Is there any potential in God?

[raikou]

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!

The Thomistic sense of potential is the possibility to become another thing right? So that said, God has no potential since he is immutable.

On the other hand, creatures or “nothingness” can be said to have a potential in that sense, I think. God created the universe out of nothing, so we might say that nothingess had the potential to become the universe. (I guess? I just had Catechism. No formal studynon Thomistic philosophy. Just read a bit.) As I understand it, time began when things began to change such as when God began creation. God didn’t change, but the universe did. God doesn’t change when he create, but those he create does.

 

[Birdmanman]

The Thomistic sense of potential is the possibility to become another thing right? So that said, God has no potential since he is immutable.

On the other hand, creatures or “nothingness” can be said to have a potential in that sense, I think. God created the universe out of nothing, so we might say that nothingess had the potential to become the universe. (I guess? I just had Catechism. No formal studynon Thomistic philosophy. Just read a bit.) As I understand it, time began when things began to change such as when God began creation. God didn’t change, but the universe did. God doesn’t change when he create, but those he create does.

Thanks again for responding!
I haven’t had any formal Thomistic philosophy either, I was lucky to be given his “Short Summa” as a gift when I was younger. Though I probably failed to understand half of it.

(Disclaimer: what I say below is wrong somewhere, and I am trying to find out precisely where it is wrong. Let nothing I have written here be thought of as an attempt to teach anything contrary to Church teaching; I am asking a question out of my flawed knowledge).

Nothing does not exist (which, if you take the double-negative out, is just another way of saying “something exists”).

There is no potential in nothing, for potential is a something (otherwise you could not lack it), and there cannot be something in nothing, for nothing is defined as lack of something.

If nothing did exist, and God made the universe from nothing, and the universe exists, then something besides God (this fake potential ‘nothing’) existed before us, so that He did not exist alone “before” creating us.

So, there is no possibility in timelessness, and there is no possibility in nothing. So there is no possibility for the universe to be made, meaning it must timelessly exist, or it does not exist. (This, of course, is wrong, something there is, but I just can’t find where).

 

[raikou]

Thanks again for responding!
I haven’t had any formal Thomistic philosophy either, I was lucky to be given his “Short Summa” as a gift when I was younger. Though I probably failed to understand half of it.

(Disclaimer: what I say below is wrong somewhere, and I am trying to find out precisely where it is wrong. Let nothing I have written here be thought of as an attempt to teach anything contrary to Church teaching; I am asking a question out of my flawed knowledge).

Nothing does not exist (which, if you take the double-negative out, is just another way of saying “something exists”).

There is no potential in nothing, for potential is a something (otherwise you could not lack it), and there cannot be something in nothing, for nothing is defined as lack of something.

If nothing did exist, and God made the universe from nothing, and the universe exists, then something besides God (this fake potential ‘nothing’) existed before us, so that He did not exist alone “before” creating us.

So, there is no possibility in timelessness, and there is no possibility in nothing. So there is no possibility for the universe to be made, meaning it must timelessly exist, or it does not exist. (This, of course, is wrong, something there is, but I just can’t find where).

Yeah, I guess it would be inaccurate to say that “nothing” existed and had the potential to become the universe.

However, when God created beings, he endowed some of them with the potential to change. That’s when time began. We can probably say that God caused time.

Interestingly, as far as I know, some beings don’t change anymore (angels, demons, judged souls). I guess they reached a point that they are timeless in that sense.

So here we see there is an interaction between a timeless being (a being who doesn’t change) and a changing creature (something inside time). God is actually said to be an “Unmoved Mover,”

 

[raikou]

So here we see there is an interaction between a timeless being (a being who doesn’t change) and a changing creature (something inside time).

 

[Birdmanman]

Yeah, I guess it would be inaccurate to say that “nothing” existed and had the potential to become the universe.

However, when God created beings, he endowed some of them with the potential to change. That’s when time began. We might probably say that God created time.

Interestingly, as far as I know, some beings don’t change anymore (angels, demons, judged souls). I guess they reached a point that they are timeless in that sense.

But there is no possibility timelessly, and no possibility in God, so God must actually make time timelessly. But then that would mean time would need to exist timelessly, which is a verbal contradiction. So…time cannot exist timelessly…and God cannot have the possibility of making time since He is timeless and all that is timeless is either ‘already’ fulfilled or will ‘never’ be fulfilled (lacks possibility).

I think Aquinas had something to say about angels existing in “aeveternity”, I’m not sure though.

