OK, let's assume a creator

[Sarpedon]

All of you are way off the mark. I do not argue about the creator being necessarily inferior to its creation. You argue that the creation is necessarily inferior to the creator. All I am saying, that there is no logical necessity which would say that any and all “created entities” must be inferior to the creator. The creative process is not a degenerative process.

The examples I brought up are just that, examples, which show that at least in some respect the created can surpass the creator. And if the creation can surpass the creator in some respect, then it can surpass it in every respect. Again, there is no logical necessity which would declare that the abilities of any beings are inversely proportional with each other.

You’re putting multiple meanings on the word “inferior.”

It’s true that the creation can be “greater” than the creator in certain respects, such as Deep Blue. However, this involves you making a value judgement that computing power is a criterion for “greatness” which is not directly tied to the arguments that theists use.

The scholastics arguments for God all revolve around metaphysical contingency, not value contingency, which is what you are doing. The creation is always second in terms of existence to the creator. The creator is always first in order of existence to the creation. The theistic arguments involve thinking about whether or not the orders of existence can be sufficiently contained in the physical world. This all operates on a metaphysical level, not a value level. The creator always precedes the creation in terms of existence. That is the key thing, and it holds for Deep Blue as well.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

All of you are way off the mark. I do not argue about the creator being necessarily inferior to its creation. You argue that the creation is necessarily inferior to the creator. All I am saying, that there is no logical necessity which would say that any and all “created entities” must be inferior to the creator. The creative process is not a degenerative process.

Quite the contrary, my friend. You are off the mark by light years, in arguing against me anyway. I cannot speak for the others. I was NOT arguing that the creation is necessarily inferior. I was just arguing that the creation CANNOT be superior in any respect. You are right though. There is no logical necessity that the creation be inferior to the creator. I am not stipulating the contrary. I am stipulating that the creation CANNOT be superior to the creator in any respect.

The examples I brought up are just that, examples, which show that at least in some respect the created can surpass the creator. And if the creation can surpass the creator in some respect, then it can surpass it in every respect. Again, there is no logical necessity which would declare that the abilities of any beings are inversely proportional with each other.

I still disagree with your examples though. I also disagree completely with the second statement also because if the creation cannot be superior in any respect (which is my position) than it would be out of the realms of possibilities that it can surpass in every respect. Those are large claims with no proof. You have to prove the first sentence and THEN the second sentence would be grounds for discussion. You know logic. You cannot just assume something without a firm ground and then create a logical following from the assumption. In your defense, you did provide examples but I objected WHY they are superior in no respect. You have yet to object WHY my objection is wrong. We have been demonstrating why they cannot be but you just continue with the fallacy of expedience; that is, trying to get us to believe by stating it over and over without sufficient proof. Superior is not defined by “better” or inferior “worse”. IF those are the definitions you are using, THEN I would agree with you but they have no relevance to the discussion. I believe the name for this logical fallacy is the Red Herring.

In any case, we are talking about the “assumed” creator of the universe from your own OP. You wanted us to “assume” a first cause and this First Cause of ours is the Creator (“assumedly”, if there ever was such a word). Now that we are explaining it, you are backing down from our position and not arguing? Come on. You have to do better than that. You are the one who wanted “to see how logical” we are.

I gave you a logical conclusion and you disagreed and explained why. I objected and demonstrated WHY your explanation was contrary to logical implications. The creator I proposed from my explanation is sentient.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Spock,
If I knew how to put quotes within quotes, I would have done that, but my intelligence fails to shine when it comes to computers and overall life. Your statements are in bold.

Originally Posted by Spock
No, it is not obvious. First, it could be that the creator is not even sentient.

