Pints With Aquinas - 57: What does it mean to say that God's essence is existence? With Fr. Damian Ference

Episode Date: May 23, 2017

I chat with Fr. Damian Ference about essence, existence, and why Thomas taught that God's essence is existence! Buckle up. --- HUGE THANKS to the following Patrons: Tom Dickson, Jack Buss, Sean McNicholl, Jed Florstat, Daniel Szafran, Phillip Hadden Katie Kuchar, Phillipe Ortiz, Russell T Potee, Sarah Jacob, Fernando Enrile SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Pints with Aquinas depends on your support. If you're an awesome person and want to prove it, go to pintswithaquinas.com, click the Patreon banner, and there you can learn how to support the show for as little as $2 a month. Every dollar helps, and we are grateful for your support. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas episode 57. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with St. Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today we'll ask St. Thomas, what does essence and existence mean? And what on earth does it mean to say that God's essence is existence. Thanks for joining us once again at Pints with Aquinas.

This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. Today we will be joined around the bar table with Damien Ferencz, Father Damien Ferencz, I should say. Good friend of mine. Him and I have recorded a podcast on Pines with Aquinas before. It was called Aquinas' Five Remedies for Sorrow. It's the most popular episode we've done. So if you haven't listened to that, you should totally do it. Today, however, we're going to be talking about some big things. Essence, existence. What does it mean to say God's essence is existence? Does it follow from that if it is true that there can only be one God? Now, I want to say something. Okay, real. We're breaking it down. We're being

real here. When you and I have philosophical and theological discussions, many of us, all of us, want to seem intelligent. And that can be an impediment to growing in the truth. Just like being embarrassed to dance in public and only, you know, on your own in a dark room, maybe that's an impediment to like learning how to dance well. In other words, when we dance, or at least me, when I dance, I look like a kind of silly person and I try my best, but I feel awkward and weird. And sometimes we feel that way with philosophy and theological discussions. And so the temptation can be, well, only use the moves that I know I look good doing. In other words, throw out this philosopher, throw out this quote from this theologian. Can we just drop that, please? Drop it, drop it, drop it. Philosophy is not about seeming smart. It's not about quoting philosophers. It's about loving wisdom and

desiring truth. I feel like this conversation that I just had with Father Damien Ference, I feel like this conversation that I just had with Father Damien Ference it's probably an example of that where we don't fully understand each other all the time sometimes I say things that I don't say them very well maybe Father Damien would say the same thing with him but this is just how these conversations take place so even though it was morning time when we recorded this episode hopefully it's night time when we recorded this episode. Hopefully, it's nighttime where you are.

Grab a beer, sit down and enjoy this episode. It was a fun one and you're going to learn a lot. All right, here's the show. And my hope is that at the end of this podcast, every single listener will be able to say, I understand the essence-existence distinction. I understand why God's essence is existence and what that means. And if we have time, because of what that means, I also understand why there can only be one God. So, are you up for the challenge? I think we can handle that. And you know, when it comes to philosophy, philosophy is basically making distinctions. So, you're right. If your listener can come away from this podcast saying, I understand that distinction, then we've done our job.

Great. Well, we're going to be reading from the Summa Theologiae, the first part, question three, article four, is God composed of essence and existence? And what I'd like to do is just briefly read Aquinas' main answer. Aquinas says, God is not only his own essence, as shown in the preceding article, but also his own existence. This may be shown in several ways. First, whatever a thing has beside its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of the essence, like a property that necessarily accompanies the species, as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man, and is caused by the constituent principles of the species,

or by some exterior agent, as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now, it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore, that thing whose existence differs from its essence must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God, because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore, it's impossible that in God his existence should

differ from his essence. There's two more points I want to read real quickly. So hang on, everybody. Number two. Second point he wants to make is this. Existence is that which makes every form or nature actual. For goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore, existence must be compared to essence if the latter is a distinct reality as actuality to potentiality. Therefore,

since in God there is no potentiality as shown above in article 1, it follows that in him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore, his essence is His existence. Thirdly, because just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation, so that which has existence, like Matt Fradd or Father Ference or this iPhone you're listening to us through, but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is his own essence, as shown above Article 3. If, therefore, he is not his own existence, he will be not essential, but participated being. He will not, therefore, be the first being, which is absurd. Therefore, God is his own existence and not merely his own essence.

