[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! I shall have to make this brief because it's so late and I must sleep, but I'd love to discuss it further tomorrow.

But, A-G, why would one imagine that there are distinctions of form within the void, distinctions which are vital to the existence of intellect? That is, why would one suppose that the void can think?

There is neither form nor autonomy in the void. There is only existence, and (because there is no autonomy in the void) - only the single existence, which can only be God. We know there must be existence because there was a first cause that was not caused. Thus we know God is transcendent.

He is also immanent, because there is in the void nothing of which anything can be made other than His own existence, or will.

Again with the Jewish mystics (who have been at this for a long time obviously) - the concept is that Creation (both heaven and earth, spiritual and physical) is God revealing Himself - hence the contrasts. The mechanism of good v evil, light v. darkness, truth v. lie, health v sickness, life v death, etc. reveal His properties by contrast to what are not His properties (to the extent He wishes to reveal Himself).

When the revelation is complete (Rev 21-22) this Creation (heaven and earth) is replaced with the perfect one which does not have those contrasts.

[snarks_when_bored]

There is neither form nor autonomy in the void. There is only existence, and (because there is no autonomy in the void) - only the single existence, which can only be God. We know there must be existence because there was a first cause that was not caused. Thus we know God is transcendent.

He is also immanent, because there is in the void nothing of which anything can be made other than His own existence, or will.

Bertrand Russell, who loved mathematics dearly, once said that "mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we're talking about, nor whether what we're saying is true." Replacing the word 'mathematics' by the word 'metaphysics' in Russell's statement also makes some sense, I regret to say. And let's not forget F. H. Bradley's famous aphorism: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct...." I'll leave it to you to find the rest of the quote...you'll like it.

Best regards, as always...

[grey_whiskers]

There is neither form nor autonomy in the void. There is only existence, and (because there is no autonomy in the void) - only the single existence, which can only be God. We know there must be existence because there was a first cause that was not caused. Thus we know God is transcendent.

This is frightenly reminiscent of what I have been reading recently in a translation of Aquinas' Shorter Summa: "...From all this it is evident that God exists always. For whatever necessarily exists, always exists; it is impossible for a that that has no possibility of not being, not to be. Hence such a thing is never without existence. But it is necessary for God to be, as has been shown. Therefore God exists always. Again, nothing begins to be or ceases to be except through motion or change. But God is absolutely immutable, as has been proved. Therefore it is impossible for Him ever to have begun or to cease to be. Likewise, if anything that has not always existed begins to be, it needs some cause for its existence. Nothing brings itself forth from potency to act or from non-being to being..."

Cheers!