Well, I guess it is just obvious to me. I will explain why it is obvious to me though. I suppose one could consider a Creator non-sentient. But then it would not follow that said creator would have created anything at all. A non-sentient being (that is, a being without any perception) would not create anything. A non-sentient creator is an oxymoron, that is, a being that cannot perceive might create something. Not possible. Plants (non-sentient) do not “create” per se. Their reproduction is passive. Animals (sentient) creates out of necessity. Their reproduction is active. They might build a house for themselves or some kind of structure that would attract a male or female, but those are out of necessity. Rational beings (humans, admittedly some of us are irrational) create mostly out of desire (intention, motive, etc…) and maybe a little necessity (perhaps with offspring). We create beings and create things (architecture, literature, music, art, etc…). We are sentient beings but we are beyond bring just able to perceive. Looking at the history the discovery of the Periodic Table of Elements will, our love of nature and other things, we can easily see that it is beyond our sentience that allows us to create things that are not necessarily “needed”. We love creating things and figuring stuff out just for the heck of it. Therefore, this creator (of mine) MUST be at the very least sentient. Since there was no “need” to create the universe, then this Creator must be a rational being. We started with one “assumption” and that is that He created a universe. It is logical that this creator is sentient. This is probably going to be impasse though.

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock
Second, even if we assume (no offense intended) that the creator is (or was) a purposeful being, it does not follow that every activity of the creator was actually purposeful. When we create something, there can be (and usually are) side products, which we did not intend to make. (Example: the delicious blue cheese called Roquefort was not intended, it was the random by-product of the activity of shepherd who left his lunch in the nearby cave.) It can be that our universe is simply the “trash can” for the creator, who intended to create something unimaginable for us, and the threw the leftover into the trash can. I do not offer this as a likely scenario, I only point out that it is possible. **

Due to my argument above, I think I have shown that a universe creator may be more reasonable than you think. But, I will grant this comment.

Well, it SHOULD follow that a purposeful being have purpose with his creations. WE did not intend to make that cheese. We did not create that kind of cheese. Roquefort cheese takes about 3 months of rottenness. WE do not actively create it. Actually, we cannot create it. Nature takes its course to do that. We may add some yummy stuff to it but we did not make it. (Is it even “made”?) Besides, we are not talking about cheese; we are talking about the universe. (I know that was just an example but one that actually relates might have been nice.) WE did not make the cheese. Like you said, it was a by-product. Nature “made” that cheese. In this case, Creator created the universe. If you view this universe as a trash can, then so be it. I sure do not.

And that trashcan comment is completely unjustifiable in regards to a creator creating a universe (the unimaginably awesome on) and then creating ANOTHER universe as the trashcan… I guess the assumption with the trashcan theory is that he made a mistake and then created something to put his mistakes in. However, IF one can create a universe, do you think He unintentionally made a mistake in creating it? Or that He purposely created useless things in it (as you seem to be suggesting)? If you do consent to Creator making a mistake, then what would constitute as making a mistake when it comes to creating the universe (material and immaterial)? If you affirm that Creator created purposeless stuff, then that would seem odd that Creator even created the universe in the first place.

Then these (mistakes and purposelessness) goes back to the Creator even sentient. But then a non-sentient being would not create the universe. If we grant that Creator is just sentient (not rational), then there would be no need of creating the universe and therefore, mistakes and purposelessness would be irrelevant when compared to Nothing; Creators own being would be nothing because it is purposeless. Its existence would be irrelevant. If we grant that He was a rational being (transcending sentience, if that is a word) and had no need to create a universe (such as this), then there would be purpose in creating it. If there was no need in creating the universe AND Creator had a purpose in creating it, then Creator would not be careless in creating and therefore, “universe-al” mistakes would just not be.

I know you said only possibly, but that would not be likely, or even possible for that matter.

According to this explanation (as an explanation in response to yours), then this Creator would have to be non-sentient, sentient or rational (transcending sentience). With all this said, Creator IS a rational being, said universe is from this rational being and my previous post is justified. That is, given these demonstration (not proofs) that this Creator is sentient and rational and creates the universe purposefully.

I guess the logic from the beginning of my previous post was much more intrinsic than I had even imagined. Now I understand your objections after typing this whole mess up.

Feedback?

Take care buddy

 

[Spock]

You’re putting multiple meanings on the word “inferior.”

It’s true that the creation can be “greater” than the creator in certain respects, such as Deep Blue. However, this involves you making a value judgement that computing power is a criterion for “greatness” which is not directly tied to the arguments that theists use.

