Prior to Potentiality?

[Trevor_Stamm]

In relation to the forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578898&page=11 thread, A question (not from the thread) hit me that I need help with.

Given the fact that God created us out of agape love, was done out of active power with the greatest degree of freedom.

We also observe that selfishness is a anti-divine attribute. Selfishness would entail, not sharing.

Therefore we observe that God is fully selfless and giving of existence.

With these things observed, was there truly a state of just God and only Him and nothing else?

Trying to factor in God’s atemporal being and our temporal state somehow as well.

Thoughts?

 

[passus]

Yes! God has always existed. He is and always was and forever will be in existence. Our existence, however, and the existence of the universe in which we live, is limited. So before we or anything God created existed, God did (and always had). Here’s where your atemporal being bit comes in. The interesting thing about this is that it’s not possible for us to say how long God existed solitarily in this way. Since time is a construction of man (who hasn’t been around that long) and time implies change (which has no place in a universe in which solitarily exists an immutable God), the amount of time God existed before us literally is inexistent and it would be an impossibility to measure.

 

[belorg]

In relation to the forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578898&page=11 thread, A question (not from the thread) hit me that I need help with.

Given the fact that God created us out of agape love, was done out of active power with the greatest degree of freedom.

We also observe that selfishness is a anti-divine attribute. Selfishness would entail, not sharing.

Therefore we observe that God is fully selfless and giving of existence.

With these things observed, was there truly a state of just God and only Him and nothing else?

Trying to factor in God’s atemporal being and our temporal state somehow as well.

Thoughts?

I think passus explained it better than I could, Trevor. Yes, there was truly a state of just God and only Him but that state was timeless. So it’s not that God was ‘alone’ for 1000 years or an eternity ‘before’ he created the universe.
But still, ‘agape’, the love of God is only complete with creation. Sans creation, Agape is an unfulfilled desire.

And is agape ‘selfless’? No, it isn’t. Because it is in God’s own interest to create other beings because otherwise, his ‘agape’ wo’nt be complete.

Which brings us to the last part ‘the greatest degree of freedom’. Agape does not appear to give God any sort of freedom at all. God cannot possibly decide not to act upon it, because then agape isn’t complete.

 

[Luke_K]

You’re forgetting about the Trinity. God’s loving nature is complete in himself without creation because he is a community of three persons. The Father begets his whole being to produce the Son, who in turn begets his whole being to sustain the Father, with this act of love being the Holy Spirit. Much like how husband and wife come together to produce another person.

As for God being ‘pure act’, I cannot agree unless it’s a dogma. God obviously has the potential to do unnecessary things. His first act apart from his eternal nature was the beginning of time.

 

[belorg]

You’re forgetting about the Trinity. God’s loving nature is complete in himself without creation because he is a community of three persons.

If His love has always been complete, then there would have been no point in creating anything else.

The Father begets his whole being to produce the Son, who in turn begets his whole being to sustain the Father, with this act of love being the Holy Spirit. Much like how husband and wife come together to produce another person.

Looks more like masturbation to me, Luke.

As for God being ‘pure act’, I cannot agree unless it’s a dogma. God obviously has the potential to do unnecessary things. His first act apart from his eternal nature was the beginning of time.

I think that in norder to save God from annihilation, you had better reject the ‘pure act’ bit.
However, Trevor set up this thread from aThomist pov, and God being Pure Act is the corner stone of Aquinas’ metaphysics.

 

[danserr]

You’re forgetting about the Trinity. God’s loving nature is complete in himself without creation because he is a community of three persons. The Father begets his whole being to produce the Son, who in turn begets his whole being to sustain the Father, with this act of love being the Holy Spirit. Much like how husband and wife come together to produce another person.

Yes, this is the answer given by people like CS Lewis, Chesterton and modern philosophers like Richard Swinbourne of Oxford university.
God was always loving because he was eternally begetting the son and the eternal bond between him and the son eternally produced the Holy Spirit.

If His love has always been complete, then there would have been no point in creating anything else.

So he did not create the world out of a need to show love; he had no need to create at all. The problem is that you are still assuming that love is a need and that if God acts it must be from a need. He does not love because he “needs” to but because he is a perfect being and it is simply in the nature of love to give itself out.

The Father begets his whole being to produce the Son, who in turn begets his whole being to sustain the Father, with this act of love being the Holy Spirit. Much like how husband and wife come together to produce another person.

