God’s Timelessness Explained

This piece provides a thorough framework for understanding God’s timeless and eternal nature, in an approach that works to reconcile human temporal language with the idea of divine immutability, and attempts to elucidate the distinctions between the mutable nature of creation and the immutable essence of God. This view is rooted in classical theistic thought, philosophy, and Catholic doctrine, attempting a systematic approach to divine attributes as they relate to God, time, and eternity. It draws on the theological and philosophical thought traditions of theologians St. Thomas Aquinas and Boethius among others. If the right sources and ideas are combined effectively here, this piece should offer a valuable perspective on the Christian classical view of God’s timelessness and immutability with a distinct Catholic tone.

To understand God’s timeless and eternal nature, one typically must delve into the concept of divine immutability, which is exactly what we will do. The principle of immutability is central to Catholic thought. It asserts that God, as Pure Act, is fully actualized and unchanging. Pure Act is a term Aquinas developed well to accord with God’s perfection and action. By examining the writings of thinkers, like Aquinas just mentioned, and their specific meanings behind key terms, like “Actus Purus,” all of which I’ll explain in grueling detail below, one should gain a deeper appreciation of how great Christian thinker’s insights reveal the stark contrast between the mutable nature of creation and the immutable essence of God. This examination not only reinforces the classical theistic perspective but also offers a framework for addressing contemporary questions about the relationship between God and time. Hopefully, I’ll organically address some of those as we delve into immutability.

“For Thou wast, and besides Thee nothing was; and yet, from Thee, was everything created.”

(Confessions, Book I, Chapter IV)

Perfection

Getting to the principle of God’s immutability starts well if one starts as the Catechism of the Catholic Church does, with God’s perfection. The intuitive and commonsensical way of communicating God’s perfection is to point out that God possesses all qualities and attributes to the highest degree and lacks nothing such that our signs can signify his greatness to the greatest degree. This means that God is infinitely good, wise, powerful, and loving. As the Catechism states in paragraph 1, “God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.” Since perfection means completeness and fullness in every attribute, any change would imply either an improvement (which suggests previous imperfection) or deterioration (which implies loss of perfection). Therefore, the perfection of God, the ultimate transcendent reality, is supernaturally perfect and must be immutable in this commonsensical approach. However, there is also a deep metaphysical approach to consider, and that may be helpful for some too.

Aquinas represents this metaphysically deep view of God’s perfection tradition well when he wrote, “God is pure actuality, without any admixture of potentiality. Therefore, He is wholly simple and unchangeable, possessing all perfections infinitely and supremely” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, Article 2). This statement has a powerful stream of thought behind it. First, there’s the ontology of act and potency he draws on in the Aristotelian tradition. He writes, “Since therefore God is pure act without any potentiality, He is the most noble of beings, and infinitely removed from matter” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, Article 1). Then there’s his theological ontology he draws on through divine simplicity: “God is altogether simple, and therefore altogether one” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, Article 7). The ontologies he develops in his work provide a space for Aquinas to have a grand view of God’s transcendence, which in turn supports his view of God’s perfection by being able to communicate God’s Infinity and Supremacy of Perfections well. In this vein of thought, he writes, “God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 7, Article 1). Finally, Aquinas has an intuitive metaphysics of causality, purposes, and necessity and contingency. He reasons that, if God is truly God, He must be metaphysically distinct from this chain of contingent beings. Unlike everything else that depends on another for its existence, God must be self-sufficient, existing independently and necessarily. This means that God is not part of the chain of dependent beings but rather the ultimate cause and foundation of all existence, breaking the chain of dependency by being the necessary being that causes everything else without being caused Himself. To this line of reasoning, he writes, “Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Article 3). Thus, we get to his idea of perfection and the sense of immutability he has in mind because of this perfection: “It is impossible for God to change in any way; for God is altogether immutable” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 9, Article 1).