 

[raikou]

But there is no possibility timelessly, and no possibility in God, so God must actually make time timelessly. But then that would mean time would need to exist timelessly, which is a verbal contradiction. So…time cannot exist timelessly…and God cannot have the possibility of making time since He is timeless and all that is timeless is either ‘already’ fulfilled or will ‘never’ be fulfilled (lacks possibility).

I think Aquinas had something to say about angels existing in “aeveternity”, I’m not sure though.

I actually edited my response.

But there is no possibility timelessly

There is no possibility for God to change in “timelessness,” but it is possible for the universe to exist out of nothing because of God.

What do you mean by “no possibility in God?” He is omnipotent, so everything is possible for him (that is, it is possible for him to make something that is not him), even to make something out of nothing.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If this is so, and you are part of all creation, then you are nothingness.

That is correct. BUT - as a human, part of me is a “spark of the Holy Spirit.” And I can become - or be “oned with” - God. Here in the nothingness we respond to God and evolve so that we become some thing rather than no thing.

The Church tells us this Truth: God made everything from nothingness. It’s not like I made up the concept, you know.

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)?

Do you know what energy is? It’s potential. Because all energy, when actual, has an adjective attached to it: electrical, mechanical, chemical… we even define the state of non-actualized energy as “potential energy” but in fact, energy is only potential. If potential is not fully realized, but partially actualized, then a thing has both potential and actualization in terms of energy.

Now, you built a logical construct and applied it to God. But you can’t. Because things are what they are and you can’t make them anything else by defining them as something. You created a God that fit your parameters, and then said - but that can’t be true about the real God.

Here’s an analogy: NDE’s can’t be real because if they were, everyone who’s heart stopped would have one.

I once read a brief definition of philosophy as: Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

But how can anyone know what’s logical if they don’t start with what’s empirical? My statement about NDE’s isn’t logical, but one only knows that if they have studied NDEs empirically.

My objection to your proposition is that you are defining something indefinable and therefore, your supposition is, by necessity, false. Aquinas agrees with me, BTW. I refer you to his last best-known statement.

 

[Birdmanman]

I actually edited my response.

There is no possibility for God to change in “timelessness,” but it is possible for the universe to exist out of nothing because of God.

What do you mean by “no possibility in God?” He is omnipotent, so everything is possible for him (that is, it is possible for him to make something that is not him), even to make something out of nothing.

Hi again, Raikou!
Sorry, I didn’t catch that last edit, but the means of an angel communicating with a living human (I think that’s what you’re referring to) is through the angel’s use of a changing physical medium (a costume-like physical body, a voice, and so forth).

For “no possibility in God”:

1. God is timeless
2. Timelessly, there is no possibility (explained earlier, for a timeless possibility would either ‘already’ be actual and thus not a possibility, or would never be actual and so would really be an impossibility (a lack of possibility))
3. For God, there is no possibility, which is consistent with His pure actuality

God is all powerful, but He has no possibility of doing anything timelessly unless He is ‘already’ doing that thing timelessly, as part of His actuality. Since He in His substance cannot change, He cannot timelessly change what He is doing (or change what He does). There is no timeless possibility for the universe to be created, it is timelessly existent, or else a timeless change occurred in God, which is impossible, or else it is not existent.

(Disclaimer again: what I say above must be wrong somewhere, and I am trying to find out precisely where it is wrong. Let nothing I have written here be thought of as an attempt to teach anything contrary to Church teaching; I am asking a question out of my flawed knowledge).

 

[raikou]

I guess there’s a need to define terms.

1. Time - a measure of change
2. Potential - the natural capacity to change into something else (thus, something has to exist first in order to be said to have a potential)
3. Actuality - fulfillment of one’s potential (or perfections, in the case of God)

By these definitions, it is clear that:

If God is immutable and infinitely perfect, then God is timeless, has no potential, and is pure actuality.

Do you agree, Birdmanman?

 

[Birdmanman]

I guess there’s a need to define terms.

1. Time - a measure of change
2. Potential - the natural capacity to change into something else (thus, something has to exist first in order to be said to have a potential)
3. Actuality - the fulfillment of a potential

By these definitions, it is clear that:

If God is immutable and infinitely perfect, then God is timeless, has no potential, and is pure actuality.

Do you agree, Birdmanman?

Thanks for defining terms Raikou! I think we need to change actuality to “Either the fulfillment of potential, or the state of something really existing”; since there was never a potential for God to be fulfilled, and He timelessly is, He would not be considered a ‘fulfillment of potential’.

