality and so it is impossible for it to ever become a something. Its a contradiction of the fact that it was absolutely nothing (a negation of reality) to begin with.

There is no rational reason to accept that an agent can manifest a new distinct “act of existing” any-more than it is rational to think that a magician literally pulled a rabbit out of nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing precisely because there is no-thing from which to create something. Reality itself has to come from God or not at all.

The logical problem isn’t solved by saying that we are finite but there is an infinitely powerful being that can do it; and that is simply because the logical connection between an infinitely powerful being and the possibility of creating an act of existing from nothing has not been rationally demonstrated in the first place. Its just an assertion that you take for granted for what you interpret to be the ontological significance of Creatio ex nihilo - which happens to be a dogma. Thus i doubt very much that your rejection of my argument has anything to do with the rational validity of what I am saying and everything to do with preserving what you believe to be under attack by my argument.

I have been there myself.

 

[utunumsint]

Neither can something cause nothing to be something. Nothing is the antithesis of reality and so it is impossible for it to ever become a something. Its a contradiction of the fact that it was absolutely nothing (a negation of reality) to begin with.

Nothing is impossible for God. He can create out of nothing.

There is no rational reason to accept that an agent can manifest a new distinct “act of existing” any-more than it is rational to think that a magician literally pulled a rabbit out of nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing precisely because there is no-thing from which to create something. Reality itself has to come from God or not at all.

As others have said, there is no equating God with a Magician. God can create out of nothing. A magician cannot.

The logical problem isn’t solved by saying that we are finite but there is an infinitely powerful being that can do it; and that is simply because the logical connection between an infinitely powerful being and the possibility of creating an act of existing from nothing has not been rationally demonstrated in the first place.

You are imposing human limitations on God. God’s power is not limited like our power is limited. And thus, you try to create a humanly understandable mockup of God that you can fit into your logic. Every form of pantheism is in essence a reduction of God to the finite. This is what you are doing right now.

Its just an assertion that you take for granted for what you interpret to be the ontological significance of Creatio ex nihilo - which happens to be a dogma. Thus i doubt very much that your rejection of my argument has anything to do with the rational validity of what I am saying and everything to do with preserving what you believe to be under attack by my argument.

I have been there myself.

I am a Christian. I am not a reductionist. I think there are many things that we must take on faith about God. And I think, that this is a rational position to take. Faith keeps us from making assumptions about the nature of reality base on our very limited human intellect and experience of reality. Faith keeps reason grounded.

Yes, I believe in creation ex nihilo because I find this doctrine in the Bible and it is taught by the catholic church. However, I do not think my reasoning has been compromise by this assertion of faith. My reasons are as follows: I think we remain nothing and depend completely on God’s power to maintain us in existence at all time. I think the same is true for the entire fabric of the universe, esse and essences included.

Nothing + God’s power = Something.
Nothing - God’s power = Nothing.

Like 0 +1 = 1 or
1 - 1 = 0

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t agree with this. I would restate it to say 1-Nothing cannot cause anything to be.

I don’t agree with this. I would restate it to say 2-Nothing cannot be the cause of esse.

Yes it can, given a sufficiently powerful cause.

Yes it does, because it is caused by something else.

No. The cause of contingent esse must exist eternally.

Yes

I disagree with this conclusion because I believe esse can be contingent along with contingent essences.

I disagree, because I think esse can be necessary for God and contingent for created beings because caused by God.

Essences cannot be caused by nothing. It must be caused by God.

God certainly knows all contingent essense, but does not create them out of himself. He causes them to be from his power out of nothing.

No. Creative abstractions in the mind of God are caused to be by God.

Look, if the essences are abstractions in the mind of God, then they are not contingent. Right? They are eternal! Perfect. Consubstantial with God! Common! How can anything in God be contingent?

No. Absolutely not! Otherwise God would be contingent.

God bless,
Ut

Congratulations, very well said. Better than I could. And you are one of the two or three amonst all the other Catholics posting on this and several similar threads that really gets it.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd