Is there any potential in God?

[Birdmanman]

Your very welcome.

If I understand correctly (which I probably don’t) I don’t see why God-prime, or the primary aspect of God can’t be the original "domino"or source of all consequent actions… Subsequent actions later in the causal chain must be imprinted or “set-upon” by the contingencies of temporality, but nonetheless they still have this eternal “interface” linking the relative with the absolute worlds.

Hope that makes sense. I am unfortunately not much of a syllogistic type of guy, but I like to ramble on.

Hi Psychlo, I’m happy you (at least tried) to follow my post! Let’s look at the domino analogy:
God-prime (by this I mean God, but for the sake of the argument we can just say God-prime so you understand I am talking about the First Cause, having pure actuality) is like the finger that pushes dominoes, and is in the air above the first domino (first created thing) in a long long chain of dominoes.

[pause there, and pretend ‘we’re in time’ now for this next paragraph]
We are part of the chain of dominoes, and we see dominoes behind us that have been pushed down by other dominoes, and so on and so forth, so we reason "there must be a first domino, and something that isn’t a domino that can push the first domino, in order for the rest of the dominoes behind us to have fallen! (the first domino could not have pushed or bumped or fallen on its own, but must have a cause of its falling, which is this floating finger).

[okay, now flash-back to the original setup, where we have a still-standing first domino and a floating but entirely still finger above the first domino]
Now, if the floating finger is unchanging and immutable, has pure and full actuality and no potentiality, then it has no potential to move and knock down the first domino. But we know the first domino fell, and not on its own, so how did it fall if the finger did not move to push it?
So instead, what if the finger is, in the original set-up, instead in a place in the air, where it is actually bumping up against the first domino, in such a manner that the first domino would fall. But again, if the finger were unchanging and immutable and lacking potentiality, then the finger would “always” be in this position, and so the first domino would “always” have already fallen. The finger could still be said to have never changed, but the fallen first domino could never have changed from standing to falling either, since for as long as the finger had been in that position (always), the first domino was already fallen (always). But if the first fallen domino always was already fallen, then so was the second (for, by being fallen, the first domino hits the second domino down), and so was the third, and so on and so forth, until we get to us; but we have not yet fallen; so this can’t be!

And remember, the finger cannot move or change positions (it is immutable and unchangeable; if you want to say it is changeable, then just like in our discussion of the regression that leads to “God-prime”, something else like a nerve impulse made the finger move, but then something like a brain changed the nerve from not-firing the impulse to firing the impulse, and so on and so forth for as long as you like, until you reach “Finger-prime”)
Granted, the above analogy uses time and time-words, but I hope it may have shed some light on my predicament.

Regardless, my dilemma above will be solved eventually; the universe is reasonable; something in my own thinking is wrong.

(Disclaimer: Let nothing I have written here be thought of as an attempt to teach anything contrary to Church teaching; I am asking a question and supporting it with arguments out of my flawed knowledge. Anywhere I say something that is contrary to Church teaching, let it be know there that I am wrong and She is right).

 

[Birdmanman]

I don’t understand how God can purely potential. Till now I had no doubt that God is pure act. How come God has potency. Doesn’t it mean that God is imperfect for he has the potency to be actualized? If God is pure potency (like primary matter) how can he act by his own? I find it difficult to understand God in the same terms of primary matter which is a only a body in potency. A thing in potency doesn’t have existance. But if he is pure act, everything is actualised in him and he is perfect. I think, we possess imperfection because we have many potentialities which are not actualised. I am not well versed in this, but I need a clarification.

Don’t worry Fra Angelo, God is pure actuality, not purely potential! Stick with Aquinas for the most part (except wherever something He says contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church), and don’t let my own questions on these forums bother you.

 

[Birdmanman]

Sorry, I have to sleep now so I won’t be able to consider the entirety of your post.