I never used the concept of “greatness”. The opposite of “inferior” is “superior”. The concept of a “generic greatness” is undefined and undefinable. Here is the reason: It makes no sense to say that being “A” is “greater” than being “B” in every respect, since many attributes are mutually exclusive. (An entity cannot be both larger and smaller than another one at the same time.)

Therefore the concept of “generic greatness” assumes that greatness is composed of certain attributes, for example: power, knowledge, goodness, etc… And the problem with this that the selection of these attibutes is subjective. Different people will use different attributes as part of “greatness”. In a very good sense this can be presented as: “one man’s hero is another one’s terrorist”. Who is a “hero”, and who is a “terrorist” reflects the subjective value-judgment of the person, not some objective classification.

The scholastics arguments for God all revolve around metaphysical contingency, not value contingency, which is what you are doing. The creation is always second in terms of existence to the creator. The creator is always first in order of existence to the creation. The theistic arguments involve thinking about whether or not the orders of existence can be sufficiently contained in the physical world. This all operates on a metaphysical level, not a value level. The creator always precedes the creation in terms of existence. That is the key thing, and it holds for Deep Blue as well.

I don’t disagree with the temporal or causative order between the creator and the created. This difference plays no part in the argument I am presenting.

 

[Spock]

I am stipulating that the creation CANNOT be superior to the creator in any respect.

Ok, you stipulated it. Now give me some reason to take it seriously. I gave you some examples, and I am happy to acknowledge that some people in your camp agree with me.

---

By the way, if you want to makes quotes in quotes, do this: Put around the “outer text” a pair of text… , where you would use square brackets “” and “]” instead of the angle brackets “<” and “>”. Place the inner text into the structure, using same “bracketing”. Like:

outer text… outer text inner text … inner text outer text .

If you use the square brackets instead of the angle brackets, you will get this:

outer text… outer text

inner text … inner text

outer text

Easy, once you get the hang of it.

 

[Sarpedon]

I never used the concept of “greatness”. The opposite of “inferior” is “superior”. The concept of a “generic greatness” is undefined and undefinable. Here is the reason: It makes no sense to say that being “A” is “greater” than being “B” in every respect, since many attributes are mutually exclusive. (An entity cannot be both larger and smaller than another one at the same time.)

Therefore the concept of “generic greatness” assumes that greatness is composed of certain attributes, for example: power, knowledge, goodness, etc… And the problem with this that the selection of these attibutes is subjective. Different people will use different attributes as part of “greatness”. In a very good sense this can be presented as: “one man’s hero is another one’s terrorist”. Who is a “hero”, and who is a “terrorist” reflects the subjective value-judgment of the person, not some objective classification.

Exactly, that’s why when scholastic philosophers talk about the perfection of God, they are talking about metaphysical perfection, nothing more, nothing less.

“When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term. Time and space, being made up of parts in duration or extension, are essentially finite by comparison with God’s infinity. Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing. Whatever it is, it is necessarily; its own essence is the sole reason or explanation of its existence, so that its manner of existence must be as unchangeable as its essence, and to suggest the possibility of an increase or diminution of perfection would be to suggest the absurdity of a changeable essence. It only remains, then, to say that whatever perfection is compatible with its essence is actually realized in a self-existing being; but as there is no conceivable perfection as such — that is, no expression of positive being as such — that is not compatible with the essence of the self-existent, it follows that the self-existent must be infinite in all perfection. For self-existence itself is absolute positive being and positive being cannot contradict, and cannot therefore limit, positive being.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IA

 

[pnewton]

The examples I brought up are just that, examples, which show that at least in some respect the created can surpass the creator.

And if the creation can surpass the creator in some respect, then it can surpass it in every respect.

Where is the logical necessity in** this** statement. I find this a far less credible axiom (unproven assumption) than that of a cause must be greater than an effect.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Ok, you stipulated it. Now give me some reason to take it seriously. I gave you some examples, and I am happy to acknowledge that some people in your camp agree with me.

I quit on the double quoting thing. Apparently, there is a big block in my mind that prevents me from doing it.

