Although he only saw a trace of energy, Wu Ling also knew that the reason why the church was dangerous was because it was extremely pure, so it would also reject all other kinds of things other than them. And there is no reason for such rejection, but because they feel that they are white, so they regard everything other than white as heresy, and there is no way to prove that there is a heresy, and when they see these things, their first impression is to choose to destroy.

The church is different from Huaguo, Huaguo's culture is tolerant, whether it is useful or not, it can accommodate everything, and then after the precipitation of time, all impurities and some useless things are eliminated. And this is also the reason why Huaguo can exist for thousands of years, if you are careful, you can find that Huaguo's culture does not really have a main line of culture. It is a special and huge culture that is spliced together little by little by hundreds or even thousands of cultures, so that the cultural coverage can really be handed down.

But the church is different, the church is pure, he is not only pure to outsiders, but also to his own people. They are particular about their complete whiteness, and they do not allow any blackness, even if it is just a little stain, they will see each other as heretical.

In fact, because of this purity, there are also different voices in the church, but they have been suppressed, but although such voices can be suppressed, they cannot be completely eliminated, so there was the rise of philosophy in the Middle Ages.

In the 12th and 13th centuries, a series of major changes took place in Western European society. The clergy won a clear victory in the struggle against the imperial power. A number of universities have sprung up and become important places for scholastic philosophers to conduct research, lectures, and debates. In the reform of the monastic system, the Francis and Dominican Orders were newly created. In addition to the characteristics of ordinary religious orders, they are equally enthusiastic about academic activities. Emphasis was placed on preaching and teaching, with an emphasis on activities in towns and cities where there were universities. He was also actively involved in the founding of a number of new universities and theological institutes, and soon had fellows in many of them.

The emergence of these two orders played an extremely important role in the development of scholasticism, producing many famous scholars, and almost all the famous scholastic philosophers from the 13th century onwards came from these two orders. All these provided important external conditions for the flourishing of scholasticism. As far as philosophy itself is concerned, an important opportunity was the resurgence of Aristotelianism. It turned out that after the Holy See attained the status of state religion, the tradition of ancient Greek philosophy was forced to move eastward, through Persia, Syria, and finally to a certain degree of prosperity among the Arabs. Due to the influence of the Syrians and the relatively developed scientific and technological level of the Arabs themselves, the Arabs paid more attention to the study of Aristotle, who is known as the encyclopedic philosopher. In particular, his metaphysics and natural philosophy led to Aristotelianism with an Arabic tinge, the most important exponents of which were Avicenna and Averro?s.

In the West, Aristotle is essentially unknown. The only thing known about his writings is the Categories and the Interpretations as logical works. Although his ideas had been in the classrooms of Western Europe since the 11th century, they were limited to the logical ideas found in the two works mentioned above. In the 12th century, due to various political, economic and other social and historical reasons, contacts between the East and the West began to become more and more frequent. In this context, the ancient Greek civilization was introduced back to Western Europe through the hands of the Arabs. A large number of ancient Greek philosophical and scientific works were introduced to the Latin world, including Aristotle's Metaphysics, Physics, On the Soul, Nicomachean Ethics, and the Analyses of the Scriptures, as well as the Arab commentaries on these works.

Thus, in front of Western Europeans, a Aristotelian philosophy with profound knowledge, profound thoughts, a huge system, and a value for reason and experience suddenly appeared. Aristotelian philosophy as explained by the Arabs. In particular, Arab-Aristotelianism, the Averoian philosophy, formed on this basis, takes the material world as its object of thought. To see God as mere the first agent of the movement of matter is actually the result of logical inference. Furthermore. They also abandoned the idea of the immortality of the soul. The introduction of Aristotle's philosophy, which has a strong Averois color, is bound to come into direct conflict with Augustine's philosophy, which is based on Platonism and has long been regarded by the Roman Church as the authority of the papacy theological theory. For reasons of self-preservation. This philosophy even puts forward the theory of double truth, that is, theological truth is not necessarily truth in the eyes of philosophy, and philosophical truth is not necessarily truth in theological view, and the two truths exist independently and do not interfere with each other.

