On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

  • Thread starter Thread starter joche
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No it is not. You’re not a philosopher and no philosopher has ever claimed that the Unmoved Mover results in identifying or confusing God with His works or the creation or the physical universe.
OK. It could be that no philosopher has ever made the claim because no philosopher accepts the first way. Or it could be that none of the philosophers who accept the first way claim it requires the unmoved mover to continuously sustain every microscopic change in every particle.

And all of those philosophers, in both groups, are actually siding with me by saying God doesn’t micro manage every little change, so thanks for pointing that out.

But by all means cite those philosophers who accept the first way AND claim it requires the unmoved mover to continuously sustain every microscopic change in every particle and we can discuss their case.

btw “you’re not a philosopher” sounds like you’re saying you don’t actually understand the argument, or else you could have made a rebuttal without any appeal to authority. 😛
The Psalms and Wisdom literature of the Old Testament are filled with references to God’s providential love and care for everything He has made; but the first verse that comes to my mind is Wis 11:24:
For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.
But there are others attesting to God’s absolute Lordship and Sovereignty over His creation.
Deut. 32:39 Now you shall learn that I alone am God; there are no others to rival me; it is mine to kill and to quicken, mine to smite and to heal; from my power there is no deliverance.
Sir. 11:14: From God all comes, good fortune and ill, life and death, poverty and riches;
There is no novelty in the doctrine that God sustains His creation and that without Him every creature (all creation) would simply vanish:
Heb. 1:3 a Son, who is the radiance of his Father’s splendour, and the full expression of his being; all creation depends, for its support, on his enabling word.
None of that is about the unmoved mover of the argument, it’s all about the God of scripture. Category error unless you can prove they are one and the same.
 
I find your comments here extremely interesting. Based on your understanding of Scripture how would you describe God’s activity in regard to his creation? Especially, how would you describe His activity in regard to the activity of photons as you have described above ( on the assumption of course that these theories are correct )?
Gen 1:3-4: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

He commanded, and there was light, that’s all He had to do. Then He saw (passive) that the light was good.

Gen 1:31-2:3: By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Resting kind of rules out having to run around micro managing His work, imho.
 
Gen 1:3-4: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

He commanded, and there was light, that’s all He had to do. Then He saw (passive) that the light was good.

Gen 1:31-2:3: By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Resting kind of rules out having to run around micro managing His work, imho.
And is Gen 1:1 to be understood as creation our of absolute nothingness ( no waves, no quantum fluctuations, no energy, etc. ) ?

Are you saying then that since the Seventh Day, God has been doing nothing, just taking it all in, watching what was going on?

Linus2nd.
 
And is Gen 1:1 to be understood as creation our of absolute nothingness ( no waves, no quantum fluctuations, no energy, etc. ) ?

Are you saying then that since the Seventh Day, God has been doing nothing, just taking it all in, watching what was going on?
The bible isn’t a scientific journal and God is not a scientific hypothesis.

As to Gen 2:1-3, it says what it says, “God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”. That traditional picture of God is very different from the strange notion of a deity forced to run round continuously making everything in the universe happen.

Which, as it apparently includes every wave of every ray of light and every bend of every spring, must also include making all the waste travel down digestive tracts and then down sewers, and making all the bullets rip through flesh, and all those bacteria kill children, and all our thoughts happen too, dispensing with any pretense of free-will.

I’ll stick with Christ thanks. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation including the strange entity that people are trying to sell me on this thread, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. :rolleyes:
 
inocente

Which, as it apparently includes every wave of every ray of light and every bend of every spring, must also include making all the waste travel down digestive tracts and then down sewers, and making all the bullets rip through flesh, and all those bacteria kill children, and all our thoughts happen too, dispensing with any pretense of free-will.

What on earth are you talking about? The Catholic Church has been the traditional champion of free will. Yes, if God took away his sustaining hand, all of Creation would disappear all at once. It is the rank determinism of modern materialistic thought that the Catholic Church vigorously opposes. We are not only free, we are responsible for our actions. Only by being responsible can we merit heaven or hell. The materialist says we merit only eternal death and a menu for the worms. :eek:
 
The bible isn’t a scientific journal and God is not a scientific hypothesis.