Anyway, if anybody even agrees with you, they are probably agreeing with the wrong definition of superior. I stand by my definitions of superior and inferior; that is, THE definition of superior. Not “better” or “worse”. If those are the definitions you are using, then I completely agree, but the word “superior” is wrong. What is your definition?

This is where the mix-up is. My definition makes sense when I say that the creation CANNOT be superior to the creator in any respect. Your definition makes sense when you say the creation CAN be superior in any and possible every respect.

 

[Abba]

Pause please…

---

GreggAlvarez,

Spock,
If I knew how to put quotes within quotes, I would have done that, but my intelligence fails to shine when it comes to computers and overall life. Your statements are in bold.

You can also try clicking ‘quote’ at the bottom left of the post you want to quote and it will show on the screen where you type your posts.

From there you can delete anything within the post that you are not interested in quoting etc…Meanwhile you want to type outside of the quote so after this:

It’s best to use the quote system as sometimes I was confused by your posts because I thought the quote was part of your post. But, I caught on. Try it.

---

continue…

 

[JDaniel]

Creation is creation. To make something that was not there before. The creators of Deep Blue made a new gadget, which is superior to them. The principle that the creation is always inferior to the creator is simply false.

Spockmeister:

Really. In other words, you’re saying that the “Deep Blue gadget” is a super-duper-pooper-computer that can store more information than the creator’s brain, and retrieve it almost at will, in a minute, or so, if not seconds? While, simultaneously recording every moment of the brain’s entire somatic environment, including tone-audio, color-visio, scent-olfactory, flavor-taste, texture-touch, in perfect detail, “snapshot” by "snapshot’, instant by instant, and remember what mom wants it to pick up at the grocery store on the way home?

In what way is the Deep Blue computer superior, in your opinion?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

All of you are way off the mark. I do not argue about the creator being necessarily inferior to its creation. You argue that the creation is necessarily inferior to the creator. All I am saying, that there is no logical necessity which would say that any and all “created entities” must be inferior to the creator. The creative process is not a degenerative process.

And, it is. These things us inferior beings built are tools. We design them to do a limited number of specific tasks better than a man (or woman). Of course, you are correct if you attach to your position the following, “that there is no logical necessity which would say that any and all “created entities” must be inferior to the creator.” We just don’t know of any. And, please don’t regurgitate the same supposed examples you have already given, or any more like them.

The examples I brought up are just that, examples, which show that at least in some respect the created can surpass the creator. And if the creation can surpass the creator in some respect, then it can surpass it in every respect. Again, there is no logical necessity which would declare that the abilities of any beings are inversely proportional with each other.

Yep. That’s right! A shovel makes a better dirt mover than the human hand. No one ever restricted the argument to only “in some respect”. I don’t think any of us did, anyway. Neither did anyone add the modifier that, “…are inversely proportional with each other.” This is equivocation.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

Where is the logical necessity in** this** statement. I find this a far less credible axiom (unproven assumption) than that of a cause must be greater than an effect.

There is no logical “necessity” here, and I did not say thare was. All I say that there in no “logical impossibility”.

 

[Spock]

Exactly, that’s why when scholastic philosophers talk about the perfection of God, they are talking about metaphysical perfection, nothing more, nothing less.

I am sorry, but “metaphysical perfection” means nothing to me. If you can translate it to everyday terms, I will know what to do with it. In the linked text it says:

When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way.
Which is sheer gobbledegook.

 

[Spock]

Anyway, if anybody even agrees with you, they are probably agreeing with the wrong definition of superior. I stand by my definitions of superior and inferior; that is, THE definition of superior. Not “better” or “worse”. If those are the definitions you are using, then I completely agree, but the word “superior” is wrong. What is your definition?

Ouch. Maybe we were talking past each other. Would you please link to the post where you defined superior and inferior? Too many pages, you know…

The defintion I use is: an entity “A” is superior to entity “B” in relation to attribute “X”, if “A” has that attribute to a “higher degree” than entity “B”.

 

[Spock]

Really. In other words, you’re saying that the “Deep Blue gadget” is a super-duper-pooper-computer that can store more information than the creator’s brain, and retrieve it almost at will, in a minute, or so, if not seconds? While, simultaneously recording every moment of the brain’s entire somatic environment, including tone-audio, color-visio, scent-olfactory, flavor-taste, texture-touch, in perfect detail, “snapshot” by "snapshot’, instant by instant, and remember what mom wants it to pick up at the grocery store on the way home?