Time is relative to the observer. We cannot mix up observations of one observer and the other for these are different. I suggest that you clarify to whose observation or point of reference were your arguments made.

To the point of view of God, all events in history are present to him simultaneously - as if all changes elapses in no time at all.

To the point of view of human observers, history unfolds in succession.

Bye for now. Gotta sleep.

Hi again Raikou, yes let’s clarify; I am speaking, I think, of the “viewpoint” of God; I think it makes sense that all events in history are “present” to Him simultaneously, He unchangingly knows all, but is all of history (or creation) really, in its existence, simultaneous with God? This would mean the universe “never” did not exist (that is, its existence did not begin, did not go from one circumstance of not-existing, to another circumstance of existing; see my most recent response to you if you please).

Of course, and to clarify yet again, I do know that creation did begin, and that God created it. I agree with Church teaching on this matter, even though I’m having trouble understanding it.

 

[Birdmanman]

In case anyone is still reading this thread, I think my issue has been resolved, thanks to the help of Formosus on my other thread that dealt with this issue, and thanks to everyone who participated :

1. Potential is ontologically negative, it doesn’t really exist, it is another way of describing nothing, it is simply a ‘lack’ of actuality, and does not have any real existence. Saying “this cup has the potential to be filled with water” is really just saying “this cup is not filled with water” or “this cup lacks the actuality of being filled with water”.
2. The universe did not always or timelessly exist; there was a circumstance such that only God existed, which means all there was, was God and nothing.
3. Nothing does ‘have’ potential, because potential is just another way of describing nothing or lacking, in this case, lacking of the universe .
4. God actualizes the potential (a nothing, ex-nihilo), to make the universe at t0 (the beginning of the first mote of time); God goes through no change in Himself or in His Actions to do this, as He changelessly and timelessly actualizes “the universe at t0”; this first actualization took no time and is timelessly performed, it was never not done, but its result was the beginning of time.
   **5. The universe, then, need not timelessly or changelessly exist (although the fact of its existence at t0 and the following times that it exists for is a timeless Truth), and God is still purely actual with no admixture of potential in Him. **

If anyone sees anything wrong with this, please let me know! Also, if anything I have typed in this post or any other post contradicts the Roman Catholic Church teaching in Her Magisterium, please ignore or do not take as true whatever I had said that contradicts Her, and instead listen to Her, as anywhere I contradict Her Magisterial Teaching, I am in the wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In case anyone is still reading this thread, I think my issue has been resolved, thanks to the help of Formosus on my other thread that dealt with this issue, and thanks to everyone who participated :

1. Potential is ontologically negative, it doesn’t really exist, it is another way of describing nothing, it is simply a ‘lack’ of actuality, and does not have any real existence. Saying “this cup has the potential to be filled with water” is really just saying “this cup is not filled with water” or “this cup lacks the actuality of being filled with water”.
2. The universe did not always or timelessly exist; there was a circumstance such that only God existed, which means all there was, was God and nothing.

1. Nothing does ‘have’ potential, because potential is just another way of describing nothing or lacking, in this case, lacking of the universe .

I think you are getting to trouble here, at least " potentially. " It is better to describe " nothing as no-being and no-potential for being. To say that " …nothing has potential…" implies that it is not nothing but something. The whole universe before its creation existed in the God’s Intellect. We can’t know exactly how this can be but we know it must be so. So he always had the Idea of all the beings he created and those he possibly could have created.

In our human way of thinking we could say they existed potentially in God’s intellect. We would be wrong of course, for there is no potential in God of any sort. But it is definitely wrong to say there is " potential " in nothing. There is noting in nothing - not even potential. Before the Creation event, there was God, Period.

To explain why you are wrong you have to understand that " potential " exists only in actual substances. A material substance, for instance, has many " potential " forms due to its prime matter. From prime matter are educed all possible forms for a particular being. These forms are " potential " forms.

