Eternal Creator, eternally creating?

[Ziggamafu]

God is Lover - He has been loving eternally
God is Truth - He has been truthful eternally
God is Creator - He has been creating eternally?

I know various theologians / philosophers have speculated on the possability that God has created other worlds, but I was curious if the Church has ever taken a stance. If not, what do you think?

I see no problem with God having always created, as "Creator" is his nature. I think it suits his glory and his artistic brilliance. I also don't think this puts creation(s) on par with God because it just means that there have been an infinite number of creations, not that the individual creations are infinite. And doesn't string theory or something like that suggest an infinite number of universes?

...just a wondering thought from me. What do you think?

[Myles Domini]

Creator is His nature? Are you sure?

[Era Might]

I disagree that because God is a "creator", he has to always create. Man is a "worker" by nature; Adam tilled the Garden of Eden. But man's work is not for its own sake; the ultimate goal is the cessation of work in Heaven. I think God accomplished his plan of creation perfectly with man, and that is the end of his creation. God will enjoy the fruit of his labor when man joins him in eternal joy.

[ThyWillBeDone]

I believe God is eternally creating, because is beyond time, he creates all that exist in one eternal act. It is God's continuing act of creating, and willing all that exist, that holds each individual existant in existance. In other words God's single infinite act that created everything sustaines everthing. We only exist because God continues to will our existance.
God Bless

[Aloysius]

God eternal begets, i.e. causes another eternal personal to exist.

"to create", however, is inevitably an action within time. for something to be created it must at one point not exist and then at another point exist. therefore, it is impossible to be eternally creating, it is impossible for anything to be created in eternity.

but the Father eternally begets the Son. He is always and forever causing the Son to exist eternally.

creation by its very definition is finite.

[Guest JeffCR07]

St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure differed in opinion on this topic. While Thomas believed that philosophy was unable to disprove the eternity of the world, Bonaventure believed it could. In Thomas' opinion, the creation of the world in time is an article of faith (cf. Prima Pars, Q46, A2).

Now it is important to acknowledge that an eternal creating is not the same as an eternal creation. God can create eternally without the world itself being eternal. This is true because the world (contingent being) exists in time, while God (necessary being) does not. Time, therefore, pertains only to contingent being. My analysis is as follows:

God is pure form, and, as such, is simple. Because there are no accidents in God, He is identical with His Power, His Will, His Word, His Intelligence, His Love, etc. Now the act of creation is an effect of His Power and Will. But as creation cannot be accidental to the Divine Power or Divine Will, it follows that the act of creation is identical to them (it). Thus, as God is identical to His Will, and His Will is identical to the act of creation, God is identical to the act of creation (though it is important to point out that He is not identical to creation itself). Thus, God is eternally creating, while creation remains distinct from God and within time.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[quote name='Era Might' post='1009983' date='Jun 21 2006, 03:02 PM']
I disagree that because God is a "creator", he has to always create. Man is a "worker" by nature; Adam tilled the Garden of Eden.
[/quote]

Man is not a "worker" by nature. "Worker" is accidental to Man, just as "doctor," "builder," "sailor," etc. are all accidental to Man. In God, however, there are no accidents. Thus, God is identical to His Life, His Wisdom, His Will, His Word, and even His Work.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1010091' date='Jun 21 2006, 06:07 PM']

Man is not a "worker" by nature. "Worker" is accidental to Man, just as "doctor," "builder," "sailor," etc. are all accidental to Man.
[/quote]

This sounds suspect. [i]How[/i] man will work is certainly accidental, but [i]that[/i] he will work seems quite natural through phenomenological and historical evidence alone.

[Ziggamafu]

I totally agree with JeffCR07. I don't think there's anything in this notion that contradicts the Faith. It's certainly not something we will know until we get to Heaven. So it's just something fun to think about.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1010223' date='Jun 21 2006, 09:42 PM']
This sounds suspect. [i]How[/i] man will work is certainly accidental, but [i]that[/i] he will work seems quite natural through phenomenological and historical evidence alone.
[/quote]

There is a difference philosophically between something being natural and something being the [i]nature[/i] of a thing. The nature of a thing relates to its essence, namely, [i]what it is[/i], while something that is natural would be an action that follows from the nature of a thing and its existence.