God is unchangeable and infinitely perfect.
Therefore, God is changeless (unchangeable) and so timeless (a measure of change), has no potential (no possibility to change), and is pure actuality (purely really existing, not possibly existing nor having anything of Him that could be possibly existing).

I agree with this, for the sake the argument, because I worry about the whole “changeless” thing when we get to Christ (who, is God, but also changes as a man).

So: If God is unchanging, and God is the first cause, and nothing exists besides God as the first cause, then God never went from a state of Not creating the universe, to a state of creating the universe; thus, God is unchangingly creating the universe, the universe is unchangingly being created by God, and so the universe is unchanging and timeless in its existence (within the universe there is change, but in this line of thinking, the universe itself is not subject to change in its existence, it does not go from a state of ‘not being’ to a state of ‘being’, since no change occurred for the creation of the universe to take place). This must be false somehow, but I don’t see how.

 

[raikou]

I have to go now. Nonetheless, I think the problem lies in the following underlying assumptions:

1. You assume that God’s actions on his creatures imply a change in God himself.
2. God cannot act without “time,” as if time is a necessary setting in which God can act.

Please confirm if correct.

When we say God is omnipotent so that it is possible for God to make creatures, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God has a room for change. It just means that he could make other things and change them. The change occurs in those who are not God (creatures), not with God Himself.

God is not “within time.” Time is a measure of change, and these changes are effects of God, not changes WITH God.

 

[Birdmanman]

I have to go now. Nonetheless, I think the problem lies in the following underlying assumptions:

1. You assume that God’s actions on his creatures imply a change in God himself.
2. God cannot act without “time,” as if time is a necessary setting in which God can act.

Please confirm if correct.

When we say God is omnipotent so that it is possible for God to make creatures, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God has a room for change. It just means that he could make other things and change them. The change occurs in those who are not God (creatures), not with God Himself.

God is not “within time.” Time is a measure of change, and these changes are effects of God, not changes WITH God.

1. is certainly correct, at least initially. Now that we have defined time, I see that God does not act with time as His backdrop or lack of backdrop, but rather time is like a measurable effect of changes (that is, the effect of going from one state of something, to another state of something.
2. is essentially true, and may be the reason for my flawed thinking; for to my mind either there is a State 1 where God exists but no creature exists, and then a State 2 where God exists and a creature exists (This change from State 1 to State 2 being the act of creation), which is a change of states caused by God that also effects Him (since, at state 1, it is predicable of God that “He is all that exists”, and at state 2, it is no longer predicable of God that “He is all that exists” because something else exists). So, to avoid this, we may say there is only State 1, and at State 1 God exists and a creature exists, but that means no change was needed or the creature to exist, and that the creature exists “changelessly” with God at State 1.

Thanks for your help and have a good night!

 

[raikou]

1. is certainly correct, at least initially. Now that we have defined time, I see that God does not act with time as His backdrop or lack of backdrop, but rather time is like a measurable effect of changes (that is, the effect of going from one state of something, to another state of something.

#2 is settled then.

1. is essentially true, and may be the reason for my flawed thinking; for to my mind either there is a State 1 where God exists but no creature exists, and then a State 2 where God exists and a creature exists (This change from State 1 to State 2 being the act of creation), which is a change of states caused by God that also effects Him (since, at state 1, it is predicable of God that “He is all that exists”, and at state 2, it is no longer predicable of God that “He is all that exists” because something else exists).

Remember that State 1 is not an existence - it is an imaginary concept, such as “nothingness.” Note that State 1 is an entirely different subject from BOTH God and the creature, such that the change from state 1 to state 2 is not necessarily predicable to both God and the creature. “he is all the exists” is not predicable to God, but is something that describes State 1. “Eternal existence” is the appropriate predicate for God in both states, which never changed.

So, to avoid this, we may say there is only State 1, and at State 1 God exists and a creature exists, but that means no change was needed or the creature to exist, and that the creature exists “changelessly” with God at State 1.

This is not necessarily true. There is also a “state” (a concept) where God alone existed, so the assertion “there is only state 1 where God exists and a creature exists” is false.

Thanks for your help and have a good night!

 

[Birdmanman]

Remember that State 1 is not an existence - it is an imaginary concept, such as “nothingness.” Note that State 1 is an entirely different subject from BOTH God and the creature, such that the change from state 1 to state 2 is not necessarily predicable to both God and the creature. “he is all the exists” is not predicable to God, but is something that describes State 1. “Eternal existence” is the appropriate predicate for God in both states, which never changed.