Well, that's great. I don't know why we have to explain any of this. That should have been very clear to all your listeners. Thanks, everybody, for tuning in this week. See you later. Oh, yeah. Okay. All right. Well, this is where I think we should start. And I give a few Lenten missions every year, like three nights of preaching, and I begin not so much with theology, but with philosophy and making this exact same distinction. I actually take it right from Thomas because I think it's so important. So shall we proceed? Yes, please. Okay. So listeners, this is what I'd like you to do. My guess is you're listening to this podcast on your iPhone or on a computer. So what I want you to do right now

is think of the first and most basic thing you can tell me about that thing on which you're listening to this podcast. Can I suggest a couple of advances that I think people might think? Okay. It's a phone. Okay. That's true. That's true. But that's not what I'm looking things. Go on, Matt. Sure, sure. Okay. It's a phone. Okay, that's true. That's true, but that's not what I'm looking for. Go on. It's black. It's made of metal and glass. Okay, those are also true, but there's something even more basic that we're looking for. It's an object. It is an object, and the answer that I'm looking for is true of any object, but we're talking about this object in particular, the most basic thing that you can possibly tell

me about it. You could tell me it was made in China, and I would say that is a true statement, but there's something even more basic than being made in China. So, I see where you're going with this, but how long does this usually take you when you do these parish missions for people to get to the answer, which I assume is existence? You've got it. Yeah. It usually takes about seven minutes, seven, sometimes a little longer. Do you find people get frustrated doing that? They do, because what they're saying is true true all those things that you said are true yes it's uh made of glass and it's got hard wiring in it and you can use it to talk to friends and

we could name all these things about this particular object that are true but before we can say any of those things we first have to say we first have to admit that this thing exists, that it has what we call existence. And usually when then I reveal that answer or someone shouts it out, you hear people go, oh, oh, come on. I mean, obviously. But this is one of the things philosophy does. It wants to pay attention to those things that are most obvious, things that we tend to look past and not spend too much time thinking about. So here we're talking about existence, or another way of saying it, being the fact that something exists. So what does that mean for something to exist? Well, we know that has to be the case that something exists in order for us to

say something about it. So the next question we want to ask, if it is true that this phone exists, and maybe another time we'll do a podcast on epistemology to know exactly how we know that, but that's not for today's. If we know that this thing exists, then the second question we want to ask is, how does it exist? In other words, what is its essence? What is it? And then the answer to that question would be as phone or as iPhone or as if you're on a laptop, on laptop. So we've made an important distinction. The difference that something has this thing we call existence, it exists. And how does it exist?

This thing exists as iPhone. So I hope the listeners have that distinction. I think it's pretty clear at this point. Would you agree? Yeah. Have you heard this little quote, I think, sums up what you're saying. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing his first name right. Antony Gilson?

Oh, Etienne, Etienne Gilson. Thank you. That sounded way cooler than how I said it. Or if you want to call, speak in American, you can say Steve Gilson. Oh, okay. Is that French for Steve, is it? Steve Gilson, yeah. Etienne Gilson. I can't help but do this. I've got a joke about a guy called Steve. Ready? Real quick. Ready. A screwdriver walks into a bar

and the bartender says, wow, we have a drink named after you. And the screwdriver says, awesome, you've got a drink named Steve?

Come on. All right. No, okay. Here's what he said. Very quickly, he said, the most marvelous of all the things

a being can do is to be that's it the most marvelous of all things a being can do is to be that and the reason it's most marvelous is because that's the first and most basic thing that we can ever say about a thing we can't nothing nothing else can be said of a thing unless we first acknowledge that that thing is, that it exists. Well, but we can say things about unicorns and mermaids, can't we? Yes, but they don't actually exist. Right. So I guess this is the distinction we want to make between...

And you cut me off if I'm going ahead of where you want to go. No, go ahead. But maybe this helps. You say essence and existence are big words right but but but do we just want to say essence is is um is is what a thing is and existence refers to that a thing is so the whatness and thatness of a thing yeah that's good i think that's a good distinction and so what like everyone has in their mind uh to to to however degree they think is sufficient what a unicorn is you know like what is a unicorn they might say well it's like a horse with like a spear shaped horn coming out of its head you know maybe it can fly i don't know maybe

that's another animal but so that's that's what a thing is, but we haven't yet decided whether it is that it is. Correct. Yeah. Do you find that helps people? Because this is what we really want to do, right? The whatness and thatness of a… That's right. Right, right, right.