So, taking our example, "Worker" is not the [i]nature[/i] of a man, even though it is natural for a man to work, precisely because a man remains a man even when he is not working, or if we was totally incapable of working. Thus, [i]what man is[/i] is not defined by work. Similarly, although "eating" is a perfectly natural process, it does not have anything to do with man's [i]nature[/i], but rather, it has only to do with what man must do in order to keep that nature in existence.

Keep in mind, if you find what I say here suspect, I warn you that you will not like much of what Thomas Aquinas has to say.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Era Might]

Jeff,

The word "nature" does not have to be so narrow. For example, Pope Leo XIII writes in his Encyclical Letter "Rerum Novarum":

[quote]For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.[/quote]
There are things which, although transitory in one sense, are still truly part of man's "nature". Man, "by nature", has a right to private property. That doesn't mean he must forever own property (we will not own any property in Heaven). Rather, it means that the right to own property flows necessarily from the dignity of man; and so it is his "by nature". Pope Leo goes on:

[quote]Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.[/quote]
Again, "nature" here doesn't mean that women will have to do "home-work" in Heaven just because the duty is part of their "nature". It means that "home-work" flows from the uniqueness of woman, and by extension it is part of her nature.

Getting back to my original post, Pope John Paul II said basically the same thing in his Encyclical Letter "Laborem Exercens":

[quote]And work means any activity by man, whether manual or intellectual, whatever its nature or circumstances; it means any human activity that can and must be recognized as work, in the midst of all the many activities of which man is capable and [b]to which he is predisposed by his very nature, by virtue of humanity itself[/b]. ...From the beginning therefore he is called to work. Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by work occupying his existence on earth. Thus work bears a particular mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics; in a sense it constitutes its very nature.[/quote]
According to Pope John Paul II, man is "predisposed [to work] by his very nature." Hence, my original comment about man being a "worker by nature".

Edited June 22, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

Again, you are equivocating between the [i]terminus technicus[/i] and the common usage of the word. The Holy Father, in his encyclical, along with the Founding Fathers in the Constutution, Rousseau in the "Social Contract," etc. are not talking about nature with the same precision as scholastic philosophers and theologians.

For example, owning property does indeed [i]follow from[/i] man's nature, but it is not [i]identical to[/i] man's nature. Thus, the Holy Father is correct to say man has certain rights [i]by[/i] nature, but not because his nature [i]is[/i] that right. The "nature" of man refers to that which must be present in order for "man" to be correctly predicated of a particular being.

Now, if you wish to use the term "nature" loosely, you may, but beware that you will lose the precise meaning of the term and thus render any discussion of the theological matter at hand more difficult. The Doctors of the Church and the Scholastics saw the need to use terms in a technically precise manner in order to avoid confused thinking, and I agree with them.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Era Might]

You are free to use "nature" however you please, and to make whatever distinctions you feel are necessary. But I was not incorrect to say man is a "worker by nature", because it is something Pope John Paul II himself stated in "Laborem Exercens".

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='1009982' date='Jun 21 2006, 04:02 PM']
Creator is His nature? Are you sure?
[/quote]


I was going to ask the same question, would that not mean there was a time when the Son was not? Do I hear Athanzius spinning in his grave?

[Guest JeffCR07]

First, to Era Might:

You are correct to say that man is a "worker by nature" as long as you do not claim that "worker" [i]is[/i] man's nature. Moreover, in the context in which we are discussing, such a distinction cannot be made between God and His Work precisely because such a distinction would allow for work to be accidental to God, who has no accidents. As such, Man is worker [i]by[/i] nature, though this working is an accident of his nature, not his nature itself. However, God, who has no accidents, is identical to His Work.

To Theotokos:

No, it does not follow from the fact that God is identical to His work that there was a time when the Son was not. In fact, it is just the opposite. We admit and proclaim that all of creation was made through the Word, who is eternal. Now the only distinction that can be made in the Godhead is the distinction of Persons, which is relational, not substantial. As God is pure act, it follows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally present in the act of creation which, by virtue of the eternity of God and the unity of God, is eternal. This does not mean that what is created is eternal, only that the act of creation, along with all of God's actions, are, ontologically, one Perfect Act, which is from eternity, as God is.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Era Might]

Ok.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Era Might