State 1 is a description of all existing things, and so its meaning is part of Truth, and Truth exists, so State 1 is existent in its meaning, it is a universal.
If, at no state “all the exists” is predicable of God, then at no state is God all that exists (meaning something else besides Him must exist at all states). Thus, there needs to be 1 State in which “all that exists” is predicable of God, and another state in which “all that exists” is not predicable of God, which is a change in God (two mutually exclusive predicables cannot both be attributed to Him at the same state), and so cannot happen. Thus, it must either be that in all states “all that exists” is predicable of God (monism) or at all states “not all that exists” is predicable of God (God + a co-eternal creation).

Since I know Monism is false, and an eternal creation is false, something in my above paragraph must be false, but I again do not know where it is?
Thanks again for your help!

 

[raikou]

I wanted to edit my post but I was no longer able to. I added an explanation paragraph for #1.

1. is certainly correct, at least initially. Now that we have defined time, I see that God does not act with time as His backdrop or lack of backdrop, but rather time is like a measurable effect of changes (that is, the effect of going from one state of something, to another state of something.

#2 is settled then.

1. is essentially true, and may be the reason for my flawed thinking; for to my mind either there is a State 1 where God exists but no creature exists, and then a State 2 where God exists and a creature exists (This change from State 1 to State 2 being the act of creation), which is a change of states caused by God that also effects Him (since, at state 1, it is predicable of God that “He is all that exists”, and at state 2, it is no longer predicable of God that “He is all that exists” because something else exists).

Remember that State 1 is not an existence - it is an imaginary concept, such as “nothingness.” Note that State 1 is an entirely different subject from BOTH God and the creature, such that the change from state 1 to state 2 is not necessarily predicable to both God and the creature. “he is all the exists” is not predicable to God, but is something that describes State 1. “Eternal existence” is the appropriate predicate for God in both states, which never changed.

Suppose there is only one angel in heaven. It can be said that “he is the only angel in heaven,” but the entire statement is not predicable to the angel. If God created two or three more angels, then the statement will now be false. This will not necessarily imply a change in the first angel God created. The change occured in the situation, not in the first angel.

So, to avoid this, we may say there is only State 1, and at State 1 God exists and a creature exists, but that means no change was needed or the creature to exist, and that the creature exists “changelessly” with God at State 1.

This is not necessarily true. There is also a “state” (a concept) where God alone existed, so the assertion “there is only state 1 where God exists and a creature exists” is false.

Thanks for your help and have a good night!

 

[raikou]

State 1 is a description of all existing things, and so its meaning is part of Truth, and Truth exists, so State 1 is existent in its meaning, it is a universal.

What do you mean by existent? As in existent being? A true statement is different from an existent being.

If, at no state “all the exists” is predicable of God, then at no state is God all that exists (meaning something else besides Him must exist at all states). Thus, there needs to be 1 State in which “all that exists” is predicable of God, and another state in which “all that exists” is not predicable of God, which is a change in God (two mutually exclusive predicables cannot both be attributed to Him at the same state), and so cannot happen. Thus, it must either be that in all states “all that exists” is predicable of God (monism) or at all states “not all that exists” is predicable of God (God + a co-eternal creation).

You are confusing predicate to the inherent property of a being. “Loved by my girlfriend” is predicable to me, but that is not my inherent property. If my girlfriend doesn’t love me anymore, it doesn’t mean that I changed, but that she changed.

Since I know Monism is false, and an eternal creation is false, something in my above paragraph must be false, but I again do not know where it is?
Thanks again for your help!

 

[raikou]

Remember that State 1 is not an existence - it is an imaginary concept, such as “nothingness.”

Let me clarify that when I said “imaginary concept,” I don’t mean “imaginary” meaning “fictitious and untrue” but something that is “in the mind.” Maybe we can say it “exists” “in the mind,” but not in the way that God, angels, humans, or animals “exist” in reality. For example, “non-existence” is a true concept, but it doesn’t exist in reality in that sense.

If, at no state “all the exists” is predicable of God, then at no state is God all that exists (meaning something else besides Him must exist at all states). Thus, there needs to be 1 State in which “all that exists” is predicable of God, and another state in which “all that exists” is not predicable of God, which is a change in God (two mutually exclusive predicables cannot both be attributed to Him at the same state), and so cannot happen. Thus, it must either be that in all states “all that exists” is predicable of God (monism) or at all states “not all that exists” is predicable of God (God + a co-eternal creation).