As to Gen 2:1-3, it says what it says, “God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”. That traditional picture of God is very different from the strange notion of a deity forced to run round continuously making everything in the universe happen.
Why are you evading giving an answer to the question? You are the one who claims the Bible can answer all the crucial questions. Certainly the Bible should be able to answer the two questions I have asked.
Which, as it apparently includes every wave of every ray of light and every bend of every spring, must also include making all the waste travel down digestive tracts and then down sewers, and making all the bullets rip through flesh, and all those bacteria kill children, and all our thoughts happen too, dispensing with any pretense of free-will.
Colorful as ususal but doesn’t answer the questions asked.
I’ll stick with Christ thanks. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation including the strange entity that people are trying to sell me on this thread, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. :rolleyes:
Very good, but still doesn’t answer the questions asked. Do I need to point out the obvious need to answer these questions? Upon the correct answers to these questions depends something very important. Don’t you even suspect what that is?

Linus2nd 🙂
 
What on earth are you talking about? The Catholic Church has been the traditional champion of free will. Yes, if God took away his sustaining hand, all of Creation would disappear all at once.
What on earth are you talking about? I never said a word about the Church, and I’m having a conversation with laity, not the Pope.

Just as you are laity and not the Pope.

And usually when laity tell me something that sounds strange, it turns out they are not saying what the Church teaches: 301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.

That’s a whole different ball game to saying that no change, no matter how itsi bitsi, can ever occur without the action of the unmoved mover, while anything at rest or in inertial motion continues all by itself. Isn’t it?
 
**inocente

Just as you are laity and not the Pope.**

Well now, I have observed that all Protestants make themselves the Pope because they more or less all believe they are “free and competent” to interpret Scripture as they please.

Isn’t that so? :D;)
 
Why are you evading giving an answer to the question? You are the one who claims the Bible can answer all the crucial questions. Certainly the Bible should be able to answer the two questions I have asked.

Colorful as ususal but doesn’t answer the questions asked.

Very good, but still doesn’t answer the questions asked. Do I need to point out the obvious need to answer these questions? Upon the correct answers to these questions depends something very important. Don’t you even suspect what that is?)
Oh, you know all the answers, forgive me your holiness.

I answered your questions, those in post #297, here they are again:
Linusthe2nd;11206969:
I find your comments here extremely interesting. Based on your understanding of Scripture how would you describe God’s activity in regard to his creation? Especially, how would you describe His activity in regard to the activity of photons as you have described above ( on the assumption of course that these theories are correct )?
Gen 1:3-4: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

He commanded, and there was light, that’s all He had to do. Then He saw (passive) that the light was good.

Gen 1:31-2:3: By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Resting kind of rules out having to run around micro managing His work, imho.
You then introduced a straw man with your questions in post #300, there are other threads currently running where we can discuss that, ask away on a thread where it is on-topic.

What you are doing on this thread is to evade the fact that scripture does not support any notion that God has to continuously be involved in all changes, in fact just on the first page of the bible it says God spoke light into existence, exactly the opposite of the unmoved having to enact continuous changes in the electric and magnetic fields of every one of gazillions of rays of light 550,000,000,000,000 times every second or thereabouts.

So go on, stop evading, do you agree or disagree that scripture gives no support to such a bizarre notion?
 
**inocente

Just as you are laity and not the Pope.**

Well now, I have observed that all Protestants make themselves the Pope because they more or less all believe they are “free and competent” to interpret Scripture as they please.

Isn’t that so? :D;)
You’re like clockwork, every thread you introduce sectarianism or Hitler, it’s a toss up which comes first. 😃
 
inocente
**
So go on, stop evading, do you agree or disagree that scripture gives no support to such a bizarre notion? **

Gee whiz! I asked you over and over in another thread whether you agree with St. Paul’s condemnation of sodomy in Romans, and could not get an “agree or disagree” out of you after about fifteen tries.

A bit of pot calling the kettle black here?

Notice I have not yet mentioned Hitler. :D;)
 
Oh, you know all the answers, forgive me your holiness.

I answered your questions, those in post #297, here they are again:

You then introduced a straw man with your questions in post #300, there are other threads currently running where we can discuss that, ask away on a thread where it is on-topic.
I don’t think it is a straw man, it is right to the point. You reject the argument for the Unmoved Mover and continually express confidence that it is only the Scriptures that are needed. So I have asked you two simple questions to show you that Thomas’ argument for the Unmoved Mover ( or at least something like it ) is needed. The only other option open is the teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject.
What you are doing on this thread is to evade the fact that scripture does not support any notion that God has to continuously be involved in all changes, in fact just on the first page of the bible it says God spoke light into existence, exactly the opposite of the unmoved having to enact continuous changes in the electric and magnetic fields of every one of gazillions of rays of light 550,000,000,000,000 times every second or thereabouts.
As a matter of fact the Scriptures give ample evidence that God is intimately involved in his creation. For example, " For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. " ( Phil 2:13 ), the countless interventions of God on behalf of the Israelites, from his visitation to Abraham and the Patriarchs, his visions to the Prophets, his control of of events and peoples to the benefit of Israel, his miracles in the New Testament. All show that He works in His creation.

