There is a difference between causation, grounding and supervenience. In philosophy these are well-known distinctions. The difference between the Son and the universe is not merely temporality. The Son is a necessary being, i.e. he exist in all possible world (there is no possibility for his non-existence) and he lacks any beginning. But there is a difference between a *necessity* and *dependence* . The Son is a necessary being independent *of all creation* , but he is not independent of the *Father* . To take an analogy. God’s omnipotence is an essential property of God (God could not fail to have it), yet the property of omnipotence is dependent on God’s essence, that is God is omnipotent *by virtue* of his divine essence. Likewise while the Son is a necessary being and divine he exist by virtue of the Fatherhood of of the Divine Father. To take a more concrete analogy. The sun is not the same as its rays, and its rays exist by virtue of the sun, still there is no sun without rays, and you cannot have a sun without rays. Thus, the Son is by virtue of the Father, but you will not have the Father without the Son.
@@kennynoNope Causation is defined as the motion from a potency to an act. The Father's begetting of the Son is not an actualization of some potency, but rather Pure Act subsisting in the peculiar modes of Begetter and Begotten. Therefore, the Son and Spirit too are said to be uncaused: for they lack passive potency and are the Pure Act in peculiar modes of subsistence. We call the Father Cause only analogically: by virtue of the asymmetric relation that obtains from the Father [Cause] to the Son [End] You may ask: okay, but is the Son still not dependent on the Father even by this logic? To this, we respond: the Father necessitates the Son to indeed be Father, or more properly, the Cause necessitates the End to indeed be Cause. While indeed the Son does not beget the Father, He is still necessary to the Father and is communicated the Perfect Essence from the Father. It is precisely because of these modes of subsistence that God is not said to depend on anything apart from Himself. To conclude, the Son is uncaused qua Essence, for He is Pure Act, and is said to be caused only by analogy because of His relation (as End) to the Father (as Cause).
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας could you explain the “causing” I understand the son is outside of time and space. But how would you articulate an eternal cause? Thank you for the answer.
@kennynoNope actually the greek word of the fathers is αίδια that means that the Son was more then eternal with the Father . The Father is His cause in that sense . See this hard example from the created world , can the sun be with not its light? The cause of the sun's light is the disc of the sun ,but allways when there was the sun's disc was the light. Put in the position of the sun's disc the Father and where the light the Son.
There is a difference between causation, grounding and supervenience. In philosophy these are well-known distinctions. The difference between the Son and the universe is not merely temporality. The Son is a necessary being, i.e. he exist in all possible world (there is no possibility for his non-existence) and he lacks any beginning. But there is a difference between a *necessity* and *dependence* . The Son is a necessary being independent *of all creation* , but he is not independent of the *Father* . To take an analogy. God’s omnipotence is an essential property of God (God could not fail to have it), yet the property of omnipotence is dependent on God’s essence, that is God is omnipotent *by virtue* of his divine essence. Likewise while the Son is a necessary being and divine he exist by virtue of the Fatherhood of of the Divine Father. To take a more concrete analogy. The sun is not the same as its rays, and its rays exist by virtue of the sun, still there is no sun without rays, and you cannot have a sun without rays. Thus, the Son is by virtue of the Father, but you will not have the Father without the Son.
Is it proper to state the son was caused by the Father?
Eternal He is caused There was no time there was the Father that was not the Son.
@@kennynoNope Causation is defined as the motion from a potency to an act. The Father's begetting of the Son is not an actualization of some potency, but rather Pure Act subsisting in the peculiar modes of Begetter and Begotten. Therefore, the Son and Spirit too are said to be uncaused: for they lack passive potency and are the Pure Act in peculiar modes of subsistence.
We call the Father Cause only analogically: by virtue of the asymmetric relation that obtains from the Father [Cause] to the Son [End]
You may ask: okay, but is the Son still not dependent on the Father even by this logic?
To this, we respond: the Father necessitates the Son to indeed be Father, or more properly, the Cause necessitates the End to indeed be Cause. While indeed the Son does not beget the Father, He is still necessary to the Father and is communicated the Perfect Essence from the Father.
It is precisely because of these modes of subsistence that God is not said to depend on anything apart from Himself.
To conclude, the Son is uncaused qua Essence, for He is Pure Act, and is said to be caused only by analogy because of His relation (as End) to the Father (as Cause).
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας could you explain the “causing” I understand the son is outside of time and space. But how would you articulate an eternal cause? Thank you for the answer.
@kennynoNope actually the greek word of the fathers is αίδια that means that the Son was more then eternal with the Father . The Father is His cause in that sense . See this hard example from the created world , can the sun be with not its light? The cause of the sun's light is the disc of the sun ,but allways when there was the sun's disc was the light. Put in the position of the sun's disc the Father and where the light the Son.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας good answer. Thank you.
Im confused, is Dr. Sijuwade is RC, Uniate, or Orthodox? I can't find anything on what he is.
@@harvestcrops3983 he say he goes to a catholic church but his belief is actually more orthodox
The Catholic Church dogma is Allah is the true god creator of the universe. Why would a catholic debate a Muslim. They both worship Allah.
@@kennynoNope Come on! Catholics aren't unitarians, nor is Dr. Sijuwade