The significance of this doctrine lies in the fact that it not only profoundly reveals the differences and contradictions between reason and faith, philosophy and theology, but also contradicts the early papal theology that "true philosophy is true religion. Teaching, True Sect. Teaching is true philosophy" is diametrically opposed, and seeks to rid rational scientific research from sectarianism. Teach the bondage. Compared with traditional papal theology, Aristotle's philosophy, which focuses on facts, experience, and reason, is obviously more conducive to people's understanding and interpretation of the world, and is more conducive to the emancipation of the mind. Its introduction undoubtedly opened a gap in the closed position of papal theology.

In the second half of the 12th century, in the universities of Western Europe, especially the University of Paris, the theoretical center of the time, there was an upsurge of study and research of Aristotelian philosophy, and people used the views and methods of Aristotelian philosophy to make new analyses and interpretations of the world, and the ideology of the church encountered a strong challenge.

The Church of Rome, of course, would not turn a blind eye to this. In order to maintain the authority of papal theology and scholasticism, and in order to curb the spread of Aristotelian philosophy, in 1209 the Sect of Paris. At the synod, the Church of Rome decided at the University of Paris, an important theoretical stronghold, that teachers should not transcribe, read, teach, or preserve in any form the writings of Aristotle, and those who violated them were excommunicated.

Since then, the highest authorities of the Church have issued orders. Aristotle's works such as Physics and Metaphysics were declared banned, and Aristotle was regarded as "the most dangerous enemy". Its philosophy is regarded as "heresy". However, only with a high-pressure policy. The simple practice of rejection does not curb the spread and development of Aristotle's philosophy.

The church's decision quickly became a dead letter. During this period, Aristotelian philosophy remained the most popular philosophical doctrine in European universities. Many teachers and students even take pride in being able to invoke Aristotle as a basis for their theories. This state of affairs forced the Roman Church to seriously consider how to approach Aristotelian philosophy in thought. As a result, just a few decades later, things took a radical turn, and Aristotelian philosophy was recognized as the greatest authority on philosophy and science. From 1366 onwards, two papal envoys, cardinals, decreed that Aristotle's logic, and later his metaphysics and physics, must be studied, failing which he would not be awarded a magna laude degree.

In the process, almost all philosophers were influenced by Aristotle to a greater or lesser extent. A group of clergy professors, represented by Siegel of Brabant, advocated full acceptance of Aristotelian philosophy. Openly embraced the Averloy school, hence the name Latin Averloyism. This doctrine was not accepted by the ecclesiastical authorities because it was on par with the orthodox scholasticism represented by Augustinian philosophy at that time, and because it drew some conclusions from Aristotelian philosophy that were incompatible with the traditional teachings of the Holy See. The Francians, represented by Alexander of Halles and Bonaventura, were conservative, and although they accepted some of the Aristotelian philosophy in form, they stubbornly adhered to the Augustinian tradition in principle and refused to adopt Aristotelian philosophy.

In the face of the new reality, this view inevitably pales in comparison. The Dominicans, represented by Albert and Thomas, advocated a third way, which could adapt to the new trends of the times. Adopting Aristotelian philosophy for the use of the Church, while at the same time maintaining the authority of the doctrine of the Holy See, or, in other words, opening up a path to combine Neo-Platonism with Aristotelian philosophy. Ways to use Aristotelian philosophy in the service of papal theology. In the mid-13th century, there was a fierce debate between these three currents of thought, known as the "Great Controversy of Paris". It was this fierce struggle that propel scholasticism to prosperity.

Late 12th and early 13th centuries. Arab-Aristotelianism, represented by Averloy, began to be introduced to the Latin world on a large scale. At the same time, the struggle between Friedrich II, King of Sicily and the Pope, was heating up. This emperor was not only in politics, economics, sect. Religion and other fields compete with the pope for power. Moreover, in the field of ideas, Arab Avelloianism is also used to oppose orthodox theology of the Holy See. In his Sicilian court, a group of prominent Arab scholars gathered. It is said that among them is the grandson of Averloy. Friedrich himself had a certain degree of philosophical and scientific attainment, and often discussed philosophical questions with these Eastern scholars, such as: Is the material world eternal? What is the relationship between the scientific method and the theological method? What is the nature of the soul? These questions are clearly indicative of the influence of Averloyism. Friedrich took advantage of his own politics. The right protected these scholars who could not tolerate orthodox theology, and for a time made the Sicilian court a center for the spread of Arab liberal and naturalistic ideas.

