Metaphysics: God's Creative Power in Relation to Change in Creation

[casabolg]

Does Aquinas or any scholastic thinker explain how God could be present with all creation and the source of all their being when things in creation change, come into being, come out of being, and the like? How is it that God is always in a state of actuality of all parts of creation change? This would imply God is changing in what he actualizes or is distant to what is created.

How could this be? Am I wrong somewhere?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This is probably not quite on topic, but i was reading a book on “Kabbalah”, which I understand is a Jewish sect or train of philosophy.

However the author used a stone in flight as an example. Normally a stone just sits on the ground, and does nothing, unless someone comes along, picks it up and throws it. It flies for a short while, then just subsides to its usual non-energetic state.

The normal state of a stone is just to sit on the ground and do nothing. It only flies if someone comes along and does something.

He extrapolated that to the universe. God made the universe out of nothing. The usual state of nothing is nothing. Therefore for the universe to keep existing it requires something to maintain it, or it would just revert to its usual state - nothing.

In this sense then, God is always active, maintaining this “nothing” universe.

Even the scientists agree its a sum zero energy universe, whose normal state is nothing, or sum zero energy. Something is maintaining it at all points, hence God’s creative power is at work in relation to all change in creation, at all times.

astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

[casabolg]

Not particularly helpful.

 

[GodMadeMe]

I imagine that from God’s perspective nothing is changing as such. Everything that will exist already exists in the eternal now. God certainly cannot change. But since created things have no intrinsic actuality in their nature they can change.

This is of course is difficult to understand because its hard if not impossible to comprehend how a duality of eternity and finite things can co-exist without effecting change in each-other. But its necessarily true that the act of reality does not change just like absolute truth does not change because more reality cannot come out of nothing; however, contingent natures clearly do change because they are not by themselves the act of reality itself. We are subsisting in the act of reality itself. We are subsisting in the eternal truth itself.

 

[Bahman]

Does Aquinas or any scholastic thinker explain how God could be present with all creation and the source of all their being when things in creation change, come into being, come out of being, and the like? How is it that God is always in a state of actuality of all parts of creation change? This would imply God is changing in what he actualizes or is distant to what is created.

How could this be? Am I wrong somewhere?

You are very right in your observation. In simple word, there is a point in time, so called now in which things happens. You can accept the concept of God which everything is present to him in his eternal now but you get stuck on the fact that you need a reference point in this picture which allows changes by time. This evidently shows that this picture of God is problematic. I am wondering why people haven’t observer this error so far.

 

[GodMadeMe]

You are very right in your observation. In simple word, there is a point in time, so called now in which things happens. You can accept the concept of God which everything is present to him in his eternal now but you get stuck on the fact that you need a reference point in this picture which allows changes by time. This evidently shows that this picture of God is problematic. I am wondering why people haven’t observer this error so far.

This isn’t just a problem with God, this is a problem with the very concept of change. Yet change exists. And this is a problem that has been debated for centuries.

There is no error. It is necessarily true that there such a thing as the “eternal now” and it is also true that there is such a thing as change. What we have here is a paradox that we find hard to solve, but that does not mean that there is an error.

 

[Bahman]

This isn’t just a problem with God, this is a problem with the very concept of change. Yet change exists. And this is a problem that has been debated for centuries.

There is no error. It is necessarily true that there such a thing as the “eternal now” and it is also true that there is such a thing as change. What we have here is a paradox that we find hard to solve, but that does not mean that there is an error.

This is a serious problem with the concept of God that many people has accepted. You need to change your world view in order to resolve the problem otherwise you are stuck with the paradox forever! What is your solution? DO you believe in a God who knows everything since he sees things in his eternal now?

 

[GodMadeMe]

This is a serious problem with the concept of God that many people has accepted. You need to change your world view in order to resolve the problem otherwise you are stuck with the paradox forever! What is your solution? DO you believe in a God who knows everything since he sees things in his eternal now?

Its not a matter of belief. Its ontologically impossible for change to exist without a cause that does not change. Anything that is in a constant state of becoming is contingent upon an absolute perfect unchanging reality for its existence because existence cannot come from nothing. The cause of change cannot be a contingent being. There is no other solution and it is irrelevant that we don’t understand it.

 

[Bahman]

Its not a matter of belief. Its ontologically impossible for change to exist without a cause that does not change.