That's correct. Yeah. So, yeah, I think that's a good distinction so when we talk about the unicorn we can say uh we know what it is but whether or not i mean uh that it has existence outside simply our thought of it and again we're getting into epistemology here yeah are we are we yeah are we touching upon um i wonder how if this brings us too far afield, just bring us back. But are we touching upon nominalism here? Like how would a, do you want to talk about how a nominalist might object to things having essences or no?

Just say no. Yeah, probably not. We can do that on another podcast. But yeah, let's stick with it. You keep going. I'm going to drink my LaCroix. Okay. Okay.

but yeah, let's stick with it. You keep going. I'm going to drink my LaCroix. Okay. So once we've made our first distinction, which we have between essence and existence with the iPhone, I could do the same. I'm imagining that your listeners are also pretty big readers, so you can do the same thing with a book. What's the first thing you could tell me about a book? That it exists. And then how does this thing exist? You would say as book. Okay, that's good. So notice that both the iPhone and the book exist, but they're limited in how they exist, in how they participate in this thing called existence. So the iPhone exists as iPhone, the book exists as book, and then we can just point directly to your listeners and say, okay, here's our third example. Does it, and you can point to yourself or I can point to you, do you exist? And you would say,

yes, I exist. And then I would say, how is it that you exist? How do you exist? And then you would say, as a man or as a woman or as a human being, and I would say, correct. So up to this point, we now have three examples that we're working with. They all have one thing in common. That thing they have in common is called existence or being, but how they exist or what they are, their quiddity, their whatness, is different from the fact that they have this thing called existence. So one exists as a phone, one exists as a book, and then the other exists as a human being. Can a human being become a book? No.

Can a phone become a book? No. Can a book become a human being? No. So they're set apart by how it is they participate in this thing called existence. So you could speak for your listeners. Do you think we've made that clear thus far? Yeah, I do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's easier to refer to natural things as having essences. It gets a little more tricky, doesn't it, when we talk about artificial things? Artifacts, yeah. Artifacts get tricky. We actually had this conversation one night in Cleveland, if I recall. Yeah, artifacts get trickier. So, that's true. If you want to stick with a tree or a... Yeah, rocks, stones, grass, trees, yeah.

But I still would always... I think institutions have essences, but... And so does Sokolowski. That's right. We did talk about that. Yeah, and this gets back to, I remember studying Aristotle's, was it his metaphysics? No, I think just his physics, where he talked about how it is we come to know what a thing is. And it's like, well, you see, let's say you've never seen a tree before, and you walk outside and you see this thing that has a wooden trunk and leaves, and then you see another one of these things and it might be somewhat similar. And from that, you deduce the essence of a tree. You know what a tree is by repeated examples of the particular. Right, right. So yeah, knowledge

begins with the senses and then you're able to abstract the nature and then you're able to know what that thing is and, you is and call it by what it is. Okay. So now we come to the question that Thomas is dealing with here on God. And the question we want to ask is first, and I do this at my parish missions, does God exist? And for the most part, if I'm in a Catholic church giving a mission, people will say yes, and I'll say, I agree with you. And then, of course, we could ask other questions about that. But for now, let's just say, yes, God exists. But then the bigger question is, how does God exist? If what you're listening to this podcast on exists

and exists as phone, a book exists and exists as book, you exist and you exist as human being, and it exists as book. You exist and you exist as human being. How then does God exist? In other words, what is God's essence? I see. Yes. Yeah, that's really cool. I didn't realize that's what you were getting at when you said this exists as phone. You're essentially saying this is an existing thing whose essence is phone or that essence is phone. So, yeah. Okay. So, God exists and he exists. and the simple answer, I guess, would be he exists as God. Correct, but then we want to know what is this thing that we call God, and I shouldn't even say thing, but what is God? And the way that we can come to this is by, and this is what's contained in this article of the Summa, that God's essence and his existence

