Question on things that do not exist by nature

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fran65
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fran65

Guest
I’m reading more about Aquinas and have come across the statement that objects of our experience (including ourselves) do not have it in their nature to exist.

I’m unsure of the basis for this. Is it that although things exist, they could equally not exist? Or is there more to it than that? And also, if this is the case, why does there have to be something that has it in its nature to exist (which I assume is God)?

I’m probably working through stuff that’s been discussed here lots of time, but I do want to understand it as thoroughly as possible.
 
As far as we can tell everything is contingent, i.e. every being, whether it is a particle or a person, depends on something else for its existence. We know things need not exist because they have not always existed and were caused by something else - except the Big Bang. That raises the questions of how and why anything exists. There are only two possibilities: either something has always existed or something began to exist for no reason. We cannot comprehend either of these alternatives but the first seems more reasonable because we have no experience of something coming from nothing…
 
Fran65 said:
And also, if this is the case, why does there have to be something that has it in its nature to exist (which I assume is God)?
Click to expand...
By contingency, which tonyrey mentioned, nothing would exist if there were nothing that originally had it in its nature to exist–God.
 
Fran65 said:
I’m reading more about Aquinas and have come across the statement that objects of our experience (including ourselves) do not have it in their nature to exist.

I’m unsure of the basis for this. Is it that although things exist, they could equally not exist? Or is there more to it than that? And also, if this is the case, why does there have to be something that has it in its nature to exist (which I assume is God)?

I’m probably working through stuff that’s been discussed here lots of time, but I do want to understand it as thoroughly as possible.
Click to expand...
tony is right up until existence, G-ds essence is existence, actus purus, or the maximal state of being, there is no coming into existence, existence cannot be seperated from G-d, therefore there is no “place” from which G-d can come into existence. think transcencental existence.🙂
 
Thank you for your replies.

Contingency was the missing word from my lexicon!
 
Actually, at the moment, it only exists as the potential of our imagination, but perhaps it will begin to exist one day.🙂
 
passus said:
Aww, I hate when that happens to me, too! But I guess you did end up saying something, didn’t you? 😛
Click to expand...
Yep. I just want people to know that i exist. I want my existence to mean something. I never feel more valuable then when i am proving the existence of God or when i am helping others feel good about their faith.😦
 
Yes, I’ve learnt a lot from the discussions on this forum. You’ve named three posters whose posts I always look forward to!

I’m still working through Davies’ books too, but as I go back to work next week I’ll have less time. Spending more time reading, learning and discussing theology & philosophy of religion is one of the things that I look forward to in my long vacation!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top