Footnote: To further explore Aquinas’s ontological framework and metaphysics, it is essential to delve into the sources and philosophical traditions he builds upon. Aquinas’s metaphysical views are deeply rooted in the Aristotelian tradition, particularly the concepts of act and potency, and his integration of Platonic ideas through the lens of Christian theology. To understand the depth and context of Aquinas’s thought, one can begin with Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” focusing on the distinctions between potentiality and actuality. Additionally, studying Aquinas’s own writings, such as “Summa Theologica,” where he systematically addresses these concepts, is crucial. Reading secondary sources that analyze Aquinas’s appropriation of Aristotelian and Platonic thought, such as “The Philosophy of Aquinas” by Etienne Gilson and “Aquinas” by Edward Feser, can provide valuable insights. These resources offer a comprehensive background on how Aquinas synthesizes these philosophical traditions to articulate his views on divine simplicity, perfection, and immutability. This foundational knowledge will enhance the understanding of the arguments and claims made in the paper, even if space does not permit an in-depth exploration within the text itself.

We thus see an understanding of God‘s own self ordering principle emerging from both a commonsensical and a deeply metaphysical perspectives. The Catechism’s straightforward assertion that God possesses all qualities to the highest degree coheres well with Aquinas’s powerful metaphysical insights, albeit Aquinas goes deeper giving one a rational way how such an approach can work. By emphasizing God’s nature as Pure Act, wholly actualized and devoid of potentiality, Aquinas elucidates why divine immutability is a necessary corollary of divine perfection. The logical progression from the intuitive notion that perfection entails completeness and the absence of change to the sophisticated ontological arguments underscores the coherence and depth of Catholic thought on this matter. God’s immutable perfection is not merely a theological abstraction but a foundational principle that informs our understanding of the divine nature, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of how this immutability interacts with God’s relationship to time and creation.

The Divine Nature Without Constraint

This next section of the piece gets super technical, but is necessary. It attempts to offer seven key insights that systematically subtract and/or remove the limits of time from God’s nature to achieve a nuanced understanding of God’s nature without the constraints of temporality. It also provides a coherent view of God’s timeless and immutable nature by systematically removing temporal constraints from our understanding of God. This approach respects the ontological distinctions between God and creation while effectively communicating theological truths. Through these seven insights, the text systematically subtracts time from the understanding of God, aiming to provide a coherent view of God’s timeless and immutable nature, respecting the ontological distinctions between God and creation while effectively communicating theological truths. This task is rooted in classical theistic thought, relying heavily on the metaphysical distinctions established by thinkers such as Boethius, Aristotle, and Aquinas.

Eternity 

Boethius provides a foundational definition of eternity crucial for establishing the initial distinction between temporal and eternal existence. He describes eternity as “the whole, simultaneous, and perfect possession of boundless life” in his work “The Consolation of Philosophy” (Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Book V, Prose VI, https://ccel.org/ccel/boethius/consolation.vi.html). This concept helps us understand God’s existence as wholly outside the temporal order, unlike the sequential experience of time by created beings.

Actus Purus 

I’m going to be repetitive here on purpose. So bear with me, hopefully, from a different angle, this section is helpful still. Aquinas’s concept of God as Pure Act is central to understanding divine immutability and timelessness. He states, “God is pure actuality, without any admixture of potentiality. Therefore, He is wholly simple and unchangeable, possessing all perfections infinitely and supremely” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, Article 2). This principle implies that God’s being is fully actualized, devoid of potentiality, and thus not subject to the succession or change inherent in temporal existence.

Aquinas’s Doctrine is, in a sense, another view of God’s perfection from the one we opened this piece with; specifically, it delves into the concept through the idea of pure act, or Actus Purus as he says it in Latin, and the term provides a profound view of God’s perfection. For example, it can help resolve the apparent tension between divine simplicity and divine freedom.

In this view, God’s essence and actions constitute a single, unified, perfect act. This understanding is crucial for comprehending how divine freedom operates within the framework of divine simplicity. On the one hand, divine freedom, as articulated by Aquinas in Actus Purus doctrine, means that God’s will and actions are perfectly aligned with His nature. Unlike human freedom, which involves making choices between different potentials and possibilities, God’s freedom is the pure expression of His perfect will. There is no differentiation between God’s essence and His will; they are one and the same. On the other hand, this singularity implies that God’s decisions and actions are not subject to change or potentiality, further affirming His immutable nature.

