Is there any potential in God?

[Birdmanman]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would assist me in thinking through this:
Assuming God is outside of time (exists timelessly), and assuming the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense of the words “actual” and “potential”.

Is there any potential in God?

If yes, He is not pure actuality, but rather has a potential which cannot be actualized outside of time. There must then be some purer actuality to actualize this potential, but that purer actuality too would itself need to have the potential to actualize the less-pure-actuality’s potential. (Leading to an infinite causal regress, which is logically impossible).

If no and God has no potential: (something in the following list of conclusions must be wrong)

1. He is purely actual
2. He likewise has no potential to cause the universe
3. He then must be actually and timelessly causing the universe
4. The existence of the universe then must be timeless with Him (although time is an attribute of the universe, it would have a temporal beginning, but not an ontological (existence) beginning in this dilemma)
   **However, **
5. It is impossible for 2 distinct substances or existences to exist timelessly, for that would imply that they had time or space to differ, or that one lacked what another had, but in order for lacking to occur there must be the potential to make up for that lack, but all things existing timelessly must be fully actual.

I would appreciate it greatly if someone would point out a flaw in this dilemma.

**Please note: Nothing in the above is meant to discourage anyone from following and holding as absolutely true all that Holy Mother Church in Her Magisterium teaches. I am merely asking a question out of my flawed knowledge, and any contradiction between my reasoning and Her teaching is a lacking on my part. **

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would assist me in thinking through this:
Assuming God is outside of time (exists timelessly), and assuming the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense of the words “actual” and “potential”.

Is there any potential in God?

If yes, He is not pure actuality, but rather has a potential which cannot be actualized outside of time.

IMO, God is purely potential, and everything actualized is the result of the intent of God. I have no idea why you’d think this cannot happen outside of time, as Time is a creation of God. (If by Time we mean time/space in which matter as we know it exists.)

But God isn’t “outside of” Time, because God isn’t measurable or able to be limited. God is.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hi Julia Mae, thanks for responding!

IMO, God is purely potential, and everything actualized is the result of the intent of God.

If “everything actualized is the result of the intent of God”, then God’s intent must itself be actual, and not merely potential. Potentials cannot actualize themselves, that is why they are potentials, they need something else to actualize them; if a potential could actualize itself, then by virtue of the potential existing, it itself would be already an actual, and not a potential. If something else needs to happen before the potential can become actual (like the passage of time), then that potential is not really actualizing itself, but is actualized by whatever actual thing (like the passage of time) is necessary for the potential to become actual. God, then, cannot be purely potential, or something else would need to be actual to actualize God’s pure potential (a “higher God” or an “at-least-partially-actual-God”).

I have no idea why you’d think this cannot happen outside of time, as Time is a creation of God. (If by Time we mean time/space in which matter as we know it exists.)

Timelessly, if there were to be a potential that becomes actual, then such a ‘change’ would have to occur timelessly. Then it would be timelessly true that something is both actual in one way, and also is potential in the same way. But nothing can be both actual and potential in the same way, as these two terms are mutually exclusive. Thus, timelessly, there can be no potential, or if there were, it would without a moment’s loss become actual.
(If there were a timeless potential that could possibly be made actual, it would have no time in which to “become” actual, and so would really timelessly be actual and would not timelessly be potential; no time would pass in its being potential and “then” being actual, so timelessly it would be actual since it cannot be both timelessly actual and potential (which is self-contradictory))

But God isn’t “outside of” Time, because God isn’t measurable or able to be limited. God is.

I apologize for using the confusing terminology “outside of” time. By this I should have meant God is timeless; meaning “God is”, as in He is not limited by time (He exists even if time may not).

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hi Julia Mae, thanks for responding!

If “everything actualized is the result of the intent of God”, then God’s intent must itself be actual, and not merely potential. Potentials cannot actualize themselves, that is why they are potentials, they need something else to actualize them; if a potential could actualize itself, then by virtue of the potential existing, it itself would be already an actual, and not a potential.