Nothing in the Scriptures supports the idea that God stops working in His creation just because scientists have discovered that nearly an infinite number of light wavys, etc. need to be accounted for. Where you are wrong is where you have interpreted this as meaning that God immediately causes and controls this activity alone. That idea is wrong, he works through secondary causes, through the nature he has created in them. It is their natures that determine their activity, God is there however, sustaining them in existence, throughout all their manifold changes in form. And this is why St. Thomas is so important. He makes this clear.
So go on, stop evading, do you agree or disagree that scripture gives no support to such a bizarre notion?
As I have just said, Scripture says nothing that prohibits us from thinking that God is most intimately involved in His creation and much that supports this idea. And the notion is bizarre in your mind only because you have incorrectly understood it, Thomas shows us a way to understand it.

Linus2nd
 
Oh, you know all the answers, forgive me your holiness.

I answered your questions, those in post #297, here they are again:

You then introduced a straw man with your questions in post #300, there are other threads currently running where we can discuss that, ask away on a thread where it is on-topic.

What you are doing on this thread is to evade the fact that scripture does not support any notion that God has to continuously be involved in all changes, in fact just on the first page of the bible it says God spoke light into existence, exactly the opposite of the unmoved having to enact continuous changes in the electric and magnetic fields of every one of gazillions of rays of light 550,000,000,000,000 times every second or thereabouts.

So go on, stop evading, do you agree or disagree that scripture gives no support to such a bizarre notion?
To add to what I just posted we have this from the S.T. Part 1, Ques 105, Art 5, " I answer that, Some have understood God to work in every agent in such a way that no created power has any effect in things, but that God alone is the ultimate cause of everything wrought; for instance, that it is not fire that gives heat, but God in the fire, and so forth. But this is impossible.

First, because the order of cause and effect would be taken away from created things: and this would imply lack of power in the Creator: for it is due to the power of the cause, that it bestows active power on its effect.

Secondly, because the active powers which are seen to exist in things, would be bestowed on things to no purpose, if these wrought nothing through them. Indeed, all things created would seem, in a way, to be purposeless, if they lacked an operation proper to them; since the purpose of everything is its operation. For the less perfect is always for the sake of the more perfect: and consequently as the matter is for the sake of the form, so the form which is the first act, is for the sake of its operation, which is the second act; and thus operation is the end of the creature. We must therefore understand that God works in things in such a manner that things have their proper operation.

In order to make this clear, we must observe that as there are few kinds of causes; matter is not a principle of action, but is the subject that receives the effect of action. On the other hand, the end, the agent, and the form are principles of action, but in a certain order. For the first principle of action is the end which moves the agent; the second is the agent; the third is the form of that which the agent applies to action (although the agent also acts through its own form); as may be clearly seen in things made by art. For the craftsman is moved to action by the end, which is the thing wrought, for instance a chest or a bed; and applies to action the axe which cuts through its being sharp.

Thus then does God work in every single active cause ( I have used the Blackfriars translation of operante operantur { workers which work } ), according to these three things.

First as an end. For since every operation is for the sake of some good, real or apparent; and nothing is good either really or apparently, except in as far as it participates in a likeness to the Supreme Good, which is God; it follows that God Himself is the cause of every operation as its end.

Again it is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first; for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent.

Thirdly, we must observe that God not only moves things to operated, as it were applying their forms and powers to operation, just as the workman applies the axe to cut, who nevertheless at times does not give the axe its form; but He also gives created agents their forms and preserves them in being. Therefore He is the cause of action not only by giving the form which is the principle of action, as the generator is said to be the cause of movement in things heavy and light; but also as preserving the forms and powers of things; just as the sun is said to be the cause of the manifestation of colors, inasmuch as it gives and preserves the light by which colors are made manifest. And since the form of a thing is within the thing, and all the more, as it approaches nearer to the First and Universal Cause; and because in all things God Himself is properly the cause of universal being which is innermost in all things; it follows that in all things God works intimately. For this reason in Holy Scripture the operations of nature are attributed to God as operating in nature, according to Job 10:11: “Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh: Thou hast put me together with bones and sinews.”