“All that exists” is predicable of God before creation began (predicable, meaning “true of the subject”) but “all that exists” is not an inherent property or attribute of God.

Contradicting predicates can be true of the same subject at different situations. For example “hungry” is predicable to me before I ate, but after dinner, I am “not hungry.”

Predicates don’t necessarily pertain to the subject’s inherent property. It may speak about the subject in relation to other subjects, making the attribution relative and not inherent. Example: “John is all that exists (as a person) in the room.” Even if God only freezes John in time so that nothing changes in his inherent properties but allows his environment to change, the statement “John is all that exists (as a person) in the room” will change/cease to be true if other persons enter the room. Everything around John may change without John being changed at all.

Thank you too for your questions. They also help me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Attention everyone who has posted so far.

Read your Catechism !!! The answers are there. After that go read the Summa Theologiae, you can read online from NewAdvent.org. S.T., Part 1 will answer all your questions.

1. There is no Potency in God, period. He cannot be more than He is or less.
2. There is no change in God no matter that you cannot see that. Thomas does address this question but so does the Catechism and the Scriptures.
3. God is " in " the universe but still in heaven. Heaven is wherever God is. He operates in all things causing them to move/change, by sustaining them in existence, and by directing them to their proper ends.
4. Where God is is Heaven and eternity. Still, when he created the universe he created time and space for that creation. But He is not " in " time. As I said, since he did create the universe He works intimitely in all things He created. But in doing so He does not step out of eternity into time. He carries Heaven and eternity around with Himself, so to speak, while he is governing and directing the universe.

• These are deep realities and no one should talk about them unless they know what they are talking about.

 

[raikou]

Sorry I overlooked this. I wasn’t able to read your posts fully as our posts often overlapped.

Let me dissect your line of thought.

So: If #1 God is unchanging, and #2 God is the first cause, and #3 nothing exists besides God as the first cause, TRUE PREMISES

then

#4 God never went from a state of Not creating the universe, to a state of creating the universe;
TRUE, but underlying assumption is FALSE. You are introducing here an assumption that creation implies a change of God’s state, as though his actions on creatures implies a change in his inherent properties/substance. This doesn’t follow from your premises but is an entirely new concept. Although it is truthful to conclude that God never underwent a change in state from #1, “state of Not creating the universe” and “state of creating the universe” are not two different states of God BUT merely two different EVENTS distinct from God’s state/substance

#5 thus, God is unchangingly creating the universe, TRUE if you meant God is not changing, as stated from #1 and implied from no change in state in #4

#6 the universe is unchangingly being created by God,FALSE, if you meant that the universe is unchanging during creation. #6 does not follow from #5. In fact, the universe is being changed from a state of “non-existence” to “existence” during creation.

and so the universe is unchanging and timeless in its existence Finally, we see that this is therefore also FALSE, corresponding to what we observe in reality.

(within the universe there is change, but in this line of thinking, the universe itself is not subject to change in its existence, it does not go from a state of ‘not being’ to a state of ‘being’, since no change occurred for the creation of the universe to take place). This must be false somehow, but I don’t see how.

 

[raikou]

Attention everyone who has posted so far.

Read your Catechism !!! The answers are there. After that go read the Summa Theologiae, you can read online from NewAdvent.org. S.T., Part 1 will answer all your questions.

1. There is no Potency in God, period. He cannot be more than He is or less.
2. There is no change in God no matter that you cannot see that. Thomas does address this question but so does the Catechism and the Scriptures.
3. God is " in " the universe but still in heaven. Heaven is wherever God is. He operates in all things causing them to move/change, by sustaining them in existence, and by directing them to their proper ends.
4. Where God is is Heaven and eternity. Still, when he created the universe he created time and space for that creation. But He is not " in " time. As I said, since he did create the universe He works intimitely in all things He created. But in doing so He does not step out of eternity into time. He carries Heaven and eternity around with Himself, so to speak, while he is governing and directing the universe.

• These are deep realities and no one should talk about them unless they know what they are talking about.

We are probably using the terms different from their sense in official Thomasian philosophy. But the above is probably still what we meant. It’s just that the words have other senses in common language. We were trying to arrive at these conclusions using natural reason. Imagine how hard it was for the pagan philosophers! Still, it may be useful for some mental exercise.