A good definition of God. Look, you want to use a human concept to understand something impossible to understand as long as your consciousness resides in your brain, for the most part. And all you have is words, terrible limiting things. Of course, God is self-actualizing, by Intent. God is potential.

When we use words, in order to communicate they have definition. Limits. You cannot discuss God with words. You can only discuss human ideas about God. You have a syllogism that presupposes potential and actual as distinct. Irrelevant to God. You can’t impose limits on God.

God, then, cannot be purely potential, or something else would need to be actual to actualize God’s pure potential

Right. Intent.

Timelessly, if there were to be a potential that becomes actual, then such a ‘change’ would have to occur timelessly. Then it would be timelessly true that something is both actual in one way, and also is potential in the same way.

Correct. A very smart person once said to me about theology: If you don’t find the paradox, you haven’t seen the Truth. Let’s look at this sentence:But nothing can be both actual and potential in the same way, as these two terms are mutually exclusive. I agree. With God, “nothing can be.” That’s what comprises creation: nothingness. All potential is God; all actuality is God. All Creation is nothingness.

…it would without a moment’s loss become actual.

Correct. And so it is.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would assist me in thinking through this:
Assuming God is outside of time (exists timelessly), and assuming the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense of the words “actual” and “potential”.

Is there any potential in God?

If yes, He is not pure actuality, but rather has a potential which cannot be actualized outside of time. There must then be some purer actuality to actualize this potential, but that purer actuality too would itself need to have the potential to actualize the less-pure-actuality’s potential. (Leading to an infinite causal regress, which is logically impossible).

If no and God has no potential: (something in the following list of conclusions must be wrong)

1. He is purely actual
2. He likewise has no potential to cause the universe
3. He then must be actually and timelessly causing the universe
4. The existence of the universe then must be timeless with Him (although time is an attribute of the universe, it would have a temporal beginning, but not an ontological (existence) beginning in this dilemma)
   **However, **
5. It is impossible for 2 distinct substances or existences to exist timelessly, for that would imply that they had time or space to differ, or that one lacked what another had, but in order for lacking to occur there must be the potential to make up for that lack, but all things existing timelessly must be fully actual.

I would appreciate it greatly if someone would point out a flaw in this dilemma.

**Please note: Nothing in the above is meant to discourage anyone from following and holding as absolutely true all that Holy Mother Church in Her Magisterium teaches. I am merely asking a question out of my flawed knowledge, and any contradiction between my reasoning and Her teaching is a lacking on my part. **

Well, from the very beginning your " problem " makes no sense. Why assume God has potential when we know he doesn’t? This is not the proper Forum for playing games. :tsktsk:

 

[Birdmanman]

Well, from the very beginning your " problem " makes no sense. Why assume God has potential when we know he doesn’t? This is not the proper Forum for playing games. :tsktsk:

Thanks for responding, Linusthe2nd!

I’m sorry, I don’t see where I made that assumption? If you’re referring to my saying,

Assuming God is outside of time (exists timelessly), and assuming the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense of the words “actual” and “potential”.

I was simply trying to give the proper sense of what I meant when I said the words “actual” and “potential”. I did not mean to imply that we should assume outright that God has potential.
I did make an “if, then” statement attempting to show what would happen “if” God timelessly had potential, and by my reasoning it results in something that is logically untenable. So I now attempt to say that God does not have potential, but then it seems that that also means the universe is timelessly proceeding from God, that is, the universe is timelessly existent as well. But there cannot be 2 different timelessly existing substances (the universe, and God); leading to another dilemma. This is my current issue, and I would be happy if you could help me resolve it!

 

[Birdmanman]

Hello again, Julia Mae!

A good definition of God. Look, you want to use a human concept to understand something impossible to understand as long as your consciousness resides in your brain, for the most part. And all you have is words, terrible limiting things. Of course, God is self-actualizing, by Intent. God is potential.