I know Aristotle and Thomas speak of the principles of potency and act. And potency is often described as " potential. " But potency does not exect actually. It is a relationship between matter and form in a material being, or essence and existence in a spiritual being.

1. God actualizes the potential (a nothing, ex-nihilo), to make the universe at t0 (the beginning of the first mote of time);

Wrong for the reasons stated above. The Creation event was not the actualization of a " potential. " Creation did not require a " potential. " You are attempting to place this miracle fit into categories of human thought. It can’t be done. The idea you expressed here would be heretical, if seriously held.

My advise to you, my most serious advice is to stop all this speculation. Just stick to actual Church teaching. If you go futher than that stick to Thomas Aquinas. Look at all the energy you are wasting. You could have gone through all of Part 1 of the S.T. !!

God goes through no change in Himself or in His Actions to do this, as He changelessly and timelessly actualizes “the universe at t0”;

O.K. here…

this first actualization took no time and is timelessly performed, it was never not done, but its result was the beginning of time.

Wrong. There was no " actualization. " There was CREATION. Two different animals altogether.

1. The universe, then, need not timelessly or changelessly exist (although the fact of its existence at t0 and the following times that it exists for is a timeless Truth), and God is still purely actual with no admixture of potential in Him.

Fine.

If anyone sees anything wrong with this, please let me know! Also, if anything I have typed in this post or any other post contradicts the Roman Catholic Church teaching in Her Magisterium, please ignore or do not take as true whatever I had said that contradicts Her, and instead listen to Her, as anywhere I contradict Her Magisterial Teaching, I am in the wrong.

Again. Stick to the Church and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hi again, Linusthe2nd!

Of course, I would never wish to hold anything that would cause me to be guilty of heresy. So, if the universe eternally exists in the mind of God, before the creation of the universe, then the creation of the universe did not ‘start’ the universe, since it was ‘already’ existing?

I am not trying here to prove that the universe began one way or another, I am trying to see how we can say it is at least not-unreasonable to say the universe began by an act of our God who is purely actual. It would seem that if we say potentials are really existent things, then:

1. God is purely actual, with no admixture of potential.
2. Potential is not nothing.
3. In order for something to begin to exist, there must be potential for its existence.
4. In order for something to be said to begin to exist, there must at least be a circumstance such that it does not exist, and ‘then’ a circumstance such that it does exist. (Is this not what we mean when we say a thing begins?)
5. There is (or ‘was’) a circumstance, such that there is only God, and nothing else.
6. In such a circumstance as described in 5., there is no potential for anything (from 1. & 2.)
7. If there is such a circumstance, where there is no potential for anything, and 1 through 6 are true, then the universe did not begin to exist.
   –
   If we deny 5: To say that there is no circumstance where only God, and nothing else exists, then in all circumstances it must be true that God and something else exist.
   Further, this means that the ‘something else’ that does exist in all circumstances with God is a thing that has no beginning, from (3.) above. I hardly think this is acceptable for a Catholic like myself.

And now I attempt to back up each point:
I think that 1. above is a Catholic teaching (right?) and you and I would not deny it;
2. is what we are assuming when you say that “potential is not nothing” or “nothing has no potential”;
3. seems reasonable, when we say something begins, didn’t it need to be possible, or something had to have the potential for it, before it began?;
4. also seems to be just what we mean when we say something begins…if you can find me an example of something that begins without starting to exist after having not existed, please tell me;
for 5. see above where I say “If we deny 5.”;
for 6., we see that since there is only God and nothing else in the circumstances described, and God is entirely and purely actuality and nothing has no potentiality, then no potentiality exists in the circumstances described.
and I think 7. follows validly from everything, does it not? What point in the above are we able to deny? I think we can get out of this bind by denying 2, but you say it seems heretical to you, so I am now very hesitant to do so, since I never want to teach heresy.

