Ten Questions for philosophers from Msgr. Charles Pope

[JamesCaruso]

Yes, but in the created universe there is no such thing as pure existence. In the created universe " existence " is a mere attribute, as you say. Philosophers would say that it is the interior principle ( cause ) by which a " what " becomes a real substance.

In God however, we run into " Existence " which is an actual Substance. The Essence of God is His Existence.

Linus2nd

True.

But in saying that the essence of God is his existence, which I agree with, are you saying that

existence is not an attribute of God,

or that

existence is not only an attribute of God, it is his very essence?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well aside from failing to give your Msgr enough credit, I think it is quite presumptuous to declare---- without foundation----- that there is no such thing as “being”. Certainly, the celebrated Thomas speak fluently of “esse” and indeed asserts authoritatively that the Deity itself is, in fact, pure “being” or existence or—to use Thomas’ word “esse”

I think you are being overly critical. I doubt Msgr. was thinking in Philosophical terms. You don’t have to agree. He certainly was not declaring " …there is no such thing as being…" Yes, Thomas was very insistant that pure being or existence was esse. But there is only one pure being and that is God. You recall that I said, " in the created universe there is no such thing as pure existence. " God is not part of the created universe. I’m glad you remember something from your Catholic education. But again, I think the Msgr was just asking, like Locke, " …why does anything exist…"

Hence, if one borrows from Thomas’ definition and then asks the Msgr’s question, the question really becomes why is there God?

Not likely. He was addressing atheists. He would hardly ask them “…why does God exist…”

Would you say that is a meaningless question too?

Of course not. It is one that one runs into when speaking to atheists. They erroneously think it is a stopper. God exists because we exist. We ( this universe ) cannot account for its own existence. Atheists have not been very successful explaining how it might do so.

I would say the question is full of meaning and actually disproves rather than proves the existence of God.

I don’t see how.

After all, if Thomas’ line of logic is followed, one can no longer say that there cannot be an infinite regression without first arriving at a personal God because the arrival point after such a regression becomes existence itself-------- without a “person” behind the mask of “being”.

There cannot be an infinite regress in the cause of this act or change occuring right now. One eventually must posit an ultimate cause which is outside the immediate causes. For example. I am sick. There immediate causes of my illness. But there cannot be an infinite number of such causes, otherwise there would have been no first cause and then I would not be sice. But I am clearly sick. So there must be a first cause outside the immediate causes and that is God.And this cause is itself uncaused and is indeed a Person, it is God, or Existence Itself.

We can have an infinite regress in accidental causes. For example, we could have an infinite regress of moving freight cars into the past and into the furture, one pulling the other. But even here there must be a power source outside the line which causes both the movement of the cars and their existence. And that cause is God.

Maybe we should pick another of Msgr’s 10 questions to critique as it seems this discussion is not becoming productive. Your choice and I’ll try to answer.

I thought it was very productive. Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

True.

But in saying that the essence of God is his existence, which I agree with, are you saying that

existence is not an attribute of God,

or that

existence is not only an attribute of God, it is his very essence?

We ascribe attributes to God. But we have to keep in mind that this is our human way of speaking. Those things we call God’s attributes are identical to His Existence. And Existence is the very Essence of God.

Linus2nd

 

[JamesCaruso]

We ascribe attributes to God. But we have to keep in mind that this is our human way of speaking. Those things we call God’s attributes are identical to His Existence. And Existence is the very Essence of God.

Linus2nd

Granted, but we have no other way of speaking other than humanly.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Granted, but we have no other way of speaking other than humanly.

Do you have a another question? I thought I answered you.

God is the One, utterly Simple, Divine, Intelligent, all Good, absolutely Perfect, Eternal Being, in Whom there is no divison, not lack of Perfection, Whose Essence is described or defined in Philosophy as Self Subsistent Being Itself.

Linus2nd

 

[JamesCaruso]

Do you have a another question? I thought I answered you.

God is the One, utterly Simple, Divine, Intelligent, all Good, absolutely Perfect, Eternal Being, in Whom there is no divison, not lack of Perfection, Whose Essence is described or defined in Philosophy as Self Subsistent Being Itself.

Linus2nd

I prefer Himself to Itself. The latter feels impersonal. The former seems to connote gender, but really I think it’s meant to connote personhood and relationship, not gender, except insofar as masculinity in man reflects an aspect of God. For this reason, God has revealed Himself as both Father and Son. If I know anything about God, it is that He is personal, in fact, triply so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I prefer Himself to Itself. The latter feels impersonal. The former seems to connote gender, but really I think it’s meant to connote personhood and relationship, not gender, except insofar as masculinity in man reflects an aspect of God. For this reason, God has revealed Himself as both Father and Son. If I know anything about God, it is that He is personal, in fact, triply so.

Whatever.

Linus2nd

 

[JamesCaruso]

Whatever.

Linus2nd

So It created mankind in It’s own image,

in the image of It It created them;

male and female It created them.

 

[WmJackP]

I think you are being overly critical. I doubt Msgr. was thinking in Philosophical terms.Linus2nd

Then in what terms was he thinking? To ask “why is existence”, I expect most folks to regard as a philosophical question—certainly not any question science or and of the social disciplines could hope to respond to.

Linus2nd I thought it was very productive. Linus2nd

Like most things in life—so much in the eye of the beholder. So unless you have another area to explore with me, I think the topic is exhausted so far as you and I are concerned