Thus God works throughout his creation ( even in nano particles ) but in such a way that secondary causes exercise their proper activity and God engages in His proper over seeing and sustaining activity.

Linus2nd
 
I don’t think it is a straw man, it is right to the point. You reject the argument for the Unmoved Mover and continually express confidence that it is only the Scriptures that are needed. So I have asked you two simple questions to show you that Thomas’ argument for the Unmoved Mover ( or at least something like it ) is needed. The only other option open is the teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject.
More straw man bro. This has got nothing to do with the Church or sola scriptura, it is to do with Feserism.

On the first page of the bible God speaks light into existence, he has no need to perform any act, not even once let alone continuously, he just commands and it is so.

And also on the first page of the bible God rests. You’re in his image, and when you rest your heart effortlessly sustains you. In the same way God can rest while still effortlessly sustaining creation.

Whereas according to Feserism, the unmoved mover must continuously bounce around like a demented plate juggler, a slave to his own creation.
*As a matter of fact the Scriptures give ample evidence that God is intimately involved in his creation. For example, " For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. " ( Phil 2:13 ), the countless interventions of God on behalf of the Israelites, from his visitation to Abraham and the Patriarchs, his visions to the Prophets, his control of of events and peoples to the benefit of Israel, his miracles in the New Testament. All show that He works in His creation.
Nothing in the Scriptures supports the idea that God stops working in His creation just because scientists have discovered that nearly an infinite number of light wavys, etc. need to be accounted for. Where you are wrong is where you have interpreted this as meaning that God immediately causes and controls this activity alone. That idea is wrong, he works through secondary causes, through the nature he has created in them. It is their natures that determine their activity, God is there however, sustaining them in existence, throughout all their manifold changes in form. And this is why St. Thomas is so important. He makes this clear.
As I have just said, Scripture says nothing that prohibits us from thinking that God is most intimately involved in His creation and much that supports this idea. And the notion is bizarre in your mind only because you have incorrectly understood it, Thomas shows us a way to understand it.*
And I’ve said God is intimately involved with creation without having to run around as its slave.
You’ll have to explain why positing an invisible unprovable unmoved mover as the primary cause, and reclassifying everything visible and provable as a secondary cause, is anything other than circular tomfoolery.
Especially as, whenever the logic gets difficult, you invent machinery such as the “nature” of a thing as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Granted, someone who believes in forms and essences might be swayed by such, but there is no essence of rock or nature of flat-screen-tv outside of the heads of those who believe in forms and essences, they’re not objective.
 
To add to what I just posted we have this from the S.T. Part 1, Ques 105, Art 5, " I answer that, Some have understood God to work in every agent in such a way that no created power has any effect in things, but that God alone is the ultimate cause of everything wrought; for instance, that it is not fire that gives heat, but God in the fire, and so forth. But this is impossible.

First, because the order of cause and effect would be taken away from created things: and this would imply lack of power in the Creator: for it is due to the power of the cause, that it bestows active power on its effect.

Secondly, because the active powers which are seen to exist in things, would be bestowed on things to no purpose, if these wrought nothing through them. Indeed, all things created would seem, in a way, to be purposeless, if they lacked an operation proper to them; since the purpose of everything is its operation. For the less perfect is always for the sake of the more perfect: and consequently as the matter is for the sake of the form, so the form which is the first act, is for the sake of its operation, which is the second act; and thus operation is the end of the creature. We must therefore understand that God works in things in such a manner that things have their proper operation.

In order to make this clear, we must observe that as there are few kinds of causes; matter is not a principle of action, but is the subject that receives the effect of action. On the other hand, the end, the agent, and the form are principles of action, but in a certain order. For the first principle of action is the end which moves the agent; the second is the agent; the third is the form of that which the agent applies to action (although the agent also acts through its own form); as may be clearly seen in things made by art. For the craftsman is moved to action by the end, which is the thing wrought, for instance a chest or a bed; and applies to action the axe which cuts through its being sharp.

Thus then does God work in every single active cause ( I have used the Blackfriars translation of operante operantur { workers which work } ), according to these three things.