Simply because my words are limited and cannot fully describe everything about God, does not mean that my words, or rather, the propositions I form with my words, cannot be true, and even absolutely true depending on the proposition. If I have defined actual and potential such that they are mutually exclusive, then something cannot be both actual and potential in the same respect. Likewise, if God is pure potential, and not at all actual, then it follows that His intention, which is somehow a “part” of Him (although I do not believe God has parts, proper, but is simple) must also be pure potential, and not actual. But if He has no actuality whatsoever, and is only potential, and there is nothing to make His potentiality into an actuality, unless you posit another God-type thing that is at least partially actual, and not purely potential.

When we use words, in order to communicate they have definition. Limits. You cannot discuss God with words. You can only discuss human ideas about God. You have a syllogism that presupposes potential and actual as distinct. Irrelevant to God. You can’t impose limits on God.

How do you know if it is irrelevant to God? Is not saying “you can’t impose limits on God” itself a statement about God using limited human words that you claim to be true?

All creation is nothingness

If this is so, and you are part of all creation, then you are nothingness. If your statement is a part of creation, it too is nothingness, which is essentially the same as saying you did not make a statement (You stated nothing). Do you think the statement 'all creation is nothingness" is true? If so, what is the distinction between truth and falsehood? If that distinction is not something, is not real, then you are not even able to say “truly” whether or not that distinction is false.

I hope nothing I said above sounded too harsh, I certainly don’t mean to attack you personally, and I enjoy discussing with you! But perhaps you might indulge me by at least assuming, for the sake of my question, that there is a real distinction between actuality and potentiality, and that these two things (actuality and potentiality) are mutually exclusive, so that something cannot be both actual and potential in the same respect at the time (and likewise, cannot be both actual and potential in the same respect timelessly either)?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for responding, Linusthe2nd!

I’m sorry, I don’t see where I made that assumption? If you’re referring to my saying,

I was simply trying to give the proper sense of what I meant when I said the words “actual” and “potential”. I did not mean to imply that we should assume outright that God has potential.
I did make an “if, then” statement attempting to show what would happen “if” God timelessly had potential, and by my reasoning it results in something that is logically untenable. So I now attempt to say that God does not have potential, but then it seems that that also means the universe is timelessly proceeding from God, that is, the universe is timelessly existent as well. But there cannot be 2 different timelessly existing substances (the universe, and God); leading to another dilemma. This is my current issue, and I would be happy if you could help me resolve it!

First of all it is a mistake to try to arrive at truth by using " if then " mind games. You have to start with what actually is. I would suggest you start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1. It explains the nature of God. One of His attributes is that He is absolutely Simple and Unchangeing. That means He has no potential for change. This is Catholic teaching and the Divine Truth of Revelation as experessed in the Scriptures.

This is also arrived at by philosophical reasoning as is found in St. Thomas’ Summa Thologiae, Part 1, Ques 2 and following. You can read it here: newadvent.org/summa/

 

[Birdmanman]

First of all it is a mistake to try to arrive at truth by using " if then " mind games. You have to start with what actually is. I would suggest you start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1. It explains the nature of God. One of His attributes is that He is absolutely Simple and Unchangeing. That means He has no potential for change. This is Catholic teaching and the Divine Truth of Revelation as experessed in the Scriptures.

This is also arrived at by philosophical reasoning as is found in St. Thomas’ Summa Thologiae, Part 1, Ques 2 and following. You can read it here: newadvent.org/summa/

Thanks for pointing me in this direction, I just looked at some of the Summa part 1 last night, but studying it more in depth will surely prove beneficial.

 

[jkiernan56]

There are 2 answers to your question: 1) There is NO potential “FOR” God 2) There is potential “IN” God.

God in Himself/Herself is that reality which nothing can be gained or lost. Therefore since God has nothing He/She can gain, then there is no potential “FOR” God.

Now if God already contains the Fullness of Being, then in that “BEING” God who possesses and is Omnipotent, there is potential “IN” God to bring into being “that which does not and cannot exist on its own.” This potentiality is on display in actuality - ie: the universe, you and me. Should God stop thinking of you and me, we would no longer exist. We are potential to God. God is not potential to Himself.