are the same. So how does God exist? The answer is as existence. And at that point, yeah, hashtag mind blown. What? How does that occur? So one of the ways you can understand this is if you go to Exodus 3.14, you remember when Moses approaches God who presents himself in the burning bush. And by the

way, the burning bush is on fire and it's not consumed. It's, I think, the first iteration of the Catholic, both and in the Old Testament that I, well, maybe not the first, but one of the best, that you've got something on fire, but it's not being consumed, just like Mary can be virgin mother, Christ can be, or Jesus is both God and man, that sort of thing. So you have this bush that's on fire, but it's not being consumed. And Moses, of course, when you first meet someone, what's one of the first things you ask? Like, what's your name? I need to know your name. And what does God say? God says, I am who am. Well, what the heck does that mean? And Thomas wants to say that God is revealing what he is, that I am existence. So God is existence itself, the sheer act of being. He is not a being like other beings. He's not the supreme being. He

just is. And that takes a lot to wrap a mind around if you've never thought of God in that way. Can I share a quick quotation from Joseph Pieper that gets to this exact point? Please. It may not be quick. It's about a paragraph, but it's excellent. He says, When we innocently hear this phrase, God is, it at first seems to us that it can be taken to mean only one of two things. Either it is an answer to the question of whether there is a God, you know, God is, that is to say God does exist, or else it's an incomplete sentence, the beginning of a sentence. God is, and now the sentence must be rounded out with various statements of what he is, you know, the creator of all things, merciful, omnipotent, wise, and so on.

But Thomas takes this phrase neither in the first nor the second meaning, neither as an answer to the question of whether God exists, nor as an incomplete sentence. To his mind, the phrase expresses this, God is that being whose whole nature it is to exist. That is to say, to be the actus. God is existence itself, actus purus. Where God is concerned, it is not possible to say or even merely to think that a certain being exists determined by a certain sum of characteristics and that in addition, there is perhaps necessarily his existence. The actuality of this being whose nature is such and such. No, if we wish to speak in the most precise possible terms,

without being figurative, without bending our language to meet the ordinary needs of convention, then we must say God's essential nature itself is actuality. Amen. That's it. That's it. But what is existence? Like, what is it? When I think existence, I just start running my hands through the air and say, this is it. Like, it's just, it's what is, you know? Yeah. And it always was, it always is, it always will always will be and on top of that let's go back to our three examples of objects so this thing that we have our we called our iphone exists the book exists the human being exists but they're limited in how they exist which means that they

are a particular being so they exist in a particular. They're limited is a good way of saying it. But what is it that they're participating in? How is it that they're able to exist? Because they participate in this thing that we call existence. And what is this thing? It's not even a thing. What is existence? That is God. So the only way that things can exist is if they're participating in this thing we call existence, which is God himself. And God is not a being among other beings. And I'm very fond of the 12-step program, AASA, whatever. But I know oftentimes they'll say my supreme being or most powerful being. God is actually, to be philosophically accurate, is not supreme being.

He just is being itself. And it's hard. It's very difficult to wrap your mind around it because it's God. When we think of the hierarchy of being, right? We might think, you know, dirt, stone, leaf, whatever. So, what you're saying is, it's not like you go all the way up to the top and there's God sitting on the top. Right. Like sitting on a cloud with a big beard being like, yeah. That's what I'd say if I was God. Right. But, you know, you've gotten, I'm sure, many debates with brother and sister atheists who want to reject notions of God that are like that. And I say, I do too, because when we speak of God as Catholic Christians, that's not what we're speaking about. We're talking about existence, the sheer act of being. And people will say, well, what the heck

is that? And that's a great entry point into entering into dialogue with others who have a hard time believing in God because even many Catholic Christians have never made this distinction or haven't considered that God just is. And as a matter of fact, we just got through Lent and Holy Week, and how often, especially in John's Gospel, when Jesus talks about himself, he'll say, I am the way, the truth, and the life. I am the good shepherd. I am. And he's referring back to this revelation of God in the burning bush as the sure act of existence. So, there's a lot going on here. So, just as we're talking, I'm thinking of an analogy, which I know is atrocious,

but I want you to tell me why it is. I'll tell you my best. Yeah. So, just like God is existence, right? So, there's existence and then there is that which participates in existence. So, my seaweed, as awful as it is, my LaCroix can, my iPhone, my chalk key around my wrist that you got me. Thank you. You're welcome.