Perhaps I am having difficulty understanding the difference between actualization and the act of creation? Or perhaps you think the issue is simply how I phrase the statement 'nothing has potential", and that I should start calling potential “lack of actuality”? Perhaps finally, I am failing to make or give a distinction between the universe “beginning to exist”, and the universe “having a (temporal) beginning within itself”?

Thanks for your response, and for your concern about heretical teachings, which I do not want to be guilty of. If anything I have typed in this post or any other post contradicts the Roman Catholic Church teaching in Her Magisterium, please ignore or do not take as true whatever I had said that contradicts Her, and instead listen to Her, as anywhere I contradict Her Magisterial Teaching, I am in the wrong.

 

[Formosus]

Nothing has potential is not the best way of saying it, but nothingness, non-being, non-existence (take your pick) means the same as potential. Potentiality signifies a lack of being. God, being Complete, total Being, has no potential because He can not lack anything. Nothingness, non-existence is by definition a lack. It is the complete lack. Since there was a lack of being outside of God, there was also a lack of actuality. So it is proper to say that “non-being has potential” without suggesting that “non-being” is has any being.

 

[AugustSon]

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.

This! (It actually showed me an angle I’d not seen! Isn’t learning grand!) Thanks much!

 

[Birdmanman]

Nothing has potential is not the best way of saying it, but nothingness, non-being, non-existence (take your pick) means the same as potential. Potentiality signifies a lack of being. God, being Complete, total Being, has no potential because He can not lack anything. Nothingness, non-existence is by definition a lack. It is the complete lack. Since there was a lack of being outside of God, there was also a lack of actuality. So it is proper to say that “non-being has potential” without suggesting that “non-being” is has any being.

I agree that “nothing has potential” is not the best way of saying it, since “being identical to” and “having” are not necessarily the same.
I am not sure why Linusthe2nd thinks the idea that potential is a way of describing non-being is heretical (if it is), as it (the idea that potential is a merely a way of describing a lacking) seems to really neatly allow me to say that Our Purely Actual God made creation ex-nihilo (out of pure potentiality, which is nothing), without running into any of the issues or dilemmas I have brought up earlier.

Of course, if it is heretical, I hope no one will be convinced of it (the idea that potentiality is nothing), and I myself will not say I am convinced of it until I know that such an idea is not heretical. I merely say it is a way out of my dillemma, and the only way out I can see right now (if anyone knows if there are any other ways out, I would be more than happy to hear them!).

 

[draco_cupri]

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.

Respectfully, Linus, since the Incarnation God is also in time. All of time and space, indeed all reality, is contained in Him (“In Him we live and move and are.”), but additionally, when He took upon Himself our human nature, He entered time, and since He is still present to us (In His Eucharistic Body and in His Mystical Body, the Church), He in fact does exist, also, with us, in time.

 

[draco_cupri]

In case anyone is still reading this thread, I think my issue has been resolved, thanks to the help of Formosus on my other thread that dealt with this issue, and thanks to everyone who participated :

1. Potential is ontologically negative, it doesn’t really exist, it is another way of describing nothing, it is simply a ‘lack’ of actuality, and does not have any real existence. Saying “this cup has the potential to be filled with water” is really just saying “this cup is not filled with water” or “this cup lacks the actuality of being filled with water”.
2. The universe did not always or timelessly exist; there was a circumstance such that only God existed, which means all there was, was God and nothing.
3. Nothing does ‘have’ potential, because potential is just another way of describing nothing or lacking, in this case, lacking of the universe .
4. God actualizes the potential (a nothing, ex-nihilo), to make the universe at t0 (the beginning of the first mote of time); God goes through no change in Himself or in His Actions to do this, as He changelessly and timelessly actualizes “the universe at t0”; this first actualization took no time and is timelessly performed, it was never not done, but its result was the beginning of time.
   **5. The universe, then, need not timelessly or changelessly exist (although the fact of its existence at t0 and the following times that it exists for is a timeless Truth), and God is still purely actual with no admixture of potential in Him. **

If anyone sees anything wrong with this, please let me know! Also, if anything I have typed in this post or any other post contradicts the Roman Catholic Church teaching in Her Magisterium, please ignore or do not take as true whatever I had said that contradicts Her, and instead listen to Her, as anywhere I contradict Her Magisterial Teaching, I am in the wrong.