In the mid-13th century, the University of Paris, known as the "City of Philosophers", set off a craze for the study of Aristotelian philosophy, forming the center of Latin Averloianism. In particular, the publication of the complete works of Averloy around 1250 further advanced this wave. Many of the scholars at the University of Paris became Averloites. They often put forward more radical views than Averloi himself, such as denying the omniscience and omnipotence of God, denying the immortality of the individual soul, insisting on the eternity of the world itself, and so on. They also defended themselves with the "double truth theory" and engaged in a fierce debate with the orthodox theology of the church.

Siegel sought to detach philosophy from its inner union with theology, declaring that while revelation contained full truth, it did not need to be consistent with philosophy. Similarly, philosophy is an independent field of thought. Philosophical thinking is "the exploration of what philosophers, especially Aristotle, have pondered, even if their doctrines occasionally contradict the truth." …… When we think philosophically, we explore the philosophers' insights more than we search for truth." [19] In Siegel's view, the purpose of the seminary professors' research was theology. And not philosophy. Therefore, it is impossible for them to treat Aristotelian philosophy correctly. Rather, it can only be used to falsify Aristotelian philosophy. Only Avelloy's interpretation of Aristotle is correct.

Proceeding from Aristotelian philosophy, Siegel uses natural proofs to arrive at the opposite of faith. He refused to acknowledge God's creation theory. The idea that God is not the cause of things, but only the purpose of things, i.e., God is the purpose of creation, not the cause of creation. The world is eternal, as are the various species on earth. A certain type of organism can arise because that type of species gives birth to many individuals of that creature. This generation of individuals arises from the previous generation, and thus continues and continues to be born, so that there is no such thing as a creator. All things repeat themselves over and over again, and in the eternal return of things one world follows another. The world is also inevitable. The laws of nature are immutable. We cannot say that God is able to foresee future contingencies, because Aristotle has shown that if God can foresee these events, they will become inevitable. God can only know what is general and necessary, and cannot intervene in individual things and individuals.

In particular, Siegel followed Averloy in dividing the soul into souls common to all human beings and individual souls. The individual soul is the principle of life of the individual, inseparable from the human body, which enables the individual's physical body to gain vitality. And with the death of the flesh. The soul common to all mankind is human reason, which is the unified, only soul. It is combined with the individual to accomplish the activity of consciousness. The individual is dead, but the human spirit entity is immortal, so only the soul of the class is immortal. Although the intellect stays in the individual by means of its activities. But it transcends the individual person, and thus does not have the immortality of the individual soul. This assertion actually negates the creed of the Holy See, such as the immortality of the soul. It is said that Siegel did not explicitly accept the "double truth theory." He merely lectured on some conclusions that he himself thought were derived from Aristotelian philosophy, from reason. As soon as these conclusions contradicted the faith of the Holy See, he immediately emphasized his belief in the tenets of the Church. He called these creeds the truth. But it is not called philosophy as such. This shows that Siegel is far from reaching the point of breaking with the church. As a result, many historians of philosophy still include him among the scholastics.

Bonaventura was also the most important theorist of the early Francis Order. His philosophy is characterized by a combination of scholasticism and mysticism. Although he drew on some ideas from Aristotelian philosophy, the criterion for his choice was not to contradict Augustinianism. He even argues that Aristotelian philosophy, which is based on a natural cosmology, is diametrically opposed to the faith of the Holy See, and is fundamentally bound to harm the theology of the Holy See. Bonaventura has given a clear critique of Latin Aveloianism and the "mistakes" of Thomas. From an Augustinian standpoint, Bonaventura argues that the world was created by God from nothing according to the idea. He accused Aristotle of discarding Plato's ideas in metaphysics, arguing that ideas are God's thoughts, the paradigm of all things, and that all things are copies of ideas. Ideas are not just something purely logical, but something dynamic, something creative. He denies that creation is eternal and inevitable, and that this statement contains contradictions in itself. He believes that creation is the combination of form and material, and all creation includes form and material. Light is the common form of all objects, and all objects are related to light by their very nature, and the degree and rank of their existence depend on the degree of this relationship. The material only means possibility, but it is not purely non-prescriptive, and in the original material there is an embryo as some kind of internal causality. Bonaventura rejects the theory of the unity of spirit and body, arguing that the soul is also a combination of form and material, and also has its own material, so there is also a spiritual material. And the flesh has its own form. Therefore, the soul is independent of the body and is immortal.