You know, all of these things participate in God and if they weren't in being, and by being we mean God, and if they didn't participate in being, they wouldn't be at all. So, here's like a silly analogy. Like if you had snow, right, and everything's covered in snow and then you just kind of grasp a bit of that snow and form it into something. Now, that's kind of the thing that comes to my mind, that whatever we now create, we say, well, that's a snowman, that's a dog made of snow, that's a snowball. These participate in snowness, but I see why that doesn't work at all, because it's not like when God creates me, he takes a bit of himself out and, do you know what I mean? And make something in addition to him? Yeah. Are you talking about then creation, that somehow God loses a bit of himself in creating?

Just like when you think of Play-Doh, right? So, big blob of Play-Doh, let's say that's existence. And then you take a bit of that Play-Doh and you make a little Play-Doh man. that's existence. And then you take a bit of that play when you make a little play-doh man, you know, um, this is a really bad analogy. I should shut up right now, but I'm trying to get my head around it. And, um, but that play-doh, how does that play? So you've got the blob of play-doh and you've got the little play-doh man, and then you've got God and the things he creates. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how we participate in being without God becoming less of himself, like that Plato lump. Okay. Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how to address your, uh, Plato. And if you've thought through your, I have not, I know it sounds like I'm trying to,

I got no idea what I'm okay. Well, let me ask you this. So when it comes to things that, uh, when it, when it comes to creation, what existed before creation? Uh, God. Was there matter? No. Okay. Well then, I mean, I think that, that answers your question. Okay. So my idea of existence then is, is too material then maybe it's just materialistic, right? When I think of... Sounds like it to me. I mean, if you start out with Plato, like a clump of Plato, and then just say you're forming it, that Plato that has this thing we call existence, even it's a clump, only exists because it comes from God.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, yeah, when I think existence existence and maybe this is true of a lot of us we just think you know air that's because it's the most pervasive thing right right like air is everywhere um or at least you know most places unless it's whatever a vacuum and so that's the closest thing I have in my head to what existence is it's just the stuff I move through and obviously the objects that I run into. Right. You know, another thing that could be added to this too, and one of my professors at Catholic U, Monsignor Sokolowski, writes a lot about this, that God as God is no greater after creation than he was before. So, God plus the world does not make god any greater because god simply is existence and then of course it depends on whose whose theory you want to

follow bonaventure thomas on how god created was it emanation or was it because he decided to to share his goodness but regardless that that that um we often do fall into a materialistic understanding of what is, and maybe we start a couple steps later than we should when considering this question. Does that make sense? I think so. Okay. When's the first time you kind of had this realization of what Thomas was talking about? Because to me, it's less like a syllogism that I arrive at and then grasp, but it's more like fire that flames

up in my mind, and that's the closest I get to grasping it. Does that make sense when I think of this concept of God as being? Yes. Well, I can tell you this. When I was in college, I answered the questions and did all right on my exams and knew this in my head. But when did I know it in my whole being and it affected my thinking? It was probably when I was at Catholic U studying philosophy there before I came back to the Sem, because I spent so much time with it. And then it affected the way that I thought about the world. So I knew it just like you could memorize a math problem or memorize definitions, but when did it permeate my entire being? Probably in my very, very early

30s, I would say. I'm a little embarrassed to say that, but that's true, and I don't want to speak falsehoods. So, the basis of reality, which I guess we would just say is reality itself or whatever is most fundamental reality, is personal. That's the Christian claim, right? Correct. It's not. I mean, if you were to, let's say you were to become an atheist for some reason, maybe you'd, I don't know. How would you, Father Ference, who would not be Father Ference, hopefully, how would you try to explain the basis of existence? Like, would that provide a, you know,

a challenge for you then? Would that be something you, how do I explain existence unless existence is in some way necessary? I guess I'm trying to... The question is, could you do it without God being personal? Or without God, I guess is just what I mean. Without God. Well, I think, yeah, you could still go back to some first... You could go back to... Well, Thomas's third proof of God's existence, although he does cite Exodus, I think is rational, and you can still make this argument without believing in God because of this thing that we're calling, well, what we call God is existence itself,

this sheer act of being. And if one can accept that there is something called existence, and that all beings in the world or all artifacts or objects are different. What they are is different than how they are. You don't even need faith to be able to say that there must be something that is what it is, this thing we call existence, and everything flows from that. So it doesn't necessarily, seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't seem to need to be, it doesn't necessarily, seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't seem to need to be, you don't have to be a person of faith to accept this argument, right? Because this argument is actually answering the question, what God is, and then once we get theology, we'll answer the question, who God is, more in terms of the Trinity and all that, right?

