Question Two. Whether God could create Something

50. Secondly I ask whether God could create something.

51. It seems that he could not:

Because if something is produced which before was not produced, this is because something is disposed differently now than it was before; this cannot be posited as having happened in the issue at hand unless the cause of the change is the agent, because the passive thing did not exist before; therefore the agent must be disposed differently now than it was before and consequently must undergo change. But the first agent cannot change; therefore etc.

52. If it be said that the agent can produce a new effect without change of itself -on the contrary: ‘because the agent gives being, therefore does the passive or produced thing receive being’, and not conversely, ‘because the produced thing receives being, therefore does the producer give being’; therefore some new relation in the agent to the produced thing must naturally precede and not conversely; therefore change in the agent must precede too, which is not to be posited in God - therefore not creation either.a

a.a [Interpolated note from Appendix A] Creation is change, and every change precedes its term; therefore I ask in what thing the change was? And one must necessarily grant a subject of change. Therefore no change can be from nothing.

53. Secondly thus: a cause equally always determined to acting seems equally always to act and to produce the effect, because there does not seem any reason that it should produce now and not at other times, if it was at other times as determined to act as it is now; but if something is created now, the cause is otherwise disposed now than it was before and through a greater determination of it now to the effect than before; therefore the cause is sometimes more determined to producing the effect than at other times, and thus not equally so - and consequently it will have changed.

54. Third thus: according to the Philosopher On Generation 2.10.336a27-28, “the same thing while remaining the same is of a nature to do the same thing;” therefore there will never be variation in the effect if variation is not first naturally posited in the cause.

55. Fourth thus: if no change is posited on the part of the cause (so that it be said to be now ‘more approximate’ or ‘less approximate’ than at other times), and if there could not be any impediment on its part either - no reason appears for it to act now and not to have acted before.

56. And if you say, ‘because it acts voluntarily, therefore it can act when it wants to act’ - against this: there seems no reason for a voluntary agent to act sometimes and not at other times save because it expects a greater opportunity for acting now than at other times; but this cannot be assigned to the first agent and first mover with respect to its effect; therefore neither ‘does it act when it wants because it acts voluntarily’.

57. To the opposite:

Genesis 1.1, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.”

I. To the Question

58. I reply:

To create is to produce something in fact from nothing. Now although the ‘from’ can be taken in many ways (as is plain from Anselm Monologion 8), namely as far as it denotes order etc. [1 d.5 n.53],2 yet there is - in addition to this - still multiplicity when taking ‘from’ thus as it denotes order, because it can denote the order of nature or of duration.

A. About Creation from Nothing as ‘From’ denotes Order of Nature

59. In the first way [sc. when ‘from’ denotes order of nature] the philosophers concede that God can create and produce something from nothing, as is plain from Avicenna Metaphysics 6.2 (f. 92ra) (look there).The three ways are: negatively, when someone says he is speaking ‘of nothing’ because he is not speaking; or affirmatively when the ‘from’ marks the matter out of which something is made; or affirmatively when the ‘from’ marks origin or order, in the sense of ‘after nothing’. ²,“Since something from among ‘things by essence’ was cause of the being of something else always, assuredly it will always be the cause of it as long as it has this being; and if the being of the cause always was, the being of the something else always will be; the reality of this cause then is more worthy in causality than all causes, by the fact it absolutely prevents a thing not to be. This then is the cause that gives a thing being in fact, and this is what for the wise is meant by ‘creation’, which is the giving of being to something after absolute not-being. For the caused thing, as far as concerns it in itself, is that it not be - but as far as concerns its cause, it is that it be; but what belongs to a thing from itself is, as to understanding, prior in essence, not in time, to what belongs to it from something other than itself; therefore everything created is being after not-being, by posteriority of essence.” ³

60. I understand this point ‘about priority of nature’ as follows:

Something can be said to be ‘prior in nature’ positively because it is in something first, and is a prior entity to that which is said to be present in the thing posteriorly in nature - as is the case with animal and rational in man, and with substance and accident in some per accidens composite thing.