First as an end. For since every operation is for the sake of some good, real or apparent; and nothing is good either really or apparently, except in as far as it participates in a likeness to the Supreme Good, which is God; it follows that God Himself is the cause of every operation as its end.

Again it is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first; for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent.

Thirdly, we must observe that God not only moves things to operated, as it were applying their forms and powers to operation, just as the workman applies the axe to cut, who nevertheless at times does not give the axe its form; but He also gives created agents their forms and preserves them in being. Therefore He is the cause of action not only by giving the form which is the principle of action, as the generator is said to be the cause of movement in things heavy and light; but also as preserving the forms and powers of things; just as the sun is said to be the cause of the manifestation of colors, inasmuch as it gives and preserves the light by which colors are made manifest. And since the form of a thing is within the thing, and all the more, as it approaches nearer to the First and Universal Cause; and because in all things God Himself is properly the cause of universal being which is innermost in all things; it follows that in all things God works intimately. For this reason in Holy Scripture the operations of nature are attributed to God as operating in nature, according to Job 10:11: “Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh: Thou hast put me together with bones and sinews.”

Thus God works throughout his creation ( even in nano particles ) but in such a way that secondary causes exercise their proper activity and God engages in His proper over seeing and sustaining activity.

Linus2nd
I highlighted just one short section. It presupposes purpose, it presupposes a scale of perfection, it presupposes forms, it presupposes. Perhaps there are other arguments which explain that they are not really presuppositions even while making other presuppositions which are explained elsewhere by arguments which make other presuppositions.

No doubt some folk love such labyrinths of legal clauses and small print, more complicated than the doctrine of the Trinity, GR and quantum theory rolled into one. To me it’s all argument by verbosity, proof by intimidation, and for us unwashed masses who dare enter within, turns out it’s also the emperor’s new clothes. Still, Thomas couldn’t get everything right, no human can, and it’s good that salvation doesn’t depend on such complexities but only on declaring with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead.
 
More straw man bro. This has got nothing to do with the Church or sola scriptura, it is to do with Feserism.
Incredible, Sis, I didn’t mention Feser.
On the first page of the bible God speaks light into existence, he has no need to perform any act, not even once let alone continuously, he just commands and it is so.
And also on the first page of the bible God rests. You’re in his image, and when you rest your heart effortlessly sustains you. In the same way God can rest while still effortlessly sustaining creation.
Whereas according to Feserism, the unmoved mover must continuously bounce around like a demented plate juggler, a slave to his own creation.
And I’ve said God is intimately involved with creation without having to run around as its slave.
You’ll have to explain why positing an invisible unprovable unmoved mover as the primary cause, and reclassifying everything visible and provable as a secondary cause, is anything other than circular tomfoolery.
Especially as, whenever the logic gets difficult, you invent machinery such as the “nature” of a thing as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Granted, someone who believes in forms and essences might be swayed by such, but there is no essence of rock or nature of flat-screen-tv outside of the heads of those who believe in forms and essences, they’re not objective.
I’ve just shown you there are many examples in Scripture that God is most intimately active in his creation. But you draw the line at the micro/nano level. There is no Scripural reason for doing so. And certainly when it comes to things like dividing the Red Sea and creating a path for the Israelites, placing a firey cloud between the Egyptians and the Israelites, pushing back the Jordan, the plagues on Egypt, sending the Manna daily to feed the Israelites the desert, Christ’s stilling of the storm, His walking on water, raising the dead to life - all these examples and more show that God can indeed " micromanage. "

Where I have relied on Thomas is in speaking of the causality of secondary causes. I know your repugnance of Metaphysics, but at least Thomas has an explanation. Science offers you no reason to say that God is not involved in His creation at the micro/nano level. That is just your personal repugnance to the idea getting in the way.

You should at least be willing to admit that I have shown that there are good reasons to say that God is active intimately without destroying the natural causality of the most minute parts of His creation.

Linus2nd
 
**inocente

And I’ve said God is intimately involved with creation without having to run around as its slave.**

This is a peculiar image you offer us. Who said anything about God running around as the slave of the universe. Just by the words he spoke God caused the universe and everything in it to be created. Not only created but sustained. Do you believe that if God for a moment withheld his sustaining hand, the universe would not immediately return to nothing? The universe and all the causality within it is only possible because God by his omnipotence allows it. How does that make a slave of God? :confused:
 
I highlighted just one short section. It presupposes purpose, it presupposes a scale of perfection, it presupposes forms, it presupposes. Perhaps there are other arguments which explain that they are not really presuppositions even while making other presuppositions which are explained elsewhere by arguments which make other presuppositions.