Bonaventura believed that all things are copies of God, and that God is manifested through all things, so that people can know God in all things. He distinguishes between three ways of knowing truth, namely, symbolic, literal, and mystical. The symbolic way is to know all things in the world through feeling and imagination, and the way to know all things in the original meaning is to know all things through reason and mind. But this knowledge is only the beginning, and what true knowledge knows is the eternal paradigm, the world of ideas and the world of God. Such an understanding can only be achieved through wisdom and the sudden opening of the heart. This is mystical intuition, a state of delusion in the unity of God and man. But this kind of intuitiveness is not something that anyone can achieve at any time. It depends on God's gifts, which can only be obtained through a holy life and devotion to God. Bonaventura, though admitting that knowledge begins with feeling. In the end, it turned to mysticism. 3. Dominica: Albert

While the Francians stubbornly resisted Aristotelian philosophy, the Dominicans were actively trying to reshape Aristotelian philosophy into the service of argumentative theology. Albert was the main representative of this tendency in Dominica.

Albertus Magnus. 1193-1280) was born in Swabia, Germany, and studied philosophy, medicine, and natural sciences at the University of Padua. He studied theology at the University of Borockner and joined the Dominican Order, where he became its branch president in Germany. Sent by the Congregation, Albert lectured in philosophy and theology at the religious school in Cologne, and for a short time in Paris, where he fought fiercely against Latin Averloianism. Albert's lectures are said to have attracted so many students that the University of Paris could not find a spacious lecture hall to accommodate the students who came to him, so it had to lecture in the square on a regular basis. Old age. He was appointed bishop of Regensburg, a position he soon resigned to pursue scientific research and writing in the solitude of the monastery. Albert was knowledgeable, loved to observe and study nature directly, had certain attainments in zoology, botany, chemistry and other fields, and was proficient in ancient, patristic and Arabic literature, and was known as a "great man" and "all-round doctor". Most of Albert's writings are commentaries on Aristotle's metaphysical and natural philosophical works, in addition to the Encyclopedia of Creation, the Encyclopedia of Theology, and a number of polemics.

Albert's place in the history of philosophy lies primarily in the fact that he was the first to comprehensively introduce the ideas of Aristotle and his commentators to Western Europeans from the standpoint of the Holy See. However, Albert failed to effectively use the wealth of information at his disposal to build an organic system of thought. His mind was somewhat confused. And it has some Platonist elements. The work of establishing the system was carried out by his student Thomas. Aquinas finished. Since the ideas of the two teachers and students are in many respects identical, here is only a brief introduction to Albert's ideas.

On the question of God and all things, Albert drew on some ideas from Neoplatonism and the Arab philosopher Awesena to transform Aristotelian philosophy. He thinks. God is the highest infinite entity, the uncreated light. The "original reason" that flows from God is the "dimmed light." From the "original reason" overflows all existence. It includes all levels from the soul of the world to the existence of the body. All created entities are formed by the union of essence and being.

On the question of co-existence and individuality, Albert embraced Avicena's ideas. And make it more concrete. He believes that co-phases as the essence of things do not depend on the realization of things in the world of time and space. Thus it comes before things; The essence is embodied in all things, and is therefore in things; Our concept of universality, by its universality, is a product of thought, and thus comes after things.

Regarding the relationship between philosophy and theology, he argues that philosophical problems can only be dealt with in a philosophical way. Theological issues, such as the Trinity, the incarnation, creation, resurrection, etc., are beyond the comprehension of natural intellect and can only be dealt with theologically. Albert's view was further developed by Thomas. 4. Thomas. Aquinas

Thomas. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was born in the Aquino region of Naples, Italy, the son of a powerful local aristocracy. At the age of 5, Thomas was sent by his parents to the nearby Monastery of Monte Cassino to be educated, and at the age of 14 he entered the University of Naples, during which time he joined the Dominican Order. In 1244 he was sent by the Congregation to study at the University of Paris, where he studied under Albert, who was soon taken to Cologne to continue his studies. In 1252, Albert recommended Thomas to teach at the University of Paris, but was ostracized by the opposition. In 1259, Thomas was sent to serve in the Holy See, where he met William of Manpeck, who was fluent in Greek. William's large number of Aristotelian works translated directly from Greek into Latin provided Thomas with a wealth of first-hand information that laid a solid foundation for his later scholarly activities. In 1269, Thomas returned to the University of Paris. Engage in a fierce battle with radical Latin Averloianism and conservative Franciscanism. In 1274, Thomas was summoned by the Pope to Lyon to attend the Church. Teach the conference. Unfortunately, he died of illness on the way.