61. In another way one thing is said to be prior in nature to another privatively, as it were, or potentially, by the removal or exclusion of another, because it would belong to it when some other cause is excluded - namely because it is not present in what it is said to belong to first but would be in it unless it were prevented by something else; as if it were said that privation is naturally prior to form in matter, not indeed because the two are in matter together (such that privation would be present before form was), but privation can pro tanto be said to be prior by nature, and prior by nature to form in matter, because privation would always be present in matter unless it received form from some agent - such that for the having of privation matter alone suffices along with negation or privation of an extrinsic cause, but for having form an extrinsic cause is required; yet privation is not of the idea of matter, as neither is form, nor are both present together in matter.

62. So I understand it in the issue at hand, that a creature does not have of itself not-being, nor that being and not-being are together in it (as if being and not-being were simultaneous), nor that it somehow has not-being when it is; but that, as far is of itself, it would have not-being unless an extrinsic cause were to prevent its not-being by giving it being - because from its own idea alone it would not have being, when every extrinsic cause giving it being is excluded, because in no way would it have being unless it were produced in being by an extrinsic cause; such that one should more properly say that of itself formally a creature is not rather than that of itself formally a creature has not-being (because ‘of itself formally it has’ is an affirmation [sc. and not a negation]); neither does it of itself have being nor not-being.

63. On behalf of this position [n.59] as so understood [n.62], an argument is made as follows: a more perfect agent presupposes less in its acting than a more imperfect agent does - just as nature presupposes less than art, because nature presupposes only being in potency and art presupposes being in act; but God is a more perfect agent than nature or art; therefore he presupposes in his acting less than being in potency (which is something presupposed by nature), and so he presupposes nothing, and as a result he can create.

64. This reason is adduced by some for the second member, namely as ‘from’ denotes an order of duration. But there [n.62] it is altogether invalid, because although God does not, in producing, presuppose anything from which he may produce, yet the consequence does not thereby hold that he could produce something new, just as this does not follow (by force of the argument) about nature and art either, because the inference ‘nature does not presuppose in its action a being in act, therefore it can produce something altogether new as to existence in act’ does not follow.

65. But the argument [n.63] is not valid for the first member either, because, according to the philosophers, any intelligence is an agent superior to a natural agent, and yet they do not commonly concede (although Avicenna would concede it) that an intelligence could create or produce something from nothing.

66. Therefore I argue differently for this same first member, namely thus: God can immediately cause and effect something, therefore he can create and make something from nothing.

67. The antecedent is manifest, because God is the first efficient cause, from 1 d.2 nn.43-59; and if he makes nothing immediately then he cannot make anything mediately either (because he is the first efficient), and so he would produce no effect.

68. The consequence [n.66] I prove thus, because if he can effect something, that something does not have of itself necessary being formally, and so it has being from a cause; therefore it has being after non-being, according to the understanding of this member [sc. where ‘from’ states order of nature]. And he produces immediately, with nothing else presupposed - because if something is presupposed, then that something presupposed would be effected by him (as is plain from 1 d.8 nn.7-8), and so the thing that presupposes it would not be an immediate effect from him. We have, therefore, from the first antecedent [n.66] to this consequent, that he produces, in order of nature, something from not-being to being, and that with nothing presupposed; therefore according to this understanding he creates. This reason seems to be pointed to by Avicenna Metaphysics 6.2 [n.59, see the note there].

B. About Creation from Nothing as ‘From’ denotes Order of Duration

69. About the second member, as ‘from’ denotes order of duration [n.58, cf. Prol. n.18, 1 d.2 nn.83, 120, 149, d.8 nn.251, 255, d.42 nn.10, 13], creation is commonly denied by the philosophers, because they say that God necessarily produces something immediately and with nothing presupposed - but what he mediately produces, he produces presupposing something from which he produces, because he then produces through second causes; and so he produces neither a mediate nor an immediate effect from nothing, taking ‘from’ here in the sense of order of duration.

