Thomistic view creation

[Matthias123]

My argument:

“A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions, as the Philosopher says in I De Caelo et Mundo cap. 5 (271b8-13), and thus, since being and essence are the things first conceived of by the intellect, as Avicenna says in Metaphysicae I, cap. 6, in order to avoid errors arising from ignorance about these two things, we should resolve the difficulties surrounding them by explaining what the terms being and essence each signify and by showing how each may be found in various things and how each is related to the logical intentions of genus, species, and difference.” (On Being and Essence Thomas Aquinas)

In order to understand the world as it is, one must first have a proper understanding of being. This is true due to the fact that in order for a final conclusion to be correct the beginning of one’s reasoning must be correct.

We understand a contingent being to be a composite of the act of existence, and essence. Existence is “the fact that it is” and essence is “that a thing is”. (On being and Essence)

Metaphysical evil does not exist; it is just a relational concept. For example what we call cold is a deficiency of heat. What we call chaos is just a deficiency of order. What we call nothing is really a deficiency of something, because if there was nothing there would still be something and that something would be nothing.

So it follows that there exists only metaphysical good, and everything that has potential is a deficiency of this pure goodness, which is pure actually.

Now the “act of existence” must be pure actually otherwise there would be potentially in it and there would have to exist an outside greater pure actually. This is not possible because this outside greater pure actually would be outside the bounds of this “act of existence” and thus could not exist. Therefore the act of existence is pure actually and this is what men call God.(Summa Theologica: Prima Pars Q2, A3)

Now we know that God is not only His own existence, but he is His own essence. So it follows that God Himself is being. (Summa Theologica Prima Pars Q3)

Humans have potentially known some things that can be known. Therefore God knows all things that can be known. This also means he knows beings that do not actually exist, but potentially exist, in all periods of time.

Now it wouldn’t make sense to have a beginningless universe sitting side by side with God, for no apparent reason – not to mention the arguments that I am about to present.

God Himself being infinitely perfect (because he is pure actually) blessed Himself in a plan of sheer goodness and love to create everything freely. Now since God is omniscient he knew everything that potentially could exist – this includes events.

So there were ideas in the Divine Intellect. (Summa Theologica Prima Pars Q15) These ideas were then actualized through His omnipotent Divine Will. Now we can see evidence to these ideas in natural things. For everything that exists and will exists has essence, which Plato calls ideas or form, also synonymous with soul. We see in natural things specific ideas, or purpose for the existence of certain things. As the bird has wings in order to fly, and feather in order to give it lift. The lungs exist to provide oxygen to the blood, and the eyes exist to gives sight. All of these things have purpose, which is an effect of the first cause, and this must have been ideas in the Divine Intellect.

Now the objection is that these came to be through natural selection. This is very true, but we know that everything acts towards a meaningful and purposeful end. The universe strives for perfection. So we understand that every cause has an effect that has been determined by the Divine Intellect before the creation of the world. So what is called chance is chance in one sense, but providence in the other. For we know that since the actualization of the world, everything acts towards a meaningful are purposeful end, and therefore comes under divine providence. For nothing can exist contrary to the ideas in the Divine Intellect. (Summa Theologica Prima Prars Q22)

Now God can know what we cannot know. For we know due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle in Quantum mechanics that as soon as we attempt to measure the momentum of a particle we loose certainty of the velocity of the particle – the same is true in reverse. So it is not possible to know the future events of a particle. Now God can know these events because he knew the results of these events before they became indeterminate.

So it is completely reasonable to claim that we exist on this planet the way we are due to Divine Providence.

Also in our natural would we can see further imprint of the Divine Intellect. For logic is the reflection of the Divine Intellect. The laws logic is immutable omnipresent, and eternal. There is conformity in nature, and this is what the natural sciences rely on. Without this conformity we wouldn’t be able to take the truths possessed from past experience and predict events in the future. The world is logical because it has been made logical by intelligence. So you see, the atheist who argues against theism presupposes theism in order to form his/her arguments. You cannot even imagine a universe without God, because everything that you know has been created by Him and does not have potential to happen.

Furthermore we see the Natural Law in nature. For what God has ordered in nature, is ordered through His will. Now we are rational creatures with free will, therefore we are able to disregard this Natural Law if we please. For example humans have a natural inclination to eat in order to sustain one’s body, but to eat so much as to damage the body is a breach of natural law and thus an offence to God. We have the natural inclination for sexual relations, but to indulge in this inclination at the expense of one’s offspring is disordered. The natural law is just the rational creature’s participation in the Eternal Law, which is the way that God has ordered His creation. What God has set man must not break.

Thus in nature we can even find morality and the right conduct for which we are to live in harmony. For any actions contrary to this natural law, are going to cause disharmony in society and in relationships because you will be acting against the order of the cosmos

Now in your goodness, I would like to request that anyone who rejects this argument explain why they reject it.

Do so in your own time. I think you can understand that I do not want to have a thread full of “well your logic is flawed, but I don’t want to explain why”.

