Panentheism

[Michael_Mayo]

Far less irrational than creatio ex nihilo. Using some parts of yourself to create something seems much more plausible than creating something using absolutely nothing.

That is what I think also even if that “part of yourself” is the power in will.

 

[Linux]

Far less irrational than creatio ex nihilo. Using some parts of yourself to create something seems much more plausible than creating something using absolutely nothing.

God does not create out of nothing. That is not what creation ex-nihilo means. God does not create out of anything physical or out of any material. God does not have “parts” of himself from which to create out of and therefore panentheism is false. But there is a way for God to be all of reality and yet not all natures insofar as being absolutely distinct from physical nature without there being a contradiction; and this involves the esse & essence distinction. This is the view that in God, his act of Existence and his Nature are one and the same thing; they are not distinct. But in everything else that exists, Existence and Nature are two distinctly different acts. The reason that this distinction is made is for the obvious fact that if the act of existence were intrinsic to the nature of potential things they would never not exist, begin to exist, or cease to exist since to have their particular nature is to exist. Hence existence cannot be an intrinsic attribute of potential objects. They are distinct and they remain distinct even when they are conjoined.

God is the reality through which “abstractions” have the potentiality of being real. God is the act of your reality; God is theissness of potential things. But God’s essence (nature) is absolutely distinct from the essence (nature) of potential things. Your "nature is not God, But the act of your reality is God. That is what it means for God to conserve your “essence” (nature) in existence - in God’s existence.

That is neither panentheism or pantheism since nature and existence remains absolutely distinct at all times. In panentheism and pantheism, physical reality is intrinsic to the essence or nature of God. All kinds of contradictions arise because of that view, not just heresy.

 

[belorg]

God does not create out of nothing. That is not what creation ex-nihilo means. God does not create out of anything physical or out of any material. God does not have “parts” of himself from which to create out of and therefore panentheism is false. But there is a way for God to be all of reality and yet not all natures insofar as being absolutely distinct from physical nature without there being a contradiction; and this involves the esse & essence distinction. This is the view that in God, his act of Existence and his Nature are one and the same thing; they are not distinct. But in everything else that exists, Existence and Nature are two distinctly different acts. The reason that this distinction is made is for the obvious fact that if the act of existence were intrinsic to the nature of potential things they would never not exist, begin to exist, or cease to exist since to have their particular nature is to exist. Hence existence cannot be an intrinsic attribute of potential objects. They are distinct and they remain distinct even when they are conjoined.

So , God does create unsing nothing.
And now the million dollar question: where does th existence and nature of “all other things” come from?
If it’s from nothing, you have contradicted yoursefl.
If it’s from God, you get panentheism.

God is the reality through which “abstractions” have the potentiality of being real. God is the act of your reality; God is theissness of potential things. But God’s essence (nature) is absolutely distinct from the essence (nature) of potential things. Your "nature is not God, But the act of your reality is God. That is what it means for God to conserve your “essence” (nature) in existence - in God’s existence.

Everything is in God ('s existence). Pan-en-theos. Panentheism.
Besides, God’s esse is His existence, yet He can somehow magically seperate his existence and give it to other natures? How can something have God’s existence but not His esse if those are the same?

That is neither panentheism or pantheism since nature and existence remains absolutely distinct at all times. In panentheism and pantheism, physical reality is intrinsic to the essence or nature of God. All kinds of contradictions arise because of that view, not just heresy.

Not in all varieties of panentheism. And I am very curious to learn what contradictions would arise from panentheims in your view.
BTW, you still fail to account for the ‘nature’ of ‘everything else’.

 

[Linux]

So , God does create unsing nothing.

I never said that. I said that God does not use parts.

And now the million dollar question: where does th existence and nature of “all other things” come from?

The act of “Existing” comes from God. The distinct “nature” of physics comes from an abstraction both qualitative and mathematical.

If it’s from nothing, you have contradicted yoursefl…

I never said that its from nothing in the same sense that you propose.