70. But proof was given against this in 1 d.8 nn.275-277, 281-291 (and it was also touched on in 1 d.39 nn.35-37, 41, 91 [in the Lectura; there is no d.39 in the Ordinatio]), because God causes ‘everything that exists outwardly’ contingently and from himself; and from this it follows that he does not cause necessarily, and consequently that he does not necessarily cause something eternal (because Aristotle seems in Metaphysics 9.8.1050b6-8 to concede that everything eternal is necessary; he seems to indicate the same in On the Heavens 1.12.283b1-6 against Plato, who conceded that something is eternal and yet is able not to be, Timaeus 30-33).

71. But you will object against this reason [n.70] that it is not necessary that, where there is contingency in the effect, there possibility for newness may be inferred; for God wills a contingently (from 1 d.8 nn.275-277, 281, 291), and yet he cannot de novo not will a, because then he would be changeable.

72. I reply. In divine production there can be newness of product although there is no newness in the producer himself, because in the case of ‘first production’ there is change and newness on the part of the product, as will be plain when responding to the first principal argument [nn.85-86]. But in ‘willing’ there cannot be newness or change on the part of the thing willed unless there is some newness on the part of the act of willing, because the act of willing - being disposed the same and in the same way -cannot be of anything newly willed; for a willed thing does not have willed being save through the act of willing, and so it is not new in the being of being willed save through a new act of willing.

73. So it seems in some way to follow, therefore, that if God can cause something contingently, he can also contingently cause something new, because there is no reason that he could not cause a non-eternal thing contingently just as he can cause something eternal contingently, on the grounds that he does not cause necessarily; for that a ‘caused thing’ had to be eternal seemed to follow from the necessity of causation or from the immutability of the causer himself, neither of which entails the eternity of the thing caused; therefore newness has the possibility of being inferred.

74. There is also another argument for this member [the second, n.69], because if something is new, I ask by what cause is it new? Let the cause be a. - I then argue: a produced this new thing either when disposed in the same way or when disposed in a different way. If in the same way then the intended conclusion is obtained, that from the same unchanged cause there can be some new effect. If when a is disposed in a different way, I ask by what mover a was disposed differently for producing this new effect; there is no process to infinity, therefore a stand will at length be made at something that will be new from a cause that is uniformly disposed.

The reason is confirmed too, because if from the first mover this part of new motion can be that never was before, why cannot some whole thing thus be new, nothing of which ever was before?

75. But this reason (along with its confirmation) is of little validity against the philosophers [n.69] and would easily be solved by them; however the conclusion is true, that from some unchanged agent there can be a product in some way thus new.

76. However, in this second member (namely when understanding ‘from’ as it states an order of duration), a distinction can be made about what is meant by ‘nothing’ [n.58], namely that it can be taken for nothing in every way [nn.83-84], or for nothing in being of existence, although it is in some way in being of essence [n.82].

77. And some people give an example, that although God could create from nothing in the second way, yet not from nothing in the first way [n.76], because nothing can be produced that is not on its own part possible, according to Avicenna Metaphysics 4; but nothing is not possible on its own part, because there is no reason that one nothing should be possible on its own part and another nothing not.

78. The reason is also confirmed, because in every creature there is composition of act and potency - and wherever these are, possibility or potentiality precedes in order of nature; therefore potentiality, in whatever created thing it is, naturally precedes and is prior in nature to actuality. And then this potentiality is not nothing but belongs to some entity according to some being; not according to being of existence, therefore according to quidditative being.

79. And this is posited according to the way recited in 1 d.43 n.5 [of the Lectura, not the Ordinatio]. For it is there posited that, by the active power of God relative to itself, things are first produced in passive possible being relative to themselves; and then further they can be produced in being of existence, but not unless they have first in nature been produced in quidditative being and in passive possible being.

80. Against this is the argument in the same place [1 d.43 nn.6-9], that ‘a thing is not produced in possible being by omnipotence but by intellect, whereby the thing is produced in intelligible being’; and when it is in intelligible being, existence is not repugnant to it, nor is it of itself formally necessary; therefore it is possible.