Thus, divine simplicity and divine freedom coexist harmoniously because God’s nature and will are indivisibly united, manifesting in a timeless, perfect act. This perspective elegantly reconciles the classical claim that God has no unactualized potential with the belief in God’s freedom, underscoring the coherence of Aquinas’ theological and philosophical framework.

This resolution also ties directly into the theme of God’s timelessness. By understanding God’s actions as a single, unified act, we see that God is not bound by temporal succession. God’s timeless nature means that His will and actions occur in an eternal ‘now,’ free from the constraints of time. Therefore, the coherence between divine simplicity, freedom, and immutability reinforces the concept that God’s existence and actions transcend temporal limitations, aligning perfectly with the our broader discussion on divine timelessness here.

Immutability 

Aquinas further emphasizes the immutability of God’s nature by stating, “It is impossible for God to change in any way; for God is altogether immutable” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 9, Article 1, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm). By systematically subtracting attributes like succession, change, and potentiality from the understanding of God, we find a horizon where what arises is a view that God exists outside of time.

Change 

Aristotle’s distinction between substantial and accidental change helps clarify the difference between the mutable nature of creation and the immutable nature of God. According to Aristotle, there are two types of change: substantial and accidental. Substantial change refers to a change in the substance or essence of a thing. For instance, when a living organism dies, it undergoes a substantial change because its essence as a living being ceases. Accidental change refers to changes that do not affect the substance but rather the non-essential attributes of a thing. For example, when a leaf changes color in autumn, it undergoes an accidental change because its essence as a leaf remains the same. As Aristotle explains in “Metaphysics” Book IX, “Change is the actuality of that which exists potentially, in so far as it is potentially this actuality” (Metaphysics, Book IX, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.9.ix.html). While created beings undergo change, God, being immutable, does not. This view is adopted in Thomistic thought, where Aquinas integrates these ideas into a Christian metaphysical framework.

Temporal vs. Ontological Causality

For Aquinas, not only do potential states become actual states, but through theology, change is seen as a process revealing the dynamism and contingency of creation, highlighting the distinction between the mutable nature of created beings and the immutable nature of God. Aquinas states, “But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 9, Article 1, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm). Analogically speaking, God’s state of complete perfection and immutability can be likened to the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where one no longer strives for fulfillment because they have already achieved it. Just as self-actualization represents the peak of human potential, God, as Pure Act, is fully actualized with no potential left to fulfill, existing beyond change and movement. God has already arrived because he’s perfect. The theme being, where a philosopher sees a reasonable distinction of immanent life, this allows a theologian to reasonably amplify and glorify God’s transcendent life.

Aquinas also addresses the distinction between temporal and ontological causality. Aristotle explains change through four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. The material cause is the substance or matter that undergoes change. The formal cause is the form or pattern according to which the change occurs. The efficient cause is the agent or force that brings about the change. The final cause is the purpose or end for which the change occurs. In his “Metaphysics,” Aristotle states, “Evidently we have to acquire knowledge of the original causes… In one of these we mean the substance, i.e., the essence… in another the matter or substratum, in a third the source of the change, and in a fourth the cause opposed to this, the purpose and the good” (Metaphysics, Book I, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html). Aristotle notices we are beings that can identify change, so he provides a structured way to analyze and understand the different dimensions of change, from the material components to the purpose behind it. This framework is crucial in both natural philosophy and metaphysics, as it helps to explain how and why things come into being, change, and ultimately fulfill their intended purposes. In a sense, the four causes answer the question “why?”

Change occurs in a continuous manner, implying a succession of states over time. This sequential aspect of change aligns with the temporal experience of created beings, where events unfold in a linear progression from past to present to future. St. Thomas Aquinas elaborates on Aristotle’s concepts, integrating them into a Christian metaphysical framework. Aquinas states, “Since God is immovable, and the first cause, it follows that whatsoever He moves, He must move immediately, since the first cause cannot move through the medium of a secondary cause” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 105, Article 5, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1105.htm). This reinforces the idea that God, being immutable, acts as the primary cause of all changes in the created order, underscoring the distinction between the mutable nature of creation and the immutable nature of God.