No doubt some folk love such labyrinths of legal clauses and small print, more complicated than the doctrine of the Trinity, GR and quantum theory rolled into one. To me it’s all argument by verbosity, proof by intimidation, and for us unwashed masses who dare enter within, turns out it’s also the emperor’s new clothes. Still, Thomas couldn’t get everything right, no human can, and it’s good that salvation doesn’t depend on such complexities but only on declaring with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead.
Well, there you would be wrong. Philosophy is like any science. You have to understand the basics of mathematics before you can become a Physicist. Thomistic philosophy is built on the Physics, natural science, and Metaphysics of Aristotle. There are only two assumptions in Thomistic Philosophy and that of Aristotle. One, we know the real world as it is, it is not a fiction. Two, the Principle of Non Contradiction.

And I agree that Faith is the most important thing and the one essential thing. But we need not dismiss every thing else. And most of all we need not and should not dismiss Thomistic Philosophy, since it is the only intellectual tool we have for combating the erroneous philolophy of some physicists, which is causing people to loose Faith in Jesus Christ. That is the only point I have been trying to make all along.

Linus2nd
 
**inocente

And I’ve said God is intimately involved with creation without having to run around as its slave.**

This is a peculiar image you offer us. Who said anything about God running around as the slave of the universe. Just by the words he spoke God caused the universe and everything in it to be created. Not only created but sustained. Do you believe that if God for a moment withheld his sustaining hand, the universe would not immediately return to nothing? The universe and all the causality within it is only possible because God by his omnipotence allows it. How does that make a slave of God? :confused:
Charlemagne, you do realize you are saying that the universe begins to exist and only continues to exist by Gods power alone? And since God is identical to his power and his power is his act of existence, that therefore it is by God’s existence that the universe has actuality, since the universe has no sustaining act of existence of its own.

Just checking.:hypno:

By the time i count to ten you will agree with me.:hypno:
 
Charlemagne, you do realize you are saying that the universe begins to exist and only continues to exist by Gods power alone? And since God is identical to his power and his power is his act of existence, that therefore it is by God’s existence that the universe has actuality, since the universe has no sustaining act of existence of its own.

Just checking.:hypno:

By the time i count to ten you will agree with me.:hypno:
Charlemagne, you do realize you are saying that the universe begins to exist and only continues to exist by Gods power alone? And since God is identical to his power and his power is his act of existence, that therefore it is by God’s existence that the universe has actuality, since the universe has no sustaining act of existence of its own.

Just checking.:hypno:

By the time i count to ten you will agree with me.:hypno:
Really Linux, will you ever stop trying to resurrect this very odd idea of yours. For those who wonder about this you can go back to the closed thread entitled " How does God create an act of existing out of nothing? He has resurrected it again as " Part 2 ( same title). It seems to have died a quick and deserving death because almost no one agreed with him. But he is like an old dog with a ham bone and just can’t leave it alone.

So I enclose here a past post of my own which shows that Creatures have their own act of existence which is not God’s act of existence, one which He gave them at creation and which he sustains even now.

" In order to make this point clear… Now the first of all effects is being, which is presupposed to all other effects, and does not presuppose any other effect: wherefore to give being as such must be the effect of the first cause alone by its own power…"
( Disputed Questions on the Power of God, Q III, Art IV, Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature? dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#1:1

Thus, God gives to creatures their own being or existence, since it could not be an effect had He not given it. And here we must note that we are talking about the act of existence/or existence per se, the effect which causes, or is that act whereby the creature is said to exist, that whereby all the other created effects become real in a being or substance.

It should be obvious to all normal people that the existence creatures have is their own and not God’s. If they each had the same act of existence as God’s, they and God would be one in the same. Right? But Linux compounds his errors by saying that essence ( the existing creature ) and esse ( the act of existence) are distinct and not part of a composit ( I thried to imagine how this would work and the best image I could come up with was a compound of water and oil ). Yet he says they are conjoined ( a term he has lifted from Thomas Aquinas and he uses a lot of Thomas, but perversely ). So all he has really done is to make a created essence a kind of pure form to which God’s esse is tied by a string.

We have to hold with Thomas that creatures have their own act of existence and it is not God’s. But He has given it to them and He sustains it as part of His Divine Concurrence or Government.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top