 

[Birdmanman]

There are 2 answers to your question: 1) There is NO potential “FOR” God 2) There is potential “IN” God.

God in Himself/Herself is that reality which nothing can be gained or lost. Therefore since God has nothing He/She can gain, then there is no potential “FOR” God.

Now if God already contains the Fullness of Being, then in that “BEING” God who possesses and is Omnipotent, there is potential “IN” God to bring into being “that which does not and cannot exist on its own.” This potentiality is on display in actuality - ie: the universe, you and me. Should God stop thinking of you and me, we would no longer exist. We are potential to God. God is not potential to Himself.

Thanks for the to-the-point response, jkiernan!
I think I see what you mean about there being a distinction between potential “For” God and potential “In” God, but I still run into a problem:

1. If God is timeless
2. and if no potential can exist timelessly
3. and “IN” God there is the potential to bring time (or the physical universe or what-have-you) into being
4. There is a contradiction, as, (from 2) no potential can exist timelessly and (from 3) a potential timelessly exists in God

Thus, either a potential can exist timelessly (which is impossible, as it would either be timelessly made actual as well, which is either a change (which requires time) or is not a change and then you have something which is both actual and potential, which is logically impossible).
Or, time (or the physical universe) is actually and timelessly proceeding or being created by God, and so the physical universe has a timeless existence with God.

(Please note, I am a Catholic, and I do believe God made the universe, and that the universe and God are not equal or anything like that, I am simply trying to work through a flawed line of thinking or reasoning so that I can determine where the flaw is).

 

[jkiernan56]

I once asked a very wise and loving Fransican Priest, where was I before the creation of the universe? He reponded “In the Potentiality of God/Christ”. Because of sin, God is bringing that potentiality to actuality/reality (by Grace) through Christ who makes “all things new”. I am in the process of “becoming” fully human !!! that is exciting …

 

[Birdmanman]

I once asked a very wise and loving Fransican Priest, where was I before the creation of the universe? He reponded “In the Potentiality of God/Christ”. Because of sin, God is bringing that potentiality to actuality/reality (by Grace) through Christ who makes “all things new”. I am in the process of “becoming” fully human !!! that is exciting …

Hi again jkiernan!
According to Aquinas, God, in His substance, has no potentiality. I’m happy to hear that you are becoming fully human, in that by following Christ and acting morally we are working in a way closer to our original human nature before The Fall ‘broke’ it, so by becoming closer to Christ, you become closer the person you ought to be.

This seems to be a bit off topic though, so getting back, it seems that it is impossible for potentiality to exist timelessly, whether for God or in God. Does anyone think this is incorrect or contradicts the teaching of Holy Mother Church?

 

[jkiernan56]

Hi again jkiernan!
According to Aquinas, God, in His substance, has no potentiality. I’m happy to hear that you are becoming fully human, in that by following Christ and acting morally we are working in a way closer to our original human nature before The Fall ‘broke’ it, so by becoming closer to Christ, you become closer the person you ought to be.

This seems to be a bit off topic though, so getting back, it seems that it is impossible for potentiality to exist timelessly, whether for God or in God. Does anyone think this is incorrect or contradicts the teaching of Holy Mother Church?

If you just reason from a human dimension, we can only “make” something unless we have the potential to do so. The same applies to God.

Also there is a lot of false understanding about what IT IS exactly that God can do and not do. Scripture says that “For God, all things are possible.” St. Thomas Aquinas clarifies that to say it means “ONLY that which is possible (potential) - is possible to God”. Thus what is IMPOSSIBLE, is impossible to God.

 

[raikou]

Thanks for the to-the-point response, jkiernan!
I think I see what you mean about there being a distinction between potential “For” God and potential “In” God, but I still run into a problem:

1. If God is timeless
2. and if no potential can exist timelessly
3. and “IN” God there is the potential to bring time (or the physical universe or what-have-you) into being
4. There is a contradiction, as, (from 2) no potential can exist timelessly and (from 3) a potential timelessly exists in God

Thus, either a potential can exist timelessly (which is impossible, as it would either be timelessly made actual as well, which is either a change (which requires time) or is not a change and then you have something which is both actual and potential, which is logically impossible).
Or, time (or the physical universe) is actually and timelessly proceeding or being created by God, and so the physical universe has a timeless existence with God.