If it’s from God, you get panentheism…

That depends on what you mean by “from God”. If you think that i am saying that the nature of a human is an intrinsic part of Gods essential nature, then that would be wrong, and therefore i am not promoting panentheism in the classical original sense of the word. Whatever you think panentheism is, you have to understand that the Church rejects it only insofar as the idea makes the claim that the “nature” of physics and the nature of “God” is the same thing. If that is not what some forms of panentheism claim, then those forms of panenetheism are not necessarily contradictory to the Catholic faith. So long as there is a distinction between the nature of God and the nature of physics, the Creator/creation distinction is preserved without error or true heresy. The ess/essence distinction as proposed by Thomas Aquinas allows Christianity to preserve the creator/creation relationship without making them the same thing.

Everything is in God ('s existence). Pan-en-theos. Panentheism…

Context is key when attempting to avoid a fallacy. “Everything is in God” as proposed by panenetheism is not them same thing as saying that God is the act of reality. Panenetheism makes no distinction between the nature of physical things and the act of existence. Thomism makes that distinction absolute.

Besides, God’s esse is His existence, yet He can somehow magically seperate his existence and give it to other natures? .

Thats not whats being said.

How can something have God’s existence but not His esse if those are the same?.

Esse is existence. God is what makes you exist. But God is not your nature. There is no contradiction so long as there is a distinction between esse and essence in reference to the act of physics. There is no distinction between the act of existence and God.

 

[belorg]

Esse is existence. God is what makes you exist. But God is not your nature. There is no contradiction so long as there is a distinction between esse and essence in reference to the act of physics. There is no distinction between the act of existence and God.

Sorry, I made a mistake. What I meant to say was “How can something have God’s existence but not His essence if those are the same?”

 

[JDaniel]

That is what I think also even if that “part of yourself” is the power in will.

Michael:

But . . . “will” is not sensible. It can’t be seen. It can’t be touched. And we, as mere humans, can do no more than postulate its presence from the effects of causal activity. Thus, it is a pure abstraction. As such, it has a sort of “existence,” but only as a being of reason. That is not a “part,” per se, of something. Any and all thinking creatures have and can hold that same being of reason. In this way, it is not panentheism.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Sorry, I made a mistake. What I meant to say was “How can something have God’s existence but not His essence if those are the same?”

Belorg:

Actually they don’t. God does not possess existence, He IS Existence. All other beings possess existence only by participation in it. It’s analogous to a whittler holding in his mind the abstraction of a cross. After whittling away, for some period of time, the wood is sliced away and what is left is a cross. But, it is just one expression of cross-ness. It is not universal cross-ness. God Is Universal Existence. Think it through. There is no other way it could be.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Actually they don’t. God does not possess existence, He IS Existence. All other beings possess existence only by participation in it. It’s analogous to a whittler holding in his mind the abstraction of a cross. After whittling away, for some period of time, the wood is sliced away and what is left is a cross. But, it is just one expression of cross-ness. It is not universal cross-ness. God Is Universal Existence. Think it through. There is no other way it could be.

God bless,
jd

Sure, God IS existence, and I possess existence. So I possess God by participating in Him. I am in him. Everything is in Him. Pan-en-theos. What you are describing is pure panentheism.
I really do not understand why fundamentalist Catholics are so allergic to panentheism. Panentheism logically follows from the Thomist concept of God.

 

[belorg]

Michael:

But . . . “will” is not sensible. It can’t be seen. It can’t be touched. And we, as mere humans, can do no more than postulate its presence from the effects of causal activity. Thus, it is a pure abstraction. As such, it has a sort of “existence,” but only as a being of reason. That is not a “part,” per se, of something. Any and all thinking creatures have and can hold that same being of reason. In this way, it is not panentheism.

God bless,
jd

Michael is talking about the power in will. A “power” is a part. If God truly cannot change, the power of His will cannot effect anything “outside” God. Therefore, there can be nothing outside God. Everything is in God. Pan-en-theos.

 

[JDaniel]

Michael is talking about the power in will. A “power” is a part. If God truly cannot change, the power of His will cannot effect anything “outside” God. Therefore, there can be nothing outside God. Everything is in God. Pan-en-theos.

Belorg:

Not so. We mean that God is in everything, NOT, that everything is in God. I’m sure you can understand that there is a difference between those two concepts. If everything was in God, why only an extraordinarily minute part of him? Why is this universe merely finite? Shouldn’t the universe be infinite? And, if the universe is infinite and we part of an infinite universe, shouldn’t we be infinite? Do you understand the mathematics of infinity? Anything that is a part of an infinity must itself be infinite.