 

[geometer]

“Also in our natural would we can see further imprint of the Divine Intellect. For logic is the reflection of the Divine Intellect. The laws logic is immutable omnipresent, and eternal. There is conformity in nature, and this is what the natural sciences rely on. Without this conformity we wouldn’t be able to take the truths possessed from past experience and predict events in the future. The world is logical because it has been made logical by intelligence. So you see, the atheist who argues against theism presupposes theism in order to form his/her arguments. You cannot even imagine a universe without God, because everything that you know has been created by Him and does not have potential to happen.”

This is a horrible paragraph. There is no logic known which is divine, and can predict the future. What I would like to know is who is it that is promoting this religion that men possess divine logic?

Read “The Mathematical Experience” by Paul Davies and Ruben Hersch

 

[Matthias123]

“Also in our natural would we can see further imprint of the Divine Intellect. For logic is the reflection of the Divine Intellect. The laws logic is immutable omnipresent, and eternal. There is conformity in nature, and this is what the natural sciences rely on. Without this conformity we wouldn’t be able to take the truths possessed from past experience and predict events in the future. The world is logical because it has been made logical by intelligence. So you see, the atheist who argues against theism presupposes theism in order to form his/her arguments. You cannot even imagine a universe without God, because everything that you know has been created by Him and does not have potential to happen.”

This is a horrible paragraph. There is no logic known which is divine, and can predict the future. What I would like to know is who is it that is promoting this religion that men possess divine logic?

Read “The Mathematical Experience” by Paul Davies and Ruben Hersch

When did I say this? I am saying logic is a reflection of the Divine Intellect. An imprint on the world and that reality is a mediation of two minds. I am saying that God didn’t directly create logic but indirectly created it when he actualized creation. It was not part of creation per se but was an effect of creation by the Divine Mind, and in this way it was actualized.

 

[fhansen]

What we call nothing is really a deficiency of something, because if there was nothing there would still be something and that something would be nothing.

I think this statement needs work- unless I’m misunderstanding it.

 

[Matthias123]

I think this statement needs work- unless I’m misunderstanding it.

I am claiming that nothing is a relational concept and isn’t an ontological entity. So nothing per se can’t exist. So when we say ex nihlo we mean that there was no something (Except God), and then because of the Divine Will, there became something.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Among other things…

Although I agree that nothing is merely the lack of something, this concept does not apply to good vs evil.

Once a purpose or goal is chosen, good is what assists in accomplishing that goal. But bad (aka evil) is not merely the lack of assistance. It is the reverse effort actually pushing you further from your goal.

Evil is that which efforts away from life, not merely that which does not assist in life. Murder is not merely the lack of helping someone live. It is the existence of “taking away” what progress life had achieved.

{“evil” is the reverse spelling of the word “live” for a reason}

 

[MindOverMatter]

When did I say this? I am saying logic is a reflection of the Divine Intellect. An imprint on the world and that reality is a mediation of two minds. I am saying that God didn’t directly create logic but indirectly created it when he actualized creation. It was not part of creation per se but was an effect of creation by the Divine Mind, and in this way it was actualized.

It seems to me that this fails to see something fundamentally true about God, but still points to it.

Gods very being is fundamentally logical; as in, Gods very nature as an entity is fundamentally opposed to absolute nothing. God, in his perfection, cannot not exist; it is impossible, for God is existence by nature, and thus logic is an expression Gods very nature as a perfect being and an eternal act.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Among other things…

Although I agree that nothing is merely the lack of something, this concept does not apply to good vs evil.

Yes it does apply. Evil is a privation of Good. Evil is not a being.

 

[Matthias123]

Yes it does apply. Evil is a privation of Good. Evil is not a being.

It does because good is synonymous with being aka God. Non-being doesn’t exist, so it follows that evil per se does not exist.

 

[nkbeth]

Among other things…

Although I agree that nothing is merely the lack of something, this concept does not apply to good vs evil.

Once a purpose or goal is chosen, good is what assists in accomplishing that goal. But bad (aka evil) is not merely the lack of assistance. It is the reverse effort actually pushing you further from your goal.

Evil is that which efforts away from life, not merely that which does not assist in life. Murder is not merely the lack of helping someone live. It is the existence of “taking away” what progress life had achieved.

{“evil” is the reverse spelling of the word “live” for a reason}

Evil in man involves bad will which is the absence of good will that should exist. (e.g. consider the love that a mother should have for her child). “Not assisting” someone (or letting them live but not helping them) may involve the absence of some good will, but acting against them or killing them involves the absence of far more good will - even the good will that we must have under any.circumstances.

 

[James_S_Saint]

OKay, I see.

This is just the laying of preface for later claiming, “Because you are not doing what we know is good, you are evil and we must act against evil.”

I get it.

 

[sillyfrog]

OKay, I see.

This is just the laying of preface for later claiming, “Because you are not doing what we know is good, you are evil and we must act against evil.”

I get it.

Now you see, May God bless you.http://www.photosnag.com/img/4713/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif