What would you do if it were proven...?

[MindOverMatter2]

It seems clear to me that they are referring to a different kind of god. One that can fail to exist. That is not our concept of G-d.

No, we believe that G-d is his own act of existing and every other act as well. There is no existence apart from G-d. the being whose substance is existence. The Eastern Churches are out right panentheistic to a further degree than the Western Churches. But they have a greater influence from Islamic metaphysics during the scholastic area and the “existence precedes essence” line is expressed more vigorously by them than by Aquinas.

You’re confusing panentheism for pantheism. they are similar words, happens all the time. We still divide being the old fashioned way, necessity and contingency.

Hello warp. I think you should be careful and make distinctions when expressing your views about panentheism; and redefine your position as “esse-panentheism” as opposed to “essential-panentheism”.

“Esse-panentheism” would be correct as it describes God as the existential act of all potential beings. This would be to say that God is the reality of a mouse, but he is not intrinsically the essence of a mouse, because a mouse just like potentiality is not an attribute of God. This is to say there is only one reality or one existence (existential monism), but at the same time there is many essences (essential dualism). Given these distinctions we see a successful marriage of monism and dualism.

“Essential-panentheism”, would mean that God is intrinsically both the existence and the essence of the mouse. This would be contradictory to the Catholic faith.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hello warp. I think you should be careful…
Yes, everyone should be aware that I am speaking of the normal Orthodox Catholic Panen-theism. There are ontological differences between G-d and Creation. G-d is not a mouse. The mouse is a contingent being, potentia, esse, etc. G-d is Actus Purus, Necessary.

Hows that?

 

[Betterave]

Hmmm tricky indeed and interesting. However, I think on this point I come down on the other side. People may aim at objectivity in making judgements but not always. Sometimes people happily make judgements without any attempt at objectivity (ie people judge what foods they like best etc, these are deliberately purely subjective judgements). However,*I would argue that judgements by their nature must contain at least a proportion of subjectivity. And the more of a judgement something is the more it is subjective.

On ‘judging’ what food you prefer, I would say that is just tasting and deciding which you prefer. It is not properly speaking a judgment, unless you are making your decision on the basis of some kind of conceptual deliberation. This is a matter of how to use the word ‘judgment’ - you could propose to use it in some other way, such that thermometers make judgments, for example (some philosophers have made this suggestion), but that is not a kind of ‘judgment’ that I have any interest in discussing. (I think that kind of thing is simply a misuse of the term.) So with that clarification, what say you?

The reason I say this is that in those areas where there is the most direct and consistent information we consider there to be little judgement to be made and little subjectivity (and people are most consistent in their “judgements”).The less you have direct, consistent information the more something comes down to judgement and the more subjective it becomes (and the more peoples “judgements” differ).

I understand the connotations of ‘judgment’ that you’re referring to here, the kind implied in a phrase like “you’ll have to use your judgment on that one.” But in referring to a judgment I am just talking about the act of making some inference, proceeding from premises to a conclusion. This is indeed always subjective, in that only ‘subjects’ make inferences, but also always aims at objectivity.

Is this about having an objective perspective? If so then I don’t agree, I’m open to be shown I’m wrong here, but I can’t see how you can have an objective perspective. As far as I can see it’s a contradiction.*

Indeed, it is about having an objective perspective, that is, a perspective that is not hermetically sealed but which is open to the views of others and committed to seeking ways of understanding that do not simply contradict the views of others but which understands and synthesizes these other views. Any perspective which did not seek this kind of objectivity would literally be that of a crazy person, who is simply out of touch with reality, floating along in her own private universe.

Not at all, I wasn’t dismissing anything. I simply think that we should always be free to change our opinions. Restriction to a single viewpoint (on pain of death) either self imposed or from an external source seems like a bad idea for the reasons given before - self imposed tends to lead to closed mindedness etc.*

But if what you believe is true, restriction to that single true viewpoint is simply the necessary condition of correctly understanding reality. So you may not mean to, but you still seem to be simply dismissing the possibility that a religion might teach the actual truth. (Believing what is true is not ‘closed-minded’ in any interesting sense of the term.)

Perhaps an example would help. I can see something happen and be absolutely 100% convinced of what happened on the basis of the evidence of my own eyes. However, if someone then showed me sufficient additional information that I was actually somehow wrong, I’d take into account the additional information and presumably change my mind about what I saw happen. I wouldn’t kill myself over it.

I don’t think this is a very interesting point. I don’t think many people would “kill themselves over it,” but the ‘it’ in question is not a general one, i.e., the issue is not the general issue of changing one’s mind. For the posters you are talking about, they are making a specific counter-factual claim about the objective worth of life in the absence of a particular reality (God)…

This is essentially what those posters have said - that they are so committed to what they believe that if some additional information came to them that showed them their current view is wrong, they’d commit suicide. Where such statements are true the individual has a difficult challenge in making an unbiased assessment of the arguments for and against the religion - that if they come down against then they’ll kill themselves. Something of a bias seems inevitable.

…so your attempt to address the essence of what they have said in such general terms really misses the point of what they have tried to say to you.

In any case this limit is evidently not necessary to be Christian since many other Christians do not impose it on themselves.
*

Again, I think you’re missing the point: this isn’t about people imposing limits on themselves; it’s about how people understand reality to objectively be.

 

[Betterave]

“Esse-panentheism” would be correct as it describes God as the existential act of all potential beings.

So to be clear: it sounds like you are saying that you believe that God’s eternal act of being is identical to the act of being which he confers on a mouse? And you believe that this is the Catholic understanding of the issue? That God’s creative act does not consist in conferring upon some finite being its own finite act of existence (which is not the same as God’s act of existence, which act of existence, remember, is identical to His essence)??

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is it really so impossible of a question to answer? Your God has many other attributes besides necessary existence. Just put that one aside for a moment…

i understand your desire, but if I were to do that then I would not be talking about G-d, I would be talking about something that wasn’t G-d.

 

[Betterave]

I am not repeating Rahners point. I was disagreeing with the point that you can only uses words for things you have experienced. I agree that the word (and concept) exist. As do those other concepts I mentioned. But do not agree that this means I have experienced god (or levitation etc). It only means I am aware of the concept.

But what does it mean when you say you are aware of the concept? You are aware that there is such a concept? Or you are aware of it in the sense that you understand the concept for yourself? If the latter, then you must have some experiential grounding for that understanding, don’t you think?

I was responding to where you wrote “if he [an atheist] truly wanted the word god to be dead…” if an atheist in fact doesn’t want the concept dead, then the silence ceases to be useful. As I said previously.

True enough. But if the atheist admits that she doesn’t want to concept to be ‘dead,’ then she admits one of two things: 1) it is dead for her, but she is happy for there to be others for whom the concept is not dead, and this despite the fact that she regards them rather superciliously, as people who cling to a childish fantasy; 2) she will have to admit that ‘God’ indeed is an entirely legitimate concept that mature intelligent adults have to take seriously in order to be mature intelligent adults - which would be to concede Rahner’s point. It seems to me that you have to pick one of these options.

This would appear to be a bald assertion. Why can we only question “radically” if we do so with reference to God?

Yes, it is rather bald perhaps. But less bald if I add the corollary of this claim, that is, that there is no other way to question ‘radically’ - so you can go ahead and try to prove me wrong by telling me about some other way that would question just as radically.

Agree that humans throughout our evolutionary development have believed in thousands upon thousands of different superstitions and Gods. Humans have used them to explain everything from existence itself to why it rains.*

Also agree that if humans lost the ability to question themselves then we would have lost an important part of our self awareness and that would be a change from how we tend to think of ourselves as sentient beings (and in my opinion a negative one).

As above, disagree that we couldn’t do this without a God concept.
*

Again, I challenge you: tell me how we could do this without a God concept?

Fair enough, that’s your opinion. To me it does indeed appear to be a bald assertion and therefore unconvincing.

Thanks for writing back on this.

Hopefully I’m starting to put some hair on these assertions. In any case, you’re welcome, and thank you for writing back too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…God’s eternal act of being is identical to the act of being which he confers on a mouse?..

Created beings are not identical in existence to G-d. They are potential, imperfect, contingent. G-d is Actus Purus, Actual, Perfect, Necessary.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So to be clear: it sounds like you are saying that you believe that God’s eternal act of being is identical to the act of being which he confers on a mouse? And you believe that this is the Catholic understanding of the issue? That God’s creative act does not consist in conferring upon some finite being its own finite act of existence (which is not the same as God’s act of existence, which act of existence, remember, is identical to His essence)??

I would argue that to confer on to some being its own independent act of “reality” is objectively meaningless, because out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot create more “existence” out of nothing because its a contradiction to create something which already has the intrinsic nature of existing; although it is possible to create more essences (essential dualism) because it is not in the intrinsic nature of a potential essence to exist. Existence is a nature, and there is only one, or it nothing at all. The nature of existence is to exist, it cannot be otherwise; and thus existential monism in regards to the “act of existence” is the only tenable position a Catholic theist can have. But that does not mean that i think that the essence we call a mouse isn’t real or is God, i just mean that its “essence” is not its own reality. God is the reality through which and in which the essence of a human being is sustained and becomes actual; without which it is nothing at all.

Existentially speaking, while we do have our own essence, we have no existence of our own. Only God exists. Thus we are truly contingent on God for existence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…We have no existence of our own. Only God exists.

Exactly. Existence precedes Essence.

 

[Betterave]

I would argue that to confer on to some being its own independent act of “reality” is objectively meaningless, because out of nothing comes nothing.
So:
Premise: out of nothing comes nothing
Conclusion: to confer on to some being its own independent act of “reality” is objectively meaningless

Firstly, I don’t see how that follows. Secondly, I’m not sure what your conclusion is supposed to mean. In a sense, of course the creature’s act of being is created, so it is not radically ‘independent.’ But at the same time it is created, so it is the creature’s own act of being, which is not that of God. (I’m certainly open to your thoughts, but I’m quite confident that that is the Catholic position.)

You cannot create more “existence” out of nothing because its a contradiction to create something which already has the intrinsic nature of existing; although it is possible to create more essences (essential dualism) because it is not in the intrinsic nature of a potential essence to exist.

Okay, so presumably you’ll disagree, but it seems perfectly clear to me that that is not an orthodox Catholic view of the matter. Can you explain where your view comes from?

 

[Betterave]

Exactly. Existence precedes Essence.

What does that mean? Where are you getting it from?

 

[Betterave]

"Hold on now, directly to the name calling and insults?:tsktsk:

My version of this comment to you would be: “Hold on now; directly to the supercilious dismissal of your interlocutor’s position as based on insufficient familiarity with the dictionary? :tsktsk:”

I didn’t mean to be insulting, sorry if you took it that way. I just wanted to give you some helpful advice for making constructive contributions here. (Nota bene: You obviously don’t know me well enough to be able to assume that my problem with your position is based simply on my lack of familiarity with the dictionary - right??)

And in case anyone noticed or cares, I should have said that there is a book on my desk with the numeral ‘19’ on it, not with the number 19 on it. Mea culpa.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In a sense, of course the creature’s act of being is created,

Its essence is created; reality is not.

so it is not radically ‘independent.’

It is radically independent if its intrinsic nature is the act of existing.

But at the same time it is created,

Its essence is created, existence is not.

so it is the creature’s own act of being,

If the essence of a creature has its own intrinsic act of reality, if reality is intrinsic to its essence, then God did not create it, and neither did it have a beginning.

which is not that of God. (I’m certainly open to your thoughts, but I’m quite confident that that is the Catholic position.)

The idea that created essences have their own act of reality as such that it is an intrinsic expression of their independent nature as opposed to Gods, is contrary to Catholic teaching. The potential essences of things are radically and entirely dependent on God for their existence.

St. Thomas teaches that esse is the intrinsic final perfection of the essence. It belongs to the essence qua actually created thing.

I dare say that you are taking this, or at least reading it, out of context. In any case I don’t care what Aquinas thinks; i am only concerned with logical consistence. If he really said this in the context that you are now presenting it, then his thinking is flawed. If the nature of existence is intrinsic to the essence of something, then such a being would perfectly exist with no beginning or end because its intrinsic nature is existence. Only God has this nature; it is not a potential essence like you and I.

It of course remains dependent on God

Its nature is to exist, thus it is radically independent of your God.

, but that does not imply that its esse is identical God’s esse.

The essence of a human being is not identical to Gods essence or esse. The actuality of a potential essence is entirely and radically dependent on the existential act of Gods reality.

This is in fact impossible,

Your idea of existence is impossible.

it seems, since that would imply that its esse is also identical to whatever God’s esse is identical to (since identity is a transitive relation), so the creature’s esse would also be identical to God’s essence, and in that case how could we maintain that the creature is not simply identical to God?

Because in the first place, nobody said that a potential essence has an esse. Secondly, God conferring his own reality on to a potential essence does not change the fact that God is not that essence, but rather is the existential act through which that essence is real and sustained. God remains his own esse and essence, and at no point does a potential essence become Gods esse.

For Aquinas, again, existence is the final perfection of an essence or nature; it is not itself a nature.

In order to receive reality, reality must first exist. But since you say that reality does not have its own nature, then it follows that there is no such thing as existence because it has no nature or reality. Therefore existence is objectively meaningless; and thus there is no substantial objective difference between the act of something and non-existence. This is obviously impossible.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist.
3. Therefore there is a being who has a nature that intrinsically the act of existence.
4. It follows thus that “Existence” is a nature, and the nature of existence is to be real as opposed to nothing.

Aquinas’s philosophy, as you present it, is meaningless and flawed. And i am happy reject it as outdated and heretical in nature in so far as how it treats existence.

Okay, so presumably you’ll disagree, but it seems perfectly clear to me that that is not an orthodox Catholic view of the matter.

It seems evidently clear to me that my philosophy conforms perfectly to how God’s nature is presented by the Catholic faith.

Can you explain where your view comes from?

For me, it was a mixture of reading and doing my own thinking. Its mostly inspired by Aquinas’s distinction between esse and essence. It is also born out of a need to make logical sense of creation ex-nihilo.

 

[PRmerger]

Good one!

shaw:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What does that mean? Where are you getting it from?

Existential Thomism, Mulla Sadr, all monotheistic schools climb the same mountain so to speak, there is a lot to be learned on the topic… This bit is Gilson. here

 

[Betterave]

Existential Thomism, Mulla Sadr, all monotheistic schools climb the same mountain so to speak, there is a lot to be learned on the topic… This bit is Gilson. here

So in other words, it is in fact not just orthodox Catholic doctrine. Also, you forgot to explain what it means. Care to take a stab at that?

 

[Betterave]

You sound awfully sure of yourself, so probably you’re right. I have some questions, though. Let’s start at the beginning of your post:

Its essence is created; reality is not.

What does this mean?? In what does God’s act of creating an essence consist? If reality is not created, doesn’t that imply that what is created is not real? …and where might one find such a teaching in any orthodox source for Catholic doctrine??

 

[Betterave]

This second line of yours is just so wrong, I can’t resist responding to it too:

It is radically independent if its intrinsic nature is the act of existing.

This is obviously a non sequitur. A creature’s act of being/existing is radically independent only if the act of existing which pertains to its intrinsic nature is radically independent, i.e., not created. Which is perfectly obvious. And obviously that’s not the case (therefore, by modus tollens, etc.).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So in other words, it is in fact not just orthodox Catholic doctrine. Also, you forgot to explain what it means. Care to take a stab at that?

It means G-d is immanent and transcendent.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This second line of yours is just so wrong, I can’t resist responding to it too:

This is obviously a non sequitur. A creature’s act of being/existing is radically independent only if the act of existing which pertains to its intrinsic nature is radically independent, i.e., not created. Which is perfectly obvious. And obviously that’s not the case (therefore, by modus tollens, etc.).

Existence is necessary, an essence is not, and thus to exist is not an intrinsic expression of any potential essence; existence cannot ever be what a potential essence is doing because of its self. Thus existence is always independent in so far as its relationship to potential essences; and essences are always dependent upon the act of existence. Existence is the act through which and in which essences have reality. But the two never become identical in nature.