Looks more like masturbation to me, Luke.

Now that’s just stupid. There are 3 persons and one God.

 

[sw85]

If His love has always been complete, then there would have been no point in creating anything else.

Hence one of the greatest problems in theology: why did a perfect God create anything at all?

Looks more like masturbation to me, Luke.

I’m always amused when atheists indulge in the rank anthropomorphization of God they criticize in theists.

I think that in norder to save God from annihilation, you had better reject the ‘pure act’ bit. However, Trevor set up this thread from aThomist pov, and God being Pure Act is the corner stone of Aquinas’ metaphysics.

The pure actuality of God’s nature is not something that is presupposed but something that is logically necessary in light of the First Cause argument. For God to have potentiality would mean God is deficient in some respect.

 

[belorg]

So he did not create the world out of a need to show love; he had no need to create at all. The problem is that you are still assuming that love is a need and that if God acts it must be from a need. He does not love because he “needs” to but because he is a perfect being and it is simply in the nature of love to give itself out.

That is the standard defibnition of a need: you have some ‘natural’ tendency to do something and then you need to do it.

Now that’s just stupid. There are 3 persons and one God.

Yes, God loves Himself, Himself, Himself and some others.
To love yourself is not an act of selflesness.

 

[belorg]

Hence one of the greatest problems in theology: why did a perfect God create anything at all?

That’s indeeda big problem.

I’m always amused when atheists indulge in the rank anthropomorphization of God they criticize in theists.

The word irony does not mean anything to you?

The pure actuality of God’s nature is not something that is presupposed but something that is logically necessary in light of the First Cause argument. For God to have potentiality would mean God is deficient in some respect.

I know that. And that’s why Pure Act Theism is self-defeating.

 

[Luke_K]

Yes, God loves Himself, Himself, Himself and some others.
To love yourself is not an act of selflesness.

Each person of the Trinity loves the other two. They are not each other, but they are all God. That is not self-love because distinct persons are loving each other. They all share the same nature of God because the Son proceeds from the total gift of self from the Father, and thus he is of the same being as the Father. The Holy Spirit likewise.

In other words, the Father “annihilates” himself entirely in order to produce the Son, who in turn completely gives of himself to sustain the Father. The whole Divine Being is dynamic, selfless love.

I think that in norder to save God from annihilation, you had better reject the ‘pure act’ bit.
However, Trevor set up this thread from aThomist pov, and God being Pure Act is the corner stone of Aquinas’ metaphysics.

Thomistic philosophy isn’t infallible, after all.

 

[Luke_K]

The pure actuality of God’s nature is not something that is presupposed but something that is logically necessary in light of the First Cause argument. For God to have potentiality would mean God is deficient in some respect.

Not necessarily. God has the potential to do unnecessary things as a consequence of his free will. He has the potential to create, but that is an act of selfless love for which he is not enhanced in any way. Potentiality doesn’t always mean deficiency.

As for why God created, I can only quote Neo from the climax of the third Matrix movie:
“Because I choose to.”

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Not necessarily. God has the potential to do unnecessary things as a consequence of his free will. He has the potential to create, but that is an act of selfless love for which he is not enhanced in any way. Potentiality doesn’t always mean deficiency.

As for why God created, I can only quote Neo from the climax of the third Matrix movie:
“Because I choose to.”

I like his other quote, “whoa…”

Some of what you explained though is not damaging to the Pure Act doctrine. God was, is, and ever shall be complete in his essence & existence. What God did, create, did not enhance him in anyway nor was it necessary to do so. Nor was it an action of passive power. But Him, being in the most perfect state of love, created unnecessary contingent beings to share in the very act of existence and, ultimately, Himself. But God was not the recipient of potentiality, otherwise we would say in our Nicene Creed “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, begetter of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen…” And Sacred Scripture would read “In the beginning God begot the heavens and the earth.” And in turn, nothing would be corruptible for all that is begotten of God is most perfect in divine attributes.

 

[sw85]

Not necessarily. God has the potential to do unnecessary things as a consequence of his free will. He has the potential to create, but that is an act of selfless love for which he is not enhanced in any way. Potentiality doesn’t always mean deficiency.

If He is not enhanced in any way than there is hardly a potentiality being realized. I think you misapprehend the nature of potentiality.