Yeah, and wouldn't you say that Aquinas is agnostic as to what God is? Well, at this point, I don't know if I'm understanding. Well, I guess what I mean is this, right? Dawkins thinks he knows what God is and rejects it. Aquinas is convinced that he doesn't know what God is, but believes, right? Like the essence of God. We don't know what God is. Got it. Yeah. And I don't even know what that means. Why don't we know what God is? Why can't a simplistic answer like love suffice?

We're delving into deep territory that I haven't prepped you for. I apologize. We are. Yeah. Well, if you look at the license plate of my car, I think I pointed out to you once, it says faith and reason. And so the way that God reveals himself to us, ways that we come to know truth and reality about things are both through reason. And we've just made a reasonable argument for God's existence. And the other is through faith. So reason is what we can figure out on our own by our own lights. And then there's this thing we call revelation, which is what God chooses to reveal to himself about us. So whether it's that Exodus 13,

or whether it's God showing us who he is most perfectly in his son, Jesus, and revealing himself to us through scriptures and the church. Those are two different ways of coming to know God. But what we're doing here is we really haven't entered into the arena of faith. We've been making arguments that any reasonable person should be able to follow. So I get what, okay, I see where you're going now. So yes, what we're arguing here is the essence of God is his existence, and someone like Dawkins does not, yeah, well. Well, he wouldn't say that. I think he would agree with you orists as we do, because even some of our believing friends don't know what we mean by God when we say God. Now, you know what's really beautiful about this is if God is existence, then you cannot escape him.

Correct. And this brings me back to, or makes me think of St. Paul's line where he says, in him we live and move and have our being. Yeah, that's in one of the prefaces too for Mass. Yeah, I mean, it's taken right from Paul, but sure. Yeah. All right. Anything else you want to say about this before we maybe ask why there can only be one God? Play this podcast again if you didn't get it the first time.

Sit with it. Let it marinate your brain. Yeah. Your mind, your soul, because these are heavy, deep truths, but it'll capture your entire person. If it didn't already, it will, and it'll reform the way that you think about God. And it's a very deep, thick, and beautiful understanding of who God is, and it will make you want to know Him and love Him more because He's not like a math problem that you solve. So, stick with it. Stick with it if you struggle the

first time through. Yeah, but hey, I just had a thought. I mentioned a moment ago about Plato, right? Not philosopher, but the thing Plato. And you were able to show me that my thought was materialistic, right? That prior to creation, God existed and yet matter didn't. And I wonder if when we say to people God is existence, that they think like God is this ether spread throughout the universe, you know, like the force, that God isn't like the most basic fundamental particle, whatever they call them, quarks or quarks or something, you know, that, again, that you would say that's the wrong way to think of it because we're thinking of God as matter still. Right. Correct. Yeah. And not as sheer active existence.

Sheer active existence. You could go into a cave and just sit and think about that forever. Sheer active existence. All right. So, why is there only one God? So, let me be the kind of the objector here. You know, come on. I mean, yeah, maybe I grant that there can be one being that everything has to trace itself back to, right? Because everything that exists either exists by a necessity of its own nature or was caused to exist by something else

right or is participating in existence like the like the light of the sun is participating in in the sun or something uh so okay so let's say i grant that okay you can kind of trace these things back to something that has to be something some first cause some first being or else you don't get these other things but why can't there be multiple of them um and yeah and maybe maybe this question sounds a little more complicated than it is because i know we've just been through some of why that can be the case but that is something i've thought before like why can't okay the book there then there would be two two would be two types of this thing we call existence. So, if we go back to our little example at the beginning, the question we asked was,

what's the most basic thing that you can tell me about this particular object on which you're listening to this podcast? And we agreed that it was existence. And you made no distinction between anything. You answered the question correctly, just as we would with the book, just as we would with the human being. So that is the necessary groundwork on which anything that has existence must rest. which anything that has existence must rest. So all those other beings that we talked about are contingent being. And unless you can show me how it would go back any further or how it would be rooted in something more basic than that, or somehow that there would be two sorts of things we

call existence, which does not seem to be. But what does, yeah, that can't meet, that can't, that's just nonsense, isn't it? Right, right. Because if it's something other than existence, it exists. Right. And then we've, so yeah, there's no infinite regress. That's more of the first two proofs. But yeah, it just, it stops with this thing we call existence.