81. Likewise there is another argument, in 1 d.36 n.17, against this being of essence, that ‘if this being were true being, production in that being would be truly creation and it would be into some being simply from nothing’. Therefore this production is simply different; not in possible being (or not of a thing in possible being), because if a thing is not possible before it is in being of essence, and if it is produced in this being -then something is produced in some being, by some production, that is not possible on the part of itself.a

a.a [Interpolated note from Appendix A] It was impossible or necessary; therefore from the impossible or the necessary it becomes possible - which is false; for what is impossible on its own part cannot be produced in being of essence or in being of existence.

82. As to this third article then [n.76], I say that God can create in being of existence from nothing (that is, not from anything), and consequently he can create from nothing (that is, not from anything) according to being of essence, because, as was proved in 1 d.36 nn.26-29, 48-49, 53, never is being of essence really separated from being of existence.

83. And yet a thing cannot be created, that is, produced in being simply, from nothing, that is, from what is in no way a being (whether simply or in a certain respect). For nothing is created that did not first have understood and willed being, and was in understood being formally possible, as was said in the first reason against the position in question here [nn.80, 79]; and then it was as it were in proximate potency so as to be able to be an object of omnipotence and to be posited in being simply.

84. Something can be produced (although not created) from nothing simply, that is not from anything in being of essence or in being of existence or in any being in a certain respect - because a creature is produced in intelligible being not from any being, neither simply nor in a certain respect, nor from something possible in that being from its own side; but this ‘to be produced’ is not to be created, because there is not anything created in being simply, but it is produced in being in a certain respect.

II. To the Principal Arguments

85. To the first principal argument [51] I say that the first cause can immediately produce some new effect without any newness in the cause itself. The thing is plain from an example: for if the sun be posited always to be in itself equally bright and if there is created some transparent medium near to it, the sun will de novo illuminate it, such that nothing new will be in the sun in order for there to be from it a new illumination; and if it could of itself posit a transparent medium and put it under the light, then, just as it causes light in it, so it could produce in being the whole thing - namely the illumined medium -without any newness in its own self.

86. And if you say ‘it could not do this if it were a natural agent and disposed uniformly (because then it would always produce uniformly), therefore the example is not valid for illustrating the issue at hand’ - I reply: it is true that this example was valid to this extent, that it is not necessary to posit newness in the cause because of newness of effect; yet it was not valid as to there being a new effect from a cause naturally acting and complete, because such an agent would always uniformly act (if it were such) with respect to the effect. But a free agent can by the same previous will produce a new effect for the time when it wills that new effect to be; for it is not necessary that ‘if it eternally wills and cannot will de novo, therefore it wills for the eternal’, just as it is not necessary in me that if I now will something, that I will it for now; but I can will it for tomorrow, and with the same will in place (without any change on the part of my will) I can cause that new thing tomorrow, for which I will it.

87. And when argument is made against this by the reasoning ‘that it is naturally necessary for some new relation to the product to precede in the producer and not conversely’ [n.52] - I say (as was said in 1 d.35 nn.31-32, 47-50, and frequently elsewhere, d.3 n.326, d.30 nn.22-23, 30-45, 65-68, d.43 nn.11-12) that on an absolute in the cause there follows immediately an absolute in the effect - and in the effect there first follows a respect to the cause; and then, if there is some respect of the cause to the effect, the respect to the effect is last and as it were null.There are four in order: absolute in the cause, absolute in the effect, respect or relation of effect to cause, respect or relation of cause to effect; see references in the text. ⁴ As to what the argument says, therefore, that ‘because the cause gives being, therefore the effect receives being and not conversely’ [n.52], I say that if the argument intends by the ‘because’ a reduplication of relation in the cause to some new reality in the cause (whether relative or absolute), the proposition is false; but if it intends to reduplicate the first act of the cause, which cause naturally precedes the thing caused, in this way the proposition is true: for the absolute in the cause naturally precedes the thing caused.