It necessarily implies deficiency. One way in which I’m different than you is that either I’m taller (in which case you have an unrealized potentiality for height) or I’m shorter (in which case I have that unrealized potentiality). In either case, there is a deficiency in one of us which makes us distinct with re: to height.

This is part of the reason why there is necessarily only one God – there cannot be more without there being some distinction between them, and that distinction implies imperfection. Denying the pure actuality of God’s nature is therefore denying the necessity of monotheism altogether.

I don’t see why we can’t simply accept that the mystery of why God created is a mystery – something that has an answer but which we cannot know through anything short of divine revelation.

 

[Luke_K]

If He is not enhanced in any way than there is hardly a potentiality being realized. I think you misapprehend the nature of potentiality.

It necessarily implies deficiency. One way in which I’m different than you is that either I’m taller (in which case you have an unrealized potentiality for height) or I’m shorter (in which case I have that unrealized potentiality). In either case, there is a deficiency in one of us which makes us distinct with re: to height.

This is part of the reason why there is necessarily only one God – there cannot be more without there being some distinction between them, and that distinction implies imperfection. Denying the pure actuality of God’s nature is therefore denying the necessity of monotheism altogether.

I don’t see why we can’t simply accept that the mystery of why God created is a mystery – something that has an answer but which we cannot know through anything short of divine revelation.

The potential for creation was realized, and the only place that potential could have come from is God’s will. Therefore, God’s will is not purely actual. But that does not mean he is deficient in any way, only that he does not actualize all potentialities.

 

[sw85]

The potential for creation was realized, and the only place that potential could have come from is God’s will. Therefore, God’s will is not purely actual. But that does not mean he is deficient in any way, only that he does not actualize all potentialities.

This isn’t a meaningful discussion.

This reminds me of the fellow who said that God could not be the “first cause” because a cause cannot be a cause without an effect, meaning that there was a time when God was not the “first cause” and that creation therefore actualized His potentiality for being the first cause.

Again, meaningless, since God created time.

 

[Luke_K]

This isn’t a meaningful discussion.

This reminds me of the fellow who said that God could not be the “first cause” because a cause cannot be a cause without an effect, meaning that there was a time when God was not the “first cause” and that creation therefore actualized His potentiality for being the first cause.

Again, meaningless, since God created time.

I don’t see why my points are meaningless. Please elaborate and remedy my misunderstanding. God had the potential to create other universes, but he didn’t. Do you think God’s will is purely actual? If so, why isn’t every possible universe actualized by God’s will?

 

[sw85]

I don’t see why my points are meaningless. Please elaborate and remedy my misunderstanding. God had the potential to create other universes, but he didn’t. Do you think God’s will is purely actual? If so, why isn’t every possible universe actualized by God’s will?

Wait, when did the discussion become what God’s will is?

The First Cause argument demonstrates that God Himself is pure being, not that God’s will is (what would that even mean?).

 

[Luke_K]

Wait, when did the discussion become what God’s will is?

The First Cause argument demonstrates that God Himself is pure being, not that God’s will is (what would that even mean?).

This discussion came from the thread linked in the original post. How can a purely actual being do anything apart from his actual nature? If his will cannot change, or has no potential, then potentiality cannot exist.

Although, I suppose that discussion is still going on in that thread. Perhaps Trevor had something else in mind here, which I think has been answered already by recalling the Trinity.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

This discussion came from the thread linked in the original post. How can a purely actual being do anything apart from his actual nature? If his will cannot change, or has no potential, then potentiality cannot exist.

Got a reply from Professor Feser about the question, was the act a change in his will? Very satisfying answer would like to share: No, the act was not a change in God’s will, since He willed eternally to create.

This answers a lot, in my opinion.

 

[belorg]

Got a reply from Professor Feser about the question, was the act a change in his will? Very satisfying answer would like to share: No, the act was not a change in God’s will, since He willed eternally to create.

This answers a lot, in my opinion.

Does it?

God willed eternally to create, so this wasn’t a free choice of God’s part. Since God is supposed to be a necessary being, creation has nothing to do with God’s** love**,
God odes noy have any sort of choice. Everything He created, creates and will create is a direct result of God’s nature, which means God is nothing more than an automaton automaton and as such is, in fact, redundant.

Following Professor Feser, the only logical option to remain a Christian is to become a five point Calvinist.