I think you’ve got it now. I would question Linusthe2nd, and simply ask to see the theology behind the idea that Nothing cannot be thought of as potential. I know that potential can be a property of things, and nothing is nothing, but in the things that have potential, their potential is always precisely in what they lack. Thus unkindled wood is potentially on fire, and fire is potentially cold. Since “nothing” is, in fact, nothing at all, it seems to me to be Pure Potential in a way parallel to the way God is Pure Act.

I wish to make clear, since these words especially can be quite slippery, that I do not mean nothing as “nothingness” or as some blank existence. When I say nothing I mean “not any thing.” When an artist looks at a blank page, he sees potential.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you’ve got it now. I would question Linusthe2nd, and simply ask to see the theology behind the idea that Nothing cannot be thought of as potential. I know that potential can be a property of things, and nothing is nothing, but in the things that have potential, their potential is always precisely in what they lack. Thus unkindled wood is potentially on fire, and fire is potentially cold. Since “nothing” is, in fact, nothing at all, it seems to me to be Pure Potential in a way parallel to the way God is Pure Act.

I wish to make clear, since these words especially can be quite slippery, that I do not mean nothing as “nothingness” or as some blank existence. When I say nothing I mean “not any thing.” When an artist looks at a blank page, he sees potential.

There is no " pure potential, " as Aristotle and Thomas and the Arab philosophers pointed out.It is a mere mode of expression to describe the the fact that all essences except God have a relationship to either existence or form. Thus the essences of angels have a potency for existence. Likewise the soul of man has a potency for existence. The body of man has a potency for the soul ( its substantial form ) through which it obtains existence.

Among other material creatures their forms have a potency for their prime matter and prime
matter has a potency for its form through which it receives its existence. But the prime matter of material creatures have a potency, potential to become another creature. Thus water has a potency to become hydrogen and oxygen. The forms of hydrogen and oxygen are in the prime matter of water in potency ( and this is where the idea of " pure potency comes). But the prime matter of any creature contains as many forms in potency as there are types of beings in existence or which could have existence. All that is needed is an efficient cause to educe the forms, reducing them from potency to act, actually existing beings.

But in fact God created complete beings, essences having existence, but in creatures the essence is composed of matter and form. God does not take the matter for a horse and add its form and then its existence. He creates a horse, an essence of matter and form, which exists. So really, potency simply describes a relationship of one principle of a being to another principle, as the matter and form of a really existing horse.

So, since " Pure Potential " does not exist, it would be very inaccurate to compare it to the Pure Act of God. God, as Pure Act, is an actually existing Being. Pure Potential is not a being, except in so far as you can call a concept a being, a logical being.

 

[draco_cupri]

There is no " pure potential, " as Aristotle and Thomas and the Arab philosophers pointed out.It is a mere mode of expression to describe the the fact that all essences except God have a relationship to either existence or form. Thus the essences of angels have a potency for existence. Likewise the soul of man has a potency for existence. The body of man has a potency for the soul ( its substantial form ) through which it obtains existence.

Among other material creatures their forms have a potency for their prime matter and prime
matter has a potency for its form through which it receives its existence. But the prime matter of material creatures have a potency, potential to become another creature. Thus water has a potency to become hydrogen and oxygen. The forms of hydrogen and oxygen are in the prime matter of water in potency ( and this is where the idea of " pure potency comes). But the prime matter of any creature contains as many forms in potency as there are types of beings in existence or which could have existence. All that is needed is an efficient cause to educe the forms, reducing them from potency to act, actually existing beings.