Time is a measure of these changes and movements within creation. God, being timeless, does not experience time as a sequence. Instead, God’s eternal existence encompasses all of time without being subject to it. This is often described as God seeing all of time in a single, eternal instant, though instant is used analogically, not literally. When describing God’s timelessness, it is crucial to emphasize that God’s existence is not sequential. God’s knowledge, will, and actions do not occur in a sequence but are fully actualized in an eternal state. God’s act of creation and sustenance is eternal and non-temporal. It is a single, undivided act that does not unfold over time but rather sustains all temporal events simultaneously. To help understand this concept, theologians use analogies. For example, if we imagine time as a line, God would be like an observer who sees the entire line at once, not moving along it but seeing the whole in a single, comprehensive view. God’s nature does not change. This immutability is a core principle that underscores God’s timelessness. God’s simplicity means that God’s essence and existence are identical. There are no parts or divisions in God, further reinforcing the concept of timelessness.

Analogy 

The use of analogical language is essential for bridging the gap between human temporal understanding and divine timelessness. When I use the term “analogical,” I mean it ontologically, as elaborated by Erich Przywara in “Analogia Entis.” Przywara explains that the similarity between Creator and creature is always accompanied by an even greater dissimilarity, which must be acknowledged in theological discourse. He writes, “This means, on the one hand, that for any supernaturality, ‘however great,’ the naturality of the relation between creator and creature constitutes the decisive ‘because’ (quia); and within this relation itself the ‘ever greater dissimilarity’ constitutes the determinative ‘cannot’ (non potest … notari) and ‘compelled’ (sit … notanda) of the ‘similarity, however great.’ But this means, on the other hand, that the naturality of the relation between creator and creature appears factically only ‘within’ supernaturality, ‘however great’ (the supernaturality of the one factical historical order of supernatural participation and redemption); and within the relation between creator and creature the ‘ever greater dissimilarity’ appears essentially only ‘within’ the ‘similarity, however great'” (Analogia Entis, Page 374, First published 1962 in German under the title “Analogia Entis I. Metaphysik. Ur-Struktur und All-Rhythmus,” by Johannes Verlag, Einsiedeln. English translation © 2014 William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved Published 2014 Printed in the United States of America 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). This approach ensures that the thesis remains coherent and continuous while using analogical language to describe complex divine attributes.

Semiotics

I have been fortunate to take an online class with Dr. Brian Kemple and engage in discussions with him on online forums about philosophy and theology. Dr. Kemple’s work provides an interesting alternative to the purely ontological approach discussed earlier. His semiotic realism integrates Peirce’s semiotics and Aquinas’s metaphysics, positing that signs have a real connection to the realities they signify, allowing human cognition to genuinely apprehend and communicate truths about the natural and divine realms. This approach asserts that signs not only represent but also participate in the reality they denote, enabling a profound engagement with truth. Semiotics is particularly helpful when temporal languages used in a semiotic way within a context where the metaphysics is under terminology in a way that is not typical. For example, when we say, God is outside of time, we don’t literally mean there is a place outside of time because God is his own ordering principle, and there’s no need to be somewhere when you’re God. 

Analogical language in an ontological sense and semiotic realism can be complementary, helping to illustrate that language is not merely a limit but a means to balance faith and reason, potentially offering a way to transcend those limits. By acknowledging these frameworks, one can effectively communicate divine truths while respecting the ontological distinctions between God and creation, thus fostering a deeper understanding that goes beyond mere linguistic constraints.

I’m reminded of non-local realism in physics, and the realism of Einstein in his conception of a 4 dimensional space-time. These are two conceptual complexes that, on the surface, seem to contradict, much like saying God exists outside of time or is free yet perfect yet simple. To understand the relationship between non-local realism and Einstein’s view of time, however, we can refer to recent studies and experiments that have validated the coexistence of these concepts in distinct yet complementary domains. Non-local realism, as demonstrated by the violation of Bell’s inequalities in experiments such as those conducted by Aspect, Dalibard, and Roger (1982), shows that quantum entanglement can occur over large distances without any direct causal connection. This has been further confirmed by recent experiments, such as the loophole-free Bell tests, which have strengthened the case for non-local correlations in quantum mechanics. “The ETH researchers’ experiment confirms that superconducting circuits operate according to the laws of quantum mechanics too, even though they are much bigger than microscopic quantum objects such as photons or ions” (Würsten, 2023). This highlights that quantum mechanics and relativistic time can coexist in their respective domains. Analogically, just as quantum entanglement operates beyond classical spatiotemporal constraints, God’s eternal ‘now’ transcends human sequential time, suggesting different ordering principles that can coexist harmoniously, even though they seem to contradict in some sense, because they are both experimentally verified (https://phys.org/news/2023-05-entangled-quantum-circuits-einstein-concept.html).