Causality is manifestation of consciousness.

Anything that is in a constant state of becoming is contingent upon an absolute perfect unchanging reality for its existence because existence cannot come from nothing.

Which is consciousness not God. Consciousness is simple, it experiences and creates. It cannot however be created. You experience its existence in any single moment of your life.

The cause of change cannot be a contingent being.

Which is consciousness.

There is no other solution and it is irrelevant that we don’t understand it.

The problem is that you could clearly understand the faulty behind the picture of eternal God yet you still persist that there is something is wrong in our side!

 

[GodMadeMe]

The problem is that you could clearly understand the faulty behind the picture of eternal God yet you still persist that there is something is wrong in our side!

Any position that argues that the act of reality itself is coming out of nothing, or changing, is wrong by default. Therefore i have no choice but to accept that we have our being in the existence of an unchanging eternal being that is not effected by change no matter how counterintuitive it may appear. Truth begins with the act of existence and all possible truth is dependent on eternal truth for the actuality of its possible existence.

There is no such thing as a contingent ontological truth or being that exists by itself and because of itself. All contingent possible truth is dependent on the eternal for its actuality.

 

[Bahman]

Any position that argues that the act of reality itself is coming out of nothing, or changing, is wrong by default.

The act of reality can come out of nothing if we accept the fact that what we call the act of reality is mere illusion, in another word it doesn’t exist intrinsically. You are trapped since you think what you experience is something which cannot comes from nothing.

Therefore i have no choice but to accept that we have our being in the existence of an unchanging eternal being that is not effected by change no matter how counterintuitive it may appear.

You know well that this situation lead to paradox.

Truth begins with the act of existence and all possible truth is dependent on eternal truth for the actuality of its possible existence.

You know well that this is not acceptable. Please read the previous comment.

There is no such thing as a contingent ontological truth or being that exists by itself and because of itself. All contingent possible truth is dependent on the eternal for its actuality.

No, there is another possibility. All contingent possible truth are dependent on each other hence they don’t need to depend on an eternal being for their actuality.

 

[GodMadeMe]

The act of reality can come out of nothing if we accept the fact that what we call the act of reality is mere illusion, in another word it doesn’t exist intrinsically.

In other-words stop thinking logically about reality. I’m sorry, no can do.

 

[GodMadeMe]

No, there is another possibility. All contingent possible truth are dependent on each other hence they don’t need to depend on an eternal being for their actuality.

If the existence of everything is contingent then there is no logical reason or possibility for existence to exist in the first place since no being in that situation can find the reason for its existence in its own nature. Truth becomes meaningless an arbitrary which is exactly where your ideas are leading you.

 

[Bahman]

In other-words stop thinking logically about reality. I’m sorry, no can do.

You can think about reality logically but that is not going to take you anywhere. You at most feed yourself with science but what science tells you is not essentially the truth. The idea is to think through and first know yourself and then grow upward. Science cannot possibly tells you what you are about to do since science is the result of existence of persons like you.

 

[Bahman]

If the existence of everything is contingent then there is no logical reason or possibility for existence to exist in the first place since no being in that situation can find the reason for its existence in its own nature.

You didn’t pay any attention to my argument. All I said that elements of truth can depend on each other and the sum is complete. I don’t understand why you brought up the issue of existence. But anyhow, what was claimed is that the existence of any being is contingent to existence of another so you don’t need a divine being to create and sustain things.

Truth becomes meaningless an arbitrary which is exactly where your ideas are leading you.

Why should Truth be meaningful? It is only a set of facts.

 

[GodMadeMe]

You didn’t pay any attention to my argument. All I said that elements of truth can depend on each other and the sum is complete. I don’t understand why you brought up the issue of existence. But anyhow, what was claimed is that the existence of any being is contingent to existence of another so you don’t need a divine being to create and sustain things.

While you can argue that in a functional sense contingent things can be dependent on each other for a particular kind of action, ontologically speaking none of these things have the reason for its existence in its own nature; thus there is no reason for any of these things to exist in the first place as such that we can say that they depend on one another for the act of existence in an absolute sense. Depend on each other for what exactly? None of these things have **necessary existence **and therefore they do not have the power to give existence, and so it doesn’t make logical sense that they exist which is the reason why they are called contingent beings.