(Please note, I am a Catholic, and I do believe God made the universe, and that the universe and God are not equal or anything like that, I am simply trying to work through a flawed line of thinking or reasoning so that I can determine where the flaw is).

You are probably confusing what happens within God and what happens “outside” of God (though still very much “within his reach”).

For example, a very, very good painter is very artistic, meaning that he can make a lot of good art. He has an actual artistic ability. Even if he does not make paintings and only knows how to make good art, he is still artistic because that lies in his ability and not on whether such artistry is manifested through his works.

Now, suppose the painter has actualized his full artistic potential, meaning that he cannot improve anymore. The painter still is artistic but no longer has a potential to improve. Indeed, his artistry can enable him to make more works of art with this maximum ability he already has. This fact pertains not to his artistic potential, but rather, his art materials had the potential to be converted to works of art because of him.

In a similar way, God is omnipotent. In fact he has infinitely perfect omnipotence. He can create anything. Now, even if he does not yet create anything, he still is perfectly omnipotent and has no potential to become more omnipotent. It is those whom he intend to create who have the potential to be created.

Time is a measure of change. Since God cannot improve nor change because he has no potential, there is no time in him. Those he create and improve by his power are those that change - they are the ones in time.

I see no contradiction in this framework.

 

[jkiernan56]

You are probably confusing what happens within God and what happens “outside” of God (though still very much “within his reach”).

For example, a very, very good painter is very artistic, meaning that he can make a lot of good art. He has an actual artistic ability. Even if he does not make paintings and only knows how to make good art, he is still artistic because that lies in his ability and not on whether such artistry is manifested through his works.

Now, suppose the painter has actualized his full artistic potential, meaning that he cannot improve anymore. The painter still is artistic but no longer has a potential to improve. Indeed, his artistry can enable him to make more works of art with this maximum ability he already has. This fact pertains not to his artistic potential, but rather, his art materials had the potential to be converted to works of art because of him.

In a similar way, God is omnipotent. In fact he has infinitely perfect omnipotence. He can create anything. Now, even if he does not yet create anything, he still is perfectly omnipotent and has no potential to become more omnipotent. It is those whom he intend to create who have the potential to be created.

Time is a measure of change. Since God cannot improve nor change because he has no potential, there is no time in him. Those he create and improve by his power are those that change - they are the ones in time.

I see no contradiction in this framework.

Metaphysically, nothing happens or IS “outside” of God. Existence (BEING) is somehow IN God and through God. Being cannot exist unless God is present intrinsically and metaphysically. I will respond to the rest of your ideas once I have the chance to reflect - my wife is asking me to pay attention to her … lol

 

[Birdmanman]

You are probably confusing what happens within God and what happens “outside” of God (though still very much “within his reach”).

For example, a very, very good painter is very artistic, meaning that he can make a lot of good art. He has an actual artistic ability. Even if he does not make paintings and only knows how to make good art, he is still artistic because that lies in his ability and not on whether such artistry is manifested through his works.

Now, suppose the painter has actualized his full artistic potential, meaning that he cannot improve anymore. The painter still is artistic but no longer has a potential to improve. Indeed, his artistry can enable him to make more works of art with this maximum ability he already has. This fact pertains not to his artistic potential, but rather, his art materials had the potential to be converted to works of art because of him.

In a similar way, God is omnipotent. In fact he has infinitely perfect omnipotence. He can create anything. Now, even if he does not yet create anything, he still is perfectly omnipotent and has no potential to become more omnipotent. It is those whom he intend to create who have the potential to be created.

Time is a measure of change. Since God cannot improve nor change because he has no potential, there is no time in him. Those he create and improve by his power are those that change - they are the ones in time.

I see no contradiction in this framework.

Thanks for responding, Raikou!

But if God is timeless, and God has no potential, even though He may have a fully actualized “ability” in His omnipotence, then God still has no potential to make use of His “ability”; and if ability means having the potential to do something, and God has no potential, then God has no ability.

Wait…if God has no potential…and He is omnipotent…and omnipotent means having all potential, or the potential to do all, then how is God omnipotent if He has no potency (potential)?

And finally, if all that is timeless is God, and God has no potential, then there is no timeless potential for anything, including the Universe. The universe, then, must be timelessly actual, like God.

What I have said above is, of course, incorrect, and please do not try to take it as my teaching it or holding it out as true, since I am looking to be corrected and not to convince anyone that what I am saying is true, since anywhere there is something contradictory to Church teaching, that contradictory thing must be wrong. I am merely playing devil’s advocate.

 

[raikou]

If no and God has no potential: (something in the following list of conclusions must be wrong)

1. He is purely actual
2. He likewise has no potential to cause the universe
3. He then must be actually and timelessly causing the universe
4. The existence of the universe then must be timeless with Him (although time is an attribute of the universe, it would have a temporal beginning, but not an ontological (existence) beginning in this dilemma)
   **However, **
5. It is impossible for 2 distinct substances or existences to exist timelessly, for that would imply that they had time or space to differ, or that one lacked what another had, but in order for lacking to occur there must be the potential to make up for that lack, but all things existing timelessly must be fully actual.

You have probably confused the word “potence” meaning “power” to “potential” meaning “capacity to improve/change”

#1 is correct. God is purely actual. He has no potential to improve.

#2 is probably badly worded. If “potential” is changed to “potence” meaning “power,” number 2 would be false and would not follow from #1. The fact that God couldn’t improve anymore doesn’t mean he has no power to cause the universe.

 

[raikou]

Metaphysically, nothing happens or IS “outside” of God. Existence (BEING) is somehow IN God and through God. Being cannot exist unless God is present intrinsically and metaphysically. I will respond to the rest of your ideas once I have the chance to reflect - my wife is asking me to pay attention to her … lol

Yes, this is true. I didn’t mean “outside” that way. I meant “outside” meaning “that which is not God.”

God is in the universe (and therefore, in a particular sense, the universe is in God) but the universe is not God. The latter is pantheism.

Thanks for helping to clarify.

We should also clarify that “the universe is in God” doesn’t mean that the universe is a part or component of God, but rather, that 1) the universe is within God’s reach and 2) it received its qualities from God and shares some qualities with him. It’s much like a painter is in his works. Or that the paintings somehow have something of the painter with it.

 

[Birdmanman]

You have probably confused the word “potence” meaning “power” to “potential” meaning “capacity to improve/change”

#1 is correct. God is purely actual. He has no potential to improve.

#2 is probably badly worded. If “potential” is changed to “potence” meaning “power,” number 2 would be false and would not follow from #1. The fact that God couldn’t improve anymore doesn’t mean he has no power to cause the universe.

Thanks for this clarification, Raikou!

When I say potential, and I thought this was the more Thomistic sense of the word, I mean to say possibility, something that might be or might not be. If there is possibility in God, and God is timeless, then there is no time for God to actualize His possibilities, so they are already actual (that is, they were never possibilities to begin with, but are just actual), and there can likewise be no timeless possibilities that “might” occur but then do not, since timelessly there is no difference between the state-of-things at which the possibility might have occurred, and the state-of-things at which the possibility did not occur.

So there is no possibility in God if He is timeless, but only and purely actuality.
Not just possibility of Him “making Himself better” or more skilled or what have you, but possibility for Him to “complete” or “accomplish” or “do” something, as it would not be a timeless possibility (see paragraph above), but either an actuality or a lacking of possibility (nothing).

Using that understanding of the word “potential”, has anything changed in your understanding of my argument? Do any contradictions come out? I am looking to find where I am wrong, since I know that I am wrong. Thanks for your help!