In theological terms, this analogy can be used to understand God’s timelessness. Just as non-local realism and Einstein’s relativistic time coexist without contradiction, the concept of God’s eternal ‘now’ transcends human sequential time. This analogy demonstrates that different ordering principles, whether in physics or theology, can exist in their own right without conflict. God’s timeless nature, an ontological reality, surpasses temporal succession, mirroring the coexistence of quantum phenomena and relativistic time in their respective domains. As noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The non-local character of quantum mechanics… presents a clear example of how different physical realities can coexist without direct contradiction” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/).

Integrating semiotic realism, particularly from the Thomistic perspective as articulated by Brian Kemple, further elucidates this analogy. Semiotics, the study of signs and symbols, enables us to understand how God’s timeless actions can be communicated through signs that participate in the reality they signify. For example, Kemple notes that “the sign does not merely represent, but truly manifests the reality it signifies” (Critical Realism and the Verbum Mentis, 2017). The Eucharist in Catholic theology signifies and participates in the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, bridging the divine and human realms. This approach asserts that human cognition can apprehend divine truths by recognizing the analogical relationship between God’s eternal ‘now’ and temporal reality. Thus, semiotic realism bridges the gap between divine and human understanding, allowing us to grasp the transcendent ordering principles through the signs and symbols within our temporal experience. Reference: (https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/53211858/2016-04-24-CriticalRealism_VerbumMentis-libre.pdf?1495309229=&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B+filename%3DCritical_Realism_and_the_Verbum_Mentis.pdf&Expires=1719814154&Signature=fSrdHlxObwBUY0NgEBVAZwpZqN7LSugR2djLhTFyHjE7wtl3zCSI3FRhLKi1YlC-TR-uYqqQtq0E4TLOlQ4laSB7aGcYhGmgalVvpQYYkx5sph0HdYyo4I6aZ3ENJvUqae0AGrHJM06E4YW5q-yVmAMsVabg9-DnBPQTGHJ8iCRJIngMMlNoCf1jX1xK-PDh2Tq38krwG7rgTohbXdKYYmzyZBvZx71Qf4fvPALayKBlrWYoG6uFPyYPjsFoxc8maB836xW60FbMj4ZnKkHfork7MXJZwuy-93zMgDtZvnvpAhf6SyBDXgq4HGqfUGNMjDUzSHyRPtfYLnUbqf1pFA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA).

Revisiting the analogy of quantum entanglement and information theory in physics, we find a parallel in how non-local phenomena operate in their own ordering domain without conflicting with the relativistic view of time. This duality can be communicated through semiotic realism by recognizing that the signs and symbols of quantum mechanics signify a different ontological order, much like how divine actions transcend temporal constraints. By integrating semiotic realism, we can appreciate that these distinct domains of existence, whether in the realm of physics or theology, are harmonized through the signs that reveal their deeper, unified reality. As the article notes, “nonlocality is the mother of all physics riddles, implicated in a broad cross section of the mysteries that physicists confront these days” (Musser, 2015). This underscores the coexistence of non-local phenomena with relativistic time, mirroring how theological concepts can transcend apparent contradictions (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/).

(Please note: any discussion on the coexistence of quantum mechanics and relativistic time is a metaphor for understanding divine timelessness proper. I understand that.)

In brief, it is possible to systematically subtract time, change, and temporal causality from our understanding of God, in such a way that it should help one to arrive at a coherent view of God’s timeless and immutable nature. The process reminds me-metaphorically speaking-of finding the lowest common denominator in math, where a higher-order idea looks fine, but when one applies some provokes, there’s a deeper end. The approach, however, is not math but should guide one to an understanding of the divine attributes, respecting the ontological distinctions between God and creation while effectively communicating theological truths.