In what way is the Deep Blue computer superior, in your opinion?

It would be nice. No it is not that sophisticated. It is superior only in one aspect: “it can beat the creators in chess”. The creators are superior in all other respect.

But what you describe is possible. It is even possible that the machine can also build a replica of itself. It is possible that it can create an even more sophisticated version of itself. And I am not talking about science fiction here. I am talking about actual, existing technology.

 

[Sarpedon]

I am sorry, but “metaphysical perfection” means nothing to me. If you can translate it to everyday terms, I will know what to do with it. In the linked text it says:

When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way.
Which is sheer gobbledegook.

When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term. Time and space, being made up of parts in duration or extension, are essentially finite by comparison with God’s infinity.

“Infinity” when used in regards to time and space describe an unlimited duration of something that is itself limited. The units of time itself are limited ontological entities, even though as a whole all of them compose an unlimited duration. In this sense, physical infinity refers to an unlimited duration, number, or scope of individual limited things. By saying these things are individually limited, we mean that they are specific entities that coexist with other entities, and do not subsume anything else. For example, the infinity of time does not affect the existence of rocks- each are individual entities, even though one is infinite and the other not.

In contrast, God’s infinity refers to metaphysical infinity. This means that His nature is not limited by any particular constraints of existence. God is infinite in the sense that all individual, particular, and existent things are subsumed into His infinity. Whereas the infinity of time is merely as aspect of a larger world of particular physical things, the infinity of God encompasses all of the other aspects of existing things. Infinite time is a part of a set, but the infinite God contains the whole set.

Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing.

If God were dependent on anything else, then He would only be part of the set, as opposed to containing the whole set. A self-existent being cannot be limited by other being, simply because it is self-existent. A self-existent being cannot be limited by itself, because then it would no longer be selfexistent.

Whatever it is, it is necessarily; its own essence is the sole reason or explanation of its existence, so that its manner of existence must be as unchangeable as its essence, and to suggest the possibility of an increase or diminution of perfection would be to suggest the absurdity of a changeable essence.

So, the self-existent being must exist necessarily, precisely because it is self-existent. Self-existence is not an attribute of God, but rather the identity of God. Hence, “I AM WHO AM.”

It only remains, then, to say that whatever perfection is compatible with its essence is actually realized in a self-existing being; but as there is no conceivable perfection as such — that is, no expression of positive being as such — that is not compatible with the essence of the self-existent, it follows that the self-existent must be infinite in all perfection.

Since God’s identity is self-existence, any perfection which is proper to existence must be held by God. Since all perfection is based on existence (i.e. existing intelligence in your existing brain), all perfection is therefor proper to the being who is identical with existence.

For self-existence itself is absolute positive being and positive being cannot contradict, and cannot therefore limit, positive being."

Existence itself is positive existence (obvious), and existence cannot contradict itself. Therefore, anything that is proper to existence is harmonious and proper to existence itself, and therefore to God.

 

[MaxRosen]

No problem, happy to answer.

Hi again Los Angeles,

Thanks for your informative reply. Sorry to take so long responding. Sometimes my day job interferes with my online pontificating.

Be well,

Max

 

[JDaniel]

It would be nice. No it is not that sophisticated. It is superior only in one aspect: “it can beat the creators in chess”. The creators are superior in all other respect.

But what you describe is possible. It is even possible that the machine can also build a replica of itself. It is possible that it can create an even more sophisticated version of itself. And I am not talking about science fiction here. I am talking about actual, existing technology.

Can you imagine the hard drive array - even with compression? :bigyikes:

The problem that I see has to do with the speed of the hard drives in the array.They would have to approach infinite speed. As would the wiring from the peripherals to the RAM, then to the hard drives. Not to mention RAM and how big that would have to be! This technology exists?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

“Infinity” when used in regards to time and space describe an unlimited duration of something that is itself limited. The units of time itself are limited ontological entities, even though as a whole all of them compose an unlimited duration. In this sense, physical infinity refers to an unlimited duration, number, or scope of individual limited things. By saying these things are individually limited, we mean that they are specific entities that coexist with other entities, and do not subsume anything else. For example, the infinity of time does not affect the existence of rocks- each are individual entities, even though one is infinite and the other not.