But in fact God created complete beings, essences having existence, but in creatures the essence is composed of matter and form. God does not take the matter for a horse and add its form and then its existence. He creates a horse, an essence of matter and form, which exists. So really, potency simply describes a relationship of one principle of a being to another principle, as the matter and form of a really existing horse.

So, since " Pure Potential " does not exist, it would be very inaccurate to compare it to the Pure Act of God. God, as Pure Act, is an actually existing Being. Pure Potential is not a being, except in so far as you can call a concept a being, a logical being.

So you don’t think God saw the original lack of a universe as His perfect “blank slate?”

Anyway, I’m not insisting on the point I was making, but something you said struck me — about the angels — “the essences of angels have a potency for existence” – huh? You realize that angels actually exist, I hope!

 

[wittgenstein]

Potentiality implies a Newtonian universe that was replaced by relativity. Time does not move. It would be absurd to say that time moves at a rate of “X” seconds per…what?!
Jesus said,“Before Abraham was, I am.” Note the present tense in referring to a moment in the past. Past,future are like east west. Suppose I live in New York city. Detroit Michigan is west of me. Suppose I live in L.A California,. Detroit is east of me. Time is a dimension similar to height, depth and width. Time is the fourth dimension.
God sees all moments simultaneously, like we see a table’s hieght depth and width simultaneously.
18 “May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth,and length,and depth and height;[note that 4 dimensions are mentioned]
19 And to know the love of Christ,which passeth knowledge [our 3 dimensional perspective] that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God”[2D is but a shadow of 3D] *
Unfortunately, later translations lost that profound meaning.

• I am using 3D because it is eaiser to grasp. Actually God looks down upon our 4D reality.

 

[wittgenstein]

Sorry! That quote from the Bible is Ephesians 3:18-19

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you don’t think God saw the original lack of a universe as His perfect “blank slate?”

Anyway, I’m not insisting on the point I was making, but something you said struck me — about the angels — “the essences of angels have a potency for existence” – huh? You realize that angels actually exist, I hope!

God, Perfect Act, is not a " blank slate. " Act means " to exercise existence. " Perfect Act means to be Perfectly and Infinitely Active. This is seen logically in that God not only created the universe but is the efficient cause for all its acts, is its sustaining cause moment by moment, and is its perfect director. So one cannot envision God as suddenly becoming active at the moment of his creative act. Indeed, Revelation shows us a God as an eternal active communion between three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Of course, I believe all that the Church teaches. God created Angels whole and entire as he did everything else. Still every Angel is a composite of essence and existence. In this composite essence stands in relation to existence as potency to act ( existence ). In other words the essence of Angel says " this much existence and no more. "

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Potentiality implies a Newtonian universe that was replaced by relativity. Time does not move. It would be absurd to say that time moves at a rate of “X” seconds per…what?!
Jesus said,“Before Abraham was, I am.” Note the present tense in referring to a moment in the past. Past,future are like east west. Suppose I live in New York city. Detroit Michigan is west of me. Suppose I live in L.A California,. Detroit is east of me. Time is a dimension similar to height, depth and width. Time is the fourth dimension.
God sees all moments simultaneously, like we see a table’s hieght depth and width simultaneously.
18 “May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth,and length,and depth and height;[note that 4 dimensions are mentioned]
19 And to know the love of Christ,which passeth knowledge [our 3 dimensional perspective] that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God”[2D is but a shadow of 3D] *
Unfortunately, later translations lost that profound meaning.

• I am using 3D because it is eaiser to grasp. Actually God looks down upon our 4D reality.

I would never be able to understand Relativity, so I’ll just take your word for it. Dr. Stephen Barr gave a wonderful analogy to illustrate God’s eternal now in relation to the time of a material universe. He compared God to the author of a book who knows the plot of the story from beginning to end with all its details and possible alternative details before he actually starts writing. This knowledge of the book,s universe unfolds in the created time of writing the book. But at the same time all the acts in the story exist " eternally " in the mind of the author. Though not a perfect analogy, it is illustrative.