That is the most basic thing, yeah. Thanks so much for being with us and helping us to understand essence and existence. I think if people did go and listen back, if they didn't get it the first time around, they would know what essence is, what existence is, how things exist in a certain way, right? As you said, like a tree exists as tree. And the difference with God is God exists as existence.

You've got it. Yeah. And if God is existence, then that's at least the beginning of an answer, even if it's not yet satisfying because we haven't passed it out, as to why there can't be another God. Because if another God existed, well, we're now talking about the, you know, I don't even know. We've got bigger problems, but fortunately that's not our problem. So we're in good shape. Good. Well, any final thoughts?

If you can come away from this podcast making one good distinction, then it's been a good use of your time. This is why people need to be drinking while they have these conversations, I think. It does help. You know why I think it helps? Not too much, but just why? It frees us from the panic we have to be seen and thought of as intelligent. I think you're right.

And that's particularly true when someone's learning a new language. Not only do they want to be thought of as intelligent, but they don't want to make a mistake. And in the intellectual life, you've got to humble yourself. And if drinking a beer before entering into an argument allows you to say, well, here's what I think. I'm not sure, but yeah, say it.

And you'll work through things like that. I can't stand when my students don't ask questions. And then later on, they'll say I was too embarrassed to ask or I shouldn't have. I said, go, man, ask it, ask it. Right, right. You know, that reminds me, my sister just told me about this new thing they do in Australia. It's these dance clubs for people who are totally embarrassed about dancing. She said, people go into this big room, there's music, and then they shut the lights off and everyone just dances however they want to dance. Now, that sounds dangerous, actually.

That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. But let's say you're with a bunch of people you knew and you trusted. It's kind of similar to that, right? It's like the inhibition has gone, and you can just do it. And, yeah, you might look stupid. You might mess up. You might not get it right. But at least you're doing it. And I think too often, and I'm guilty of this as well,

I only want to say something if I sound really intelligent. I only want to say something, you know, yeah, I guess that's just it, that I sound smart to people as opposed to being humble and like kind of trying my best to learn from the master, you know. That's it. And isn't it true too that some of your greatest learning, some of my greatest learning in the intellectual life is from when you've made mistakes or didn't get something right

and then you learn from that and correct your thinking and grow as a human being and as an intellectual. So, yeah, humility goes a long way. The freedom of humility, right? Oh, man, it's great. It's like you look like an idiot. You're like, yeah, I am an idiot. So yeah, humility goes a long way. The freedom of humility, right? Oh man, it's great. You look like an idiot. You're like, yeah, I am an idiot. Oh, okay.

Great. I don't know the answer to that question. My students love when I say that. They ask me something and I'll say, guys, I actually don't know. That's a great question. That's good. That's good.

I don't know everything. But does it feel a little crushing to you? If I should know it, does it feel a little crushing to you? Uh, if I should know it, then it's a little crushing, but sometimes I honestly don't, and they just come up with a good question. So yeah,

sometimes it pains a little bit, but I don't know. I think it, it, it's more painful if I try to pretend I know it. And I've had professors that do that too, or, or feed you a line.

You're like, that's not true at all. I know you just made that up. Yep. Yep. Awesome. All right. Well, thanks so much for your time.

Great, Matt. God bless you. Thanks. Happy Easter. Peace. Thanks so much for tuning into this week's episode of Pints with Aquinas. Huge shout out and thank you to all of my homies. That doesn't sound right coming from an Australian.

My homies who are donating on Patreon. If this show has blessed you and you want to give back, please go to pintswithaquinas.com, click the Patreon banner. There you can donate as little as $2 a month and you can see the thank you gifts I give you in return for supporting the show. Chat with you next week. best we be frauds or worse accused hollow me to deepen in you

whose wolves am i feeding myself to you