Thomas inherited the line of thought of his teacher Albert, despite the opposition of the conservative forces of the church. Adapting to the new trend of thought of the times, he strongly advocated the replacement of Augustinian Platonism, which was the pillar of church theory, with Aristotelian philosophy, and established a huge philosophical system in the midst of fierce debates, becoming the most important representative of scholasticism. In addition to a large number of annotations to Aristotle's writings, Thomas's "Anti-Paganism" and "Theological Summa Summa are the most important works in medieval Europe, both philosophically and theologically.

Starting from Albert's thought, Thomas disagrees with the Augustinian approach of confusing philosophy with theology, nor with the Latin Averloitian "double truth theory" that divides philosophy and theology into two unrelated realms, but tries to argue that philosophy and theology are both independent and unified with each other. He thinks. The difference between philosophy and theology lies first in their goal or object of knowledge. Theology provides us with those truths that are necessary for our salvation, and there is a great deal of room for rational science about the real world outside of theology. The objectively existing real world is the object of our rational cognition, and at the same time the source of our knowledge, and reason also has the ability to know this object.

But reason is not omnipotent, and it cannot know all truths. On top of the real natural world, there is a surreal, supernatural world. Our reason can only know a very small part of the world. For example, God exists, God is one, and so on. And other truths of this world, such as the Trinity of God, the incarnation, the resurrection of the flesh in heaven, God's plan of salvation, and so on, are not known by human natural reason, but can only be grasped by faith. "Although something beyond human reason. It cannot be obtained by reason, but if there is a revelation from God, it can be obtained by faith." [20] Even those theological truths that can be obtained by natural reason. It should also be obtained under the guidance of revelation. This is because, "Whoever uses reason to discuss the truth which God has received." It can only be obtained by a few people, and it takes a lot of time. There are also many mistakes."

As for the majority, they are simply incapable of reflecting and attaining the truth because they are so gifted, lazy, and so much that they spend too much of their energy on tedious daily tasks. Thus, even theological truths that can be obtained by natural reason should be part of the content of revelation and should be grasped by faith. Secondly, the difference between philosophy and theology also lies in the angle and method from which they study the problem. Even for the same thing, philosophers and theologians examine it from completely different angles, and the same existence becomes the object of philosophical and theological knowledge in different senses. Even if philosophers and theologians are confronted with the same problem, they deal with it in different ways. The philosopher derives his argument from the very nature of things, and therefore from the causes of things themselves. Theologians, on the other hand, always know things from the point of view of their original cause, that is, from God.

However, these differences do not prevent philosophy and theology from reaching the same truth. For the truth revealed by faith and the truth inquired by reason are in fact the same truth. "By two truths, I do not speak of God himself, for God is the only and single truth, but in terms of our knowledge, because we know God's truth from different aspects."

The ultimate destination of rational philosophical thinking must be the infinite Supreme Being, God. "Almost all philosophical thinking is aimed at knowing God."

Since philosophy studies the creatures themselves, it begins with the creatures and reaches the knowledge of God: it begins with the creatures and ends with God. Theology has taken the opposite path. It grasps creation only in terms of their relationship to God, so it begins with God and descends from God to creation. "Human reason rises to the knowledge of God through the creation of nature, and faith, on the contrary, enables people to know God through divine revelation. The former is the ascending method and the latter is the descending method. In terms of their knowledge of God, they are the same. In fact, whether it is faith obtained through reason, or the knowledge of God is obtained through reason, it is only the same way."

Therefore. Although theology and philosophy have a clear line of demarcation between each other, Thomas disapproves of the separation of these two fields of knowledge from each other in practice. Contrary. He demanded the closest collaboration between theology and philosophy. Faith and knowledge should be in harmony with each other, although they are two different spheres. For reason is a nature created and endowed to human beings by God. Faith, on the other hand, comes from divine revelation and can be traced back to the same source of truth, so it is impossible to oppose each other. Rather, both reason and faith are the antithesis of falsehood. There can never be any contradiction between philosophy and theology. Theological truth, while super-rational, is by no means anti-rational. Faith is a divine grace given to us by God, which does not weaken people's natural nature, but strengthens it. "Divine grace is so attached to man's nature that not only does not destroy it, but makes it perfect. So. The light of faith that God has given us does not destroy the splendor of natural reason that we possess."