God exists outside of time and is not bound by its sequential nature for a very simple reason at the end of the day: God’s essence is fully undivided and uncommunicated within each of the divine Persons, an ordering principle unto their own reality (absolutely unique unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity). God’s actions and knowledge are fully actualized in an eternal state, sustaining all creation in a single, undivided act. This view is reinforced by classical philosophical insights from Aristotle and Aquinas, who describe time as the measure of change and causality as the relationship between cause and effect. God’s causality, unlike that within the created order, is an ontological grounding that operates eternally and not temporally. This distinction helps clarify that while time measures the sequence of events, God’s causality transcends these limitations, offering a deeper understanding of divine providence and the sustaining act of creation. 

(Again to say, God is outside of time is a semiotic act, but I intend it as an analogical expression ontologically. To say that God is outside of time means that His existence and actions are not subject to temporal succession but are fully actualized in a single, eternal, and unified act, transcending the sequential nature of time.)

By combining insights from Boethius, Aristotle, Kemple, Aquinas, and more the systematic approach of subtracting time from our understanding of God’s nature emphasizes the timeless, immutable, and perfect essence of God. This comprehensive view respects the ontological distinctions between the Creator and creation, ensuring that theological truths are effectively communicated and understood within the framework of classical theistic thought and deeply informed Catholic doctrine.

—

TL;DR

The paper explores the concept of divine timelessness through two main approaches: the intuitive understanding of God’s perfection and a detailed philosophical analysis. It begins by demonstrating that God’s nature is timeless and immutable, supported by His perfection, as outlined in classical doctrine. This approach is simple and commonsensical, emphasizing that God’s infinite attributes necessitate immutability. The paper then delves into a more complex analysis, drawing on the works of Boethius, Aristotle, and Aquinas, to explore the metaphysical distinctions that establish God’s timeless nature. By examining both the intuitive notion of God’s perfection and the sophisticated metaphysical nuances of the tradition, the piece provides a coherent view that God’s timelessness transcends temporal constraints, harmonizing divine immutability with classical theistic and Catholic doctrinal perspectives. Ultimately, the paper presents an understanding that God’s timelessness is grounded in His perfect, unchanging nature, demonstrating that God’s existence and actions transcend temporal limitations while maintaining a philosophically informed Catholic perspective.

Finally, we can say through all that the piece accomplishes, that God is not subject to time; as Pure Act and perfect in all attributes, His existence and actions are fully actualized in an eternal, immutable state, transcending temporal succession and change. In contrast, time measures the sequential progression of events and changes within the created order, underscoring the stark distinction between the mutable nature of creation and the immutable essence of God. Using ‘state’ to describe God’s nature bridges our understanding with a touch of irony, for while we employ familiar, temporal terms, they point to a reality far beyond the reach of our finite comprehension, hinting at the ever-greater dissimilarity between the Creator and creation.

Bibliography:

1. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/

• Part I, Question 3, Article 1
• Part I, Question 3, Article 2
• Part I, Question 3, Article 7
• Part I, Question 7, Article 1
• Part I, Question 9, Article 1
• Part I, Question 2, Article 3
• Part I, Question 105, Article 5

2. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Classics MIT. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html

• Book I
• Book IX
• Book IX

3. Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. CCEL. https://ccel.org/ccel/boethius/consolation.vi.html

• Book V, Prose VI

4. Catechism of the Catholic Church. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

5. Kemple, Brian. Critical Realism and the Verbum Mentis. Academia. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/53211858/2016-04-24-CriticalRealism_VerbumMentis-libre.pdf

6. Musser, George. “How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange Nonlocality.” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

7. Przywara, Erich. Analogia Entis. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014.

8. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Quantum Mechanics and Action at a Distance.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/

9. Würsten, Matthias. “ETH Researchers’ Experiment Confirms that Superconducting Circuits Operate According to the Laws of Quantum Mechanics.” Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2023-05-entangled-quantum-circuits-einstein-concept.html