No contingent being has the power to produce or sustain its own existence and so none of them can produce or sustain each-others “existence” at all. They have all received and are sustained by that which is called “necessary existence” - an absolutely perfect act of reality.

Why should Truth be meaningful? It is only a set of facts.

Ontologically speaking that is the same as saying that existence has no meaning, and you are certainly free to form that opinion if you wish so long as you understand what it is that you are saying.

 

[John_Martin]

There is movement of change (approaching act) and movement of operation (which can only happen when in act).

Perfect act for God is not “rest” without movement, but “enjoyment in perfect operation” of his act, thus the Father is eternally in the operation of generation of the Son, the Son eternally in the operation of loving the Father and eternally knowing and saying “This is my Body, given for you”, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding.

Now, this eternal knowing, saying, proceeding is not “now”, as an “eternal now”. It is totally singular and simple knowing, once. The “once” is eternal. That is how we can be with Jesus and the 12 at the last supper, because Jesus is knowing it “once”, and we are participating in his knowing. That is also how Peter, James and John could see Moses and Elijah and the radiant Jesus on the mountain, the real Moses and Elijah (who climbed the mountain in their own times), not “resurrected Moses and Elijah”. All on that Mountain were seeing as God sees at that event, which is knowing all in one singular knowing. They were outside of time; you are outside of time at the Eucharist when you see the Body and Blood of Christ at the Altar.

 

[Bahman]

While you can argue that in a functional sense contingent things can be dependent on each other for a particular kind of action, ontologically speaking none of these things have the reason for its existence in its own nature; thus there is no reason for any of these things to exist in the first place as such that we can say that they depend on one another for the act of existence in an absolute sense.

We as conscious being are not contingent hence we don’t need to find a reason that why we are here. It is plain and simple: we simply are who we are. There is no reason for any supreme being to explain the existence of us. We are irreducible and immortal hence we cannot be created since irreducibility implements that the being is unknowable inherently so the being cannot be created or destructed. Hence it is wrong to search for a reason that why we ontologically exist.

The existence however by definition is deferent from to be. In simple world existence is the fundamental mode of experience. Experience have other modes such as motion and form (such as color, geometry, taste. etc). Experience however doesn’t have any essence contrary to consciousness. In simple word it is mere illusion hence it does not exist hence it doesn’t need any creator also.

We however are highly interconnected to each other otherwise we couldn’t possibly reach to such a rich state of experience. What we observe on the surface, so called reality is not the whole story because there exist another realities underneath so called spiritual worlds.

I think that is a summery of the story.

Depend on each other for what exactly?

We are dependent on each other in order to experience and create reality.

None of these things have **necessary existence **and therefore they do not have the power to give existence, and so it doesn’t make logical sense that they exist which is the reason why they are called contingent beings.

I think the situation is clear by now. There is nothing such as continent things in the deepest sense. Things are divided into two basic categories, namely consciousness (who we are) and reality (mere illusion). Please read the first comment for further explanation.

No contingent being has the power to produce or sustain its own existence and so none of them can produce or sustain each-others “existence” at all. They have all received and are sustained by that which is called “necessary existence” - an absolutely perfect act of reality.

Please read the previous comment.

Ontologically speaking that is the same as saying that existence has no meaning, and you are certainly free to form that opinion if you wish so long as you understand what it is that you are saying.

Existence of course doesn’t have any meaning. It is simply the fundamental mode of experience. We also experience forms which tempt us to move, otherwise there was no motion. How these things could possibly be meaningful?

 

[Richca]

Does Aquinas or any scholastic thinker explain how God could be present with all creation and the source of all their being when things in creation change, come into being, come out of being, and the like? How is it that God is always in a state of actuality of all parts of creation change? This would imply God is changing in what he actualizes or is distant to what is created.

How could this be? Am I wrong somewhere?

What is changing is not God, but things created by God, for example, they come into being and pass out of being or themselves go through all sorts of change. When God created the world, what changed was not God who cannot change as He is pure act and He possesses the fullness of Being, it was the world that went from non-being or non-existence to having being or existence. In Thomistic philosophy, whatever changes is reduced from potentiality to actuality by something in a state of actuality. If God changed, he would be reduced from potency to act by something other than himself which is impossible as He is the first being. God is pure actuality and everything that is actual is reduced to Him as the cause of the thing’s actuality or being.