 

[empther]

With respect to the original post,
Aquinas had much to say about God and the question of a co-eternal world. See sections 31 to 38
www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc2_32.htm

Excerpt:

Argument. 5. An intellectual agent does not prefer one alternative to another except for some superiority of the one over the other. But where there is no difference, there can be no superiority. But between one non-existence and another non-existence there can be no difference, nor is one non-existence preferable to another.* But, looking beyond the entire universe, we find nothing but the eternity of God. Now in nothing there can be assigned no difference of instants, that a thing should be done in one instant rather than in another. In like manner neither in eternity, which is all uniform and simple (B. I, Chap. XV), can there be any difference of instants. It follows that the will of God holds itself in one unvarying attitude to the production of creatures throughout the whole of eternity. Either therefore His will is that creation never be realised at all under His eternity, or that it always be realised.

Reply to argument 5 . It is impossible to mark any difference of parts of any duration antecedent to the beginning of all creation, as the fifth objection supposed that we could do.* For nothingness has neither measure nor duration, and the eternity of God has no parts, no before and no after. We cannot therefore refer the beginning of all creation to any severally marked points in any pre-existing measure.* There are no such points for the beginning of creation to be referred to according to any relation of agreement or divergence. Hence it is impossible to demand any reason in the mind of the agent why he should have brought the creature into being in this particular marked instant of duration rather than in that other instant preceding or following. God brought into being creation and time simultaneously.* There is no account to be taken therefore why He produced the creature now, and not before, but only why the creature has not always been. There is an analogy in the case of place: for particular bodies are produced in a particular time and also in a particular place; and, because they have about them a time and a place within which they are contained, there must be a reason assignable why they are produced in this place and this time rather than in any other: but in regard of the whole stellar universe (coelum), beyond which there is no place, and along with which the universal place of all things is produced, no account is to be taken why it is situated here and not there. In like manner in the production of the whole creation, beyond which there is no time, and simultaneously with which time is produced, no question is to be raised why it is now and not before, but only why it has not always been, or why it has come to be after not being, or why it had any beginning.

In other words,
God’s pure actuality does not prevent him from creating something at a specific time.

 

[draco_cupri]

Potentiality implies a Newtonian universe that was replaced by relativity. Time does not move. It would be absurd to say that time moves at a rate of “X” seconds per…what?!
Jesus said,“Before Abraham was, I am.” Note the present tense in referring to a moment in the past. Past,future are like east west. Suppose I live in New York city. Detroit Michigan is west of me. Suppose I live in L.A California,. Detroit is east of me. Time is a dimension similar to height, depth and width. Time is the fourth dimension.
God sees all moments simultaneously, like we see a table’s hieght depth and width simultaneously.
18 “May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth,and length,and depth and height;[note that 4 dimensions are mentioned]
19 And to know the love of Christ,which passeth knowledge [our 3 dimensional perspective] that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God”[2D is but a shadow of 3D] *
Unfortunately, later translations lost that profound meaning.

• I am using 3D because it is eaiser to grasp. Actually God looks down upon our 4D reality.

Thank you for this, Wittgenstein! I actually have a theory of my own, and I guess this philosophy forum is an appropriate place to bring it out.

The four dimensions you already spoke of, are physical space (depth, breadth, and height), and the fourth dimension, time. It is conceptually easy for me to envision time as a fourth dimension, and science has already shown us that this is mathematically sound. What is inaccessible to the physical sciences, is just the realm of spirit. Now, Kant asserted that the three dimensions of space constitute the raw form of our exterior awareness, and he further asserted that the dimension of time constitutes the raw form of our interior awareness. (All our experience is subjectively a succession of temporal states.) I find it useful to take it a step or two further than Kant did. First of all, I take time to be one thing, but dually perceived, that is to say, time is both exterior and objective, and interior and subjective. There is a correlation between these two angles of perception, and I do not say that there are two distinct times, but rather one, and time is the dimension that constitutes the doorway, so to speak, between the exterior/objective realm and the interior/subjective realm.