Hello, Sarpedon. Long time, no see! Some clarification: Time is not infinite, unless you mean that it is potentially infinite. Time is dependent on mobile being, and since mobile being is finite, so is time. Otherwise, mobile being(s) would have to have existed forever.

In contrast, God’s infinity refers to metaphysical infinity. This means that His nature is not limited by any particular constraints of existence. God is infinite in the sense that all individual, particular, and existent things are subsumed into His infinity. Whereas the infinity of time is merely as aspect of a larger world of particular physical things, the infinity of God encompasses all of the other aspects of existing things. Infinite time is a part of a set, but the infinite God contains the whole set.

God’s Infinity is Actual Infinity of the metaphysical order. It could not be of the physical order, as all else would be consumed and subsumed by God. But, God’s essence is said to compenetrate all physical substance. Compenetrate means to penetrate physical being without becoming part of it.

If God were dependent on anything else, then He would only be part of the set, as opposed to containing the whole set. A self-existent being cannot be limited by other being, simply because it is self-existent. A self-existent being cannot be limited by itself, because then it would no longer be selfexistent.

So, the self-existent being must exist necessarily, precisely because it is self-existent. Self-existence is not an attribute of God, but rather the identity of God. Hence, “I AM WHO AM.”

Since God’s identity is self-existence, any perfection which is proper to existence must be held by God. Since all perfection is based on existence (i.e. existing intelligence in your existing brain), all perfection is therefor proper to the being who is identical with existence.

Existence itself is positive existence (obvious), and existence cannot contradict itself. Therefore, anything that is proper to existence is harmonious and proper to existence itself, and therefore to God.

God bless,
jd

 

[Sarpedon]

Hello, Sarpedon. Long time, no see! Some clarification: Time is not infinite, unless you mean that it is potentially infinite. Time is dependent on mobile being, and since mobile being is finite, so is time. Otherwise, mobile being(s) would have to have existed forever.

Yes, it’s been a while!

I don’t think that’s what the article refers to. Time can be infinite in the sense of having no beginning and no end, and this is still distinct from the infinity of God (whether time is actually like that is moot). An infinite time would not be bound by limits on its continuance, but it would still be bound by its particular nature, i.e. an infinite time is still distinct from a rock. The infinity of time does not mean that time encompasses all distinct things. The infinity of time is not the reason for all things. In contrast, the infinity of God means that God encompasses all particular ways of being, and is in of itself the reason for all other things. A rock is a way of being, and the infinity of God means that all ways of being are ultimately rooted in and metaphysically justified as an existing thing by God. God is pure existence, with no qualifiers. The infinity of God is a metaphysical infinity, as opposed to a physical infinity.

This isn’t Hinduism, because Hinduism says that all things are identical in their being. The infinity of God as pure existence does not mean that all individual expressions of existence are the same as God. All particular existent things are contingent upon existence itself (obvious), but they are still individual things distinct from existence itself. For example, a particular minute of time is distinct from time itself as a universal (of course, there are some problems with this analogy).

The great neo-Thomistic scholar Etienne Gilson described it in the following way:

Being is Being, an absolute positing of that which, lying beyond every object, contains in itself the sufficient reason of objects.

The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, pg 53

His book is an excellent overview of this kind of stuff.

God’s Infinity is Actual Infinity of the metaphysical order. It could not be of the physical order, as all else would be consumed and subsumed by God. But, God’s essence is said to compenetrate all physical substance. Compenetrate means to penetrate physical being without becoming part of it.

The physical order is necessarily subsumed by the metaphysical order by default. God’s existence is the root and reason for all forms of being, even the physical. Existence itself and the individual manifestations of existence are distinct, but they are not unconnected. I suppose you may mean this by “compenetrate” but it would be incorrect to say that physical things exist without having their metaphysical reason and origin in existence itself.