Furthermore, the power of walking is not identical to walking. I have the power to walk, but, at present, I am sitting. So, while I can walk, the idea that I can walk is not the same thing as actually walking. Were I to walk, walking would be a real part of my activity. But, notice I said, “were I to walk.”

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Not so. We mean that God is in everything, NOT, that everything is in God. I’m sure you can understand that there is a difference between those two concepts. If everything was in God, why only an extraordinarily minute part of him? Why is this universe merely finite? Shouldn’t the universe be infinite? And, if the universe is infinite and we part of an infinite universe, shouldn’t we be infinite? Do you understand the mathematics of infinity? Anything that is a part of an infinity must itself be infinite.

First of all, it is not true that everything that’s part of an infinity must itself be infinite. “1” is part of an infinity (the natural numbers), but 1 is not infinite. And an infinite mumber of ducks does not entail that every duck is infinite.
Furthermore, nobody is claiming that everything is merely anb extraordinary minute part of Him. Panentheism holds that the whole of everything does not equal God, but is part of God. But God is more than that? God transcends this ‘whole of everything’. If God is in everything, then everything would be greater than or equal to God. That would be pantheism instead of panentheism.

Furthermore, the power of walking is not identical to walking. I have the power to walk, but, at present, I am sitting. So, while I can walk, the idea that I can walk is not the same thing as actually walking. Were I to walk, walking would be a real part of my activity. But, notice I said, “were I to walk.”

God bless,
jd

The “idea” is not tyhe same as the power, JD.

 

[JDaniel]

First of all, it is not true that everything that’s part of an infinity must itself be infinite. “1” is part of an infinity (the natural numbers), but 1 is not infinite.

Belorg:

No it’s not. 1 is a part of a mental fiction, or fictional abstraction, by humans that can’t seem to understand that an actual infinity can have no parts.

And an infinite mumber of ducks does not entail that every duck is infinite.

There can be no such thing as an infinite number of ducks.

Furthermore, nobody is claiming that everything is merely anb extraordinary minute part of Him. Panentheism holds that the whole of everything does not equal God, but is part of God.

And, that’s the problem. You cannot have an infinite number of finite parts. PERIOD.

But God is more than that? God transcends this ‘whole of everything’. If God is in everything, then everything would be greater than or equal to God. That would be pantheism instead of panentheism.

Not so. God is infinite. That understood, there can be no displacement or displacibility where God is concerned. All that we believe to exist is naught more than an illusion, a high-def hologram.

The “idea” is not tyhe same as the power, JD.

What in the world does that mean? And, how does it relate to what I said?

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

No it’s not. 1 is a part of a mental fiction, or fictional abstraction, by humans that can’t seem to understand that an actual infinity can have no parts.

That remains to be proved, JD. Moreover, you were the one trying to prove mathematically that “anything that is a part of an infinity must itself be infinite”.
But mathematically that is wrong. So what ever leads you to the conclusion that an actual infinity can have no parts, it is most certainly not mathematics.

There can be no such thing as an infinite number of ducks.

And, that’s the problem. You cannot have an infinite number of finite parts. PERIOD.

So you assert. But I would like some proof.
Besides, you cannot have an infinite being in a finite one PERIOD.

Not so. God is infinite. That understood, there can be no displacement or displacibility where God is concerned. All that we believe to exist is naught more than an illusion, a high-def hologram.

A ‘holographic’ projection of thoughts IN the mind of God. Pan-etheos.

What in the world does that mean? And, how does it relate to what I said?
Furthermore, the power of walking is not identical to walking. I have the power to walk, but, at present, I am sitting. So, while I can walk, the idea that I can walk is not the same thing as actually walking. Were I to walk, walking would be a real part of my activity. But, notice I said, “were I to walk.”
God bless,
jd

The idea is not the same as the power means that an idea is an abstractuion, whereas a power is concrete. Ideas as such have no causal relations, powers have. Ideas can be thouight of as something other than parts, a power that is exercised is a part.
Hence, something that has no ‘parts’ cannot exercise any power.