I posit that there are also, besides the three dimensions of physical space, three dimensions of spiritual space. So that the fifth dimension, after the four of space-time, is the interior dimension, or spiritual depth. It is because we, humans, have interior depth of soul, that we are able so easily to apprehend the four dimensions of time and space. Without that fifth dimension, our interior awareness would be simply as Kant had it, non-different from the dimension of time, like the beasts. Beasts do not reminisce about the past nor ponder the future, but we do it all the time. This additional dimension is a fundamental difference between human and beastly souls. This way of thinking of things is also already present in our normal speech patterns. We call a person “deep” who regularly accesses great depth of soul, and we hold different things more or less deeply in our hearts.

 

[draco_cupri]

The sixth dimension is built on this, it is the realm of our interpersonal interactions, where our relationships are, where we communicate, where we manifest the fine arts. While the fifth dimension is personal, and private to each, the sixth dimension is interpersonal, and at least to the degree that we actually share with another, public. It is not needful that we share with everyone in the world for the idea of public to apply, and I may be stretching the definition of that word a bit to apply it here, but the point is that once we bring something from the fifth dimension into the sixth, it is no longer private to just ourselves, the way our thoughts normally are. The sixth dimension is the dimension of interpersonal interaction, expression, and love. It is not the same thing as space-time, because it includes an additional component that space-time cannot carry, namely, meaning. So while our sixth-dimensional interactions manifest in space-time, it is their meaning that differentiates them from mere four-dimensional entities. As the fifth dimension includes only the individual, the sixth dimension includes the entire human race. We sometimes refer to the “physical plane.” The physical “plane” would include time and space. The four dimensions of time and space with the addition of the fifth dimension of spiritual depth and the sixth dimension of spiritual breadth, includes the whole wide world. We could call it the “human plane.”

Picturing it as a plane makes it easy, then, to account for the seventh dimension, spiritual height. The whole of spiritual space includes not only the interior spiritual depth of each of us and the spiritual breadth of all of us, but additionally, what Scripture refers to as the “spirits of the air” — demons, and of course, angels. Angels and demons interact with us all the time, normally invisibly, but we experience their influence on our thoughts. That is the point of the Rules for Discernment of Spirits given by Saint Ignatius of Loyola. Briefly, his rules advise us to examine a thought that comes to us, in its beginning, its middle, and its end, to decide whether it is good in all three places. If it is good in the beginning, all through the middle, and in the end, then it is fairly safe to conclude that it came from an angel, but if bad in any one of those places, then we must reject it as having come from a demon. We also experience our own thoughts, and may profitably subject them to the same scrutiny, but I find the difference is this: my own thought, I intentionally call forth. Thoughts that come into my mind unbidden, as it were, are then not from me per se, but from an angel or a demon, and it is my responsibility to obey the former and reject the latter.

So in direct correlation to the three physical dimensions of height, breadth, and depth, I find we also experience these three additional dimensions of spiritual depth, spiritual breadth, and spiritual height.

There is one further dimension, or perhaps an infinity of them, but it is irrelevant to us which it is — the number eight turned on its side makes the infinity sign anyway! — it is the hidden dimension of the Reality of God. I call the seven dimensions I have just elucidated, “seven dimensions of reality.” An infinity of points makes a line, an infinity of lines makes a plane, an infinity of planes makes a space, an infinity of spaces makes a space-time. An infinity of space-times makes an awareness, an infinity of awarenesses makes a society, an infinity of societies makes a reality. In God, there is an infinity of realities. This gives perhaps the only way of scientifically explaining and accounting for miracles.

In the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, Our Lord makes present to us that Eighth Dimension of His Heart, including all possible realities, in a single location in time and space. Full circle.