88. And if you say ‘it does not cause merely because it is absolute, for it is such -namely absolute - even when it is not causing’, I say that in the instant in which it causes, it still causes as naturally prior to the action itself - and as such only the absolute itself is understood, from which the caused is posited in being; and so nothing can be taken along with the ‘it causes’ save that it is prior, and not that it is so in respect of this instant or in respect of another one. But imagination deceives ‘because it always seems that the cause is indeterminate up to the instant when it causes, and then that some relation -determining the cause to the effect - is required first on the part of the cause’, which is false; for the same absolute, which in the cause preceded both in nature and in duration the effect produced or caused, is in the cause in that instant naturally before it causes -and according to the same absolute ‘according to which it was first causative’ it now is causing, and not according to anything added, whether absolute or relative.

89. To the second [n.53], when argument is made for determination - I say on the same basis [n.88] that a cause equally determined to producing some product (as far as concerns its part) can sometimes produce and sometimes not produce, because just as in natural things ‘a cause being determined on its own part’ is its having the form whereby to cause, so in a free thing ‘a cause being determined’ is its having there a volition with respect to something willable; and just as in the former case the form can be had before the effect is caused (but it is now prevented from the outside or by the absence of a passive thing), so also a volition can be had in the latter case before the willable thing is had, and before both in nature and in duration.

90. To the third, from the Philosopher in On Generation [n.54] - I say that the Philosopher’s understanding is about a natural agent, as is plain from him in that place.

91. To the fourth [n.55] I say - as was said in 1 d.8 n.299 - that ‘it is a mark of lack of education to seek demonstrations for everything’ (according to the Philosopher, Metaphysics 4.4.1006a5-8), ‘for there is no demonstration of principles’. And in the same way in contingent things; otherwise there would be a process to infinity in the case of contingents, because contingent things do not follow from necessary ones. And therefore this will of God - which wills this and for now - is immediate and first cause, for which no other cause must be sought; for just as there is no reason that he wanted human nature to be in this individual and to be possible and contingent, so there is no reason that he wanted it now and not then, but only that ‘because he wished this to be, therefore it was good that it be’; and to seek some reason for this proposition - although it is an immediate contingent one - is to seek a reason for what no reason should be sought.

92. And when the argument speaks about ‘expecting’ [n.56], I say that a will that has goodness from the willable itself, this will - if it is right - immediately wills the willed thing, unless there is some reason that it should will it rather to be at another time, and then it expects or waits for that more opportune time; but a will that has no reason for willing something now (just as neither does it absolutely have a reason for willing this thing) does not have to wait for some opportunity in the willed thing - neither does it have goodness from the willed thing, but conversely.

III. To the Other Arguments

93. To the first argument for the third opinion ‘about being of essence’ [n.77; the first opinion, n.59; the second, n.69], the response is plain from what was said before

[nn.80-81, 82-84]. For I concede that everything creatable was first possible on its own part, but this possibility or potentiality is not founded in any being simply but in known being (such that potentiality for being simply is concomitant to known being), although formally known being is not possible being, because ‘known being’ is being in act in a certain respect - but possible being is to be in potency for being simply, and not to be in act. Nor yet is ‘being in potency’ being simply, but there is a fallacy of simply and in a certain respect; just as neither is ‘future being’ being simply, nor is ‘past being’ being simply; for just as ‘to have passed in being simply’ does not imply being simply, so neither does ‘future being’ imply being simply; therefore much more does ‘able to be simply’ not imply being simply, because ‘able to be’ seems to be more remote from being simply than ‘to be future’ does.

94. To the other reason, about composition of act and potency [n.78], the answer is plain from the same point [n.93]. For although it be conceded that objective potency precedes act, yet that potency is not in any act - and although what is conceded to be known is in some ‘known being’, yet it is not formally known being. However the reasoning in question [n.78] is not valid, because the composition is not of objective potency and terminating act, but this composition is in some other way, as was said in 1 d.8 nn.32-33.