Philosophy and theology are just two different ways to know the truth, and there is only one truth, and that is God. It is no less foolish for a farmer to reject God's revelation because it seems to contradict man's natural reason in some respects. Arguments against belief based on natural reason are in themselves contradictory to the highest principles of rational thinking.

Not only are faith and reason mutually consistent, but they also have a mutually reinforcing relationship. Faith is necessary for reason. Faith can help reason broaden its horizons and complement and refine philosophical truths. And the service provided by faith to philosophy and reason, philosophy richly returns to theology. First of all, reason can guarantee the foundation of faith. Defend theology in the face of all attacks, because almost all attacks on theology come from natural reason, and the defense of theology must also be based on natural reason. Second, reason can clarify the rationality of beliefs. Prove certain creeds that it can grasp. Even knowledge of purely natural things is of great use to theology. Knowledge of natural things can convey to us God's wisdom and lead us to the astonishment and awe of God. Reach the love of God. As long as we delve deeper into the nature of natural things, we will not fall into certain errors in our doctrine of God.

Of course. This in no way implies that philosophy and theology are on an equal footing, as Latin Avelloism claims. Opposite. Faith over reason, theology over philosophy and all sciences, this is Thomas's unwavering position. On this point, Thomas argues: "When we say that a speculative science is superior to the others, we do not mean that it is more certain than the others, or that its subject matter is more noble than the other sciences, and theology surpasses the other speculative sciences in both respects." It is said that it has a high degree of certainty because the certainty of other sciences comes from the light of human rational nature, which is wrong; And theological certainty comes from God's illumination, which is infallible. It is said that its subject matter is more noble because theology deals primarily with things that are more beautiful and supreme than human reason, while other sciences are concerned only with what human reason can grasp. As for practical science in general, its nobility depends on whether it leads to a higher end. For example, political science and military science are because the purpose of military affairs is towards the purpose of national politics. The aim of theology, in its practical aspect, is in eternal happiness, and this eternal happiness is the end to which all practical science tends as the ultimate end. Therefore, theology is superior to other sciences".

That is why, while faith can and should make use of reason, that in no way does it mean that it depends on reason. On the contrary, "theology may be played by philosophy, but it is not necessary to do so, but it is used to make its own doctrine clearer." For the principles of theology do not come from other sciences, but directly from God by revelation. Therefore, instead of relying on other sciences as its superiors, it uses them as its subordinates and servants."

From this Thomas came to his famous proposition: "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology."

For Thomas, to put philosophy at the service of theology, specifically to transform Aristotelian philosophy into the service of papal theology. To this end, he borrowed from Aristotle's philosophy of existence and essence, potential and reality, substance and duality, and discussed the most general philosophical questions, and used them to prove the supremacy of God.

In Thomas's view, existence is a process that takes place, a process of reality, in which something corresponds to a certain concept or a certain assertion. And essence is what is necessary for us to form the appearance of something, what makes something what it is. In all things that are created, existence and essence are different prescriptives. The existence of a thing necessarily contains the essence of its existence as a thing, otherwise it does not exist as a thing. But it cannot be said the other way around, that the essence of a thing necessarily includes its existence. For example, a triangle is essentially three straight lines enclosing a plane. Whether it exists or not, or rather, whether it is in reality or in our appearance, its essence is the same. We can think about any kind of essence, even if we don't know anything about its actual existence. "Any essence or substance that man is able to comprehend even though he does not possess knowledge of existence. Because even if I don't know if there are people or phoenixes in nature, I can understand what people are or what phoenixes are. Existence is therefore clearly distinct from essence or substance, unless there may be something whose essence is indeed its existence".

Thomas is referring to God here. God's existence is the same thing as its essence. For the essence of God lies in the fact that He is the Creator of all things. The causes of all creation, though their effects vary, are the same in the sense that they cause existence. For example, fire creates the presence of heat, and construction workers create the existence of a house. And the reason why the creator is able to cause the result of existence is that it itself exists. Thus, as the creator of all things, God's essence itself contains existence.

What is created is both active and passive at the same time. It acts on its own and at the same time is the object of its actions; It has attributes, and at the same time it can lose attributes and gain new ones. This ability to accept external actions or internal changes is potential, and the existence of things is reality. "There are things that do not exist, but have the ability to exist; Something else exists now. What can exist but does not exist, we say that it is a potential existence; And what already exists, we say that it is in reality." (To be continued......)