We Catholics do not rely on the Bible alone as you know. We adhere to the Scriptures and Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. No one knows what Thomas meant by the " straw " remark. But he had a vision that was so remarkable that he lost all interest in earthly things. Linus2nd
If you can find a place in Thomas where he referes to God’s knowledge of all possible beings as " potencies, " I will withdraw my objection. Otherwise I will continue to view your interpretation as an unwarranted and confusing novelty. Linus2nd
To allude to medieval philosophy as " nonsense " is an unwarranted assumption. Have you actually read any of it ? Linus2nd
But since “God is eternal” is one of His attributes, God can be neither confined nor held captive within the limits of time.
God’s carrying out His will, using His own free-will choice, to work six days and rest one day would not have changed His nature. God’s free-will choices are always made in perfect harmony with each of His attributes, including his attribute of immutability. The fundamental nature of free will is to make use of that free will. If a person one day makes the free-will choice to have cake for dessert rather than to have his or her usual pie, that choice will not change or alter the inherent qualities of that person: that person will remain the same person before, during and after his choice to have cake. God created the universe out of love; and God’s creating the universe and then resting could neither subtract love from God’s nature nor add love to it. God’s nature, therefore, remains the same always.
God is absolutely immutable. Ps. 101, 27 & following: " They ( the heavens ) whall perish but thou remainest and all of them shall grow old. And as a vestment thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art always the selfsame. " And James 1,17, " with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration. "Straw man. Genesis doesn’t say that God needs to rest, it doesn’t say why God decides to rest, it just says “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”.
So one day God is working and the next is resting, which is a change over time. You can cite all number of post hoc doctrines, but if we’re debating the biblical God and not some other deity then it’s right there in scripture, God changed.
Linus, it is not God’s knowledge that I call “potencies.” What I refer to as “potencies” or “potential beings” are those possible beings that are in His knowledge. Possible beings that exist in God’s Mind have an objective potency toward existence. And St. Thomas did refer to these possible beings as “in potentiality” (toward existence). For example, in the ST, Part I, Q.14, Art. 9, Reply to Obj. 1, he says:
“Potency,” like “being”, is an analogous term. We say, for instance, that essence is a potency in relation to existence, but obviously, it is not a potency in exactly the same way that prime matter is a potency in relation to form. Even immaterial substances (or pure forms without matter) are, before creation, merely in potentiality toward existence. You can see this, for instance, in a text from St. Thomas’ De Ente et Essentia, Chapter 5:
You can find this quote on page 241 in the link that I provided.
Yes, I understand all that. But there is nothing there that justifies referring to the knowledge God has of all " possible " things as " potencies. " Thomas refers to " potency " only in reference to created substances in that their " essence " is in " potency " to their existence which they have from God. However, the reason I have objected has to do with the confusion this may cause in the minds of those who do not know Thomas or reject his philosophy all together. It just gives them a chance to introduce " potency " in the nature of God. From this they feel justified in saying God must be composed in some manner and therefore is not simple. Linus2nd
Will you please tell me where I referred to the knowledge that God has of all possible things as “potencies”?
I don’t think his statement was all that obscure. Everything he wrote, he saw as straw in comparison to the Infinite Glory of Almighty God.
God freely chose to create the universe, but not with what we generally call “free will.”
Your post #857 : " However, there is another kind of potency, called objective potency, which represents the potency of a possible being as an object of God’s Power, or as an object of God’s Knowledge. A possible being has no actual existence (no entitative esse). Yet it exists virtually in God’s Power (virtual esse), and cognitively in God’s Mind (cognitive esse). This is the kind of potency that I am talking about. It is the objective potency of a possible being to be an actual being by God’s creative act. Before anything is created, it already exists – not entitatively, of course, – but virtually in God’s Power and cognitively in God’s Mind (as a being of reason). "
I see that you are still struggling with the idea of calling possible beings as “potencies.” Yet I pointed to you a text from the Summa which shows that even St. Thomas referred to possible beings as “in potentiality” toward existence. He said, “Those things that are not actual that means, possible beings] are true in so far as they are in potentiality; for it is true that they are in potentiality; and as such they are known by God” (ST, Part 1, Q.14, Art. 9, Reply to Obj. 1. [The phrase in parenthesis is mine, inserted for clarity.]
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I just disagree, I think those who do not accept the existence of God will use this application as an excuse to say either that God does not exist or that He is not distinct from the other beings of the universe. They may say, " look here, there is a potency in God, so he is nothing other than a part of the material universe, subject to change like everything else. " But as I said, that is just my opinion.
I think that free will is basically the freedom to make choices that are in keeping with the nature of each individual without force, threats, or pressures. I believe that God has free-will choices in that He is freely able to choose to do the things that are in keeping with His perfect character. Since God is perfect, His standard of free-will choices are always perfectly made. God, not man, is the standard by which mankind is to define such things as free-will choices, love, and justice. To use mankind as the standard of anything on which to base a free-will choice of right and wrong and good and evil is to start off on the wrong foot.
Your entire argument is based on that assumption. For example, you deny that God can create without mutating. Even we can do that…
No, my argument is not based on that assumption at all, and it isn’t even true that we can do that.
In Heaven, no one has free will.
And to someone like me, who has read your whole argument, actually expressed it formally, and shown how it fails, you will dismiss me with,