Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

Excert from 'Summa Thealogica' 11 Sep 2007 21:24 #6927

  • Twsoundsoff
  • Twsoundsoff's Avatar
Excert from Summa Theologica, by St. Thomas Aquinas


THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (THREE ARTICLES)

Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning of things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavor to expound this science, we shall treat: (1) Of God; (2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God; (3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God.

In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall consider: (1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence; (2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.

Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider: (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence; (3) Whatever concerns His operations---namely, His knowledge, will, power.

Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the proposition \"God exists\" is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether God exists?

Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), \"the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all.\" Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word \"God\" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word \"God\" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition \"God exists\" is self-evident.

Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition \"Truth does not exist\" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: \"I am the way, the truth, and the life\" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore \"God exists\" is self-evident.

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition \"God is\" can be mentally admitted: \"The fool said in his heart, There is no God\" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as \"Man is an animal,\" for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: \"Whether all that is, is good\"), \"that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.\" Therefore I say that this proposition, \"God exists,\" of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q[3], A[4]). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature---namely, by effects.

Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

Reply to Objection 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word \"God\" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word \"God\" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

Reply to Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.



Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says: \"The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made\" (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called \"a priori,\" and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration \"a posteriori\"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word \"God\".

Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.



Whether God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word \"God\" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: \"I am Who am.\" (Ex. 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. 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.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But \"more\" and \"less\" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): \"Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.\" This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Discussion 4 - Crossing The Threshold (Last post by AlexanderJ.W)
    • 1. Consider the phrase "Point of no return". Say it aloud. How does it make you feel? Have you ever had to make a decision in your life which caused you to feel you were crossing a "point of no return"? Point of no return feels like a challenge. Something that I believe is to make the hero uneasy, but I feel curious and become even more determined to prove myself and to push myself over my own expectations. When I broke up with my girlfriend after eight years together, I felt like I was crossing a point of no return. I knew that even if I love her we can never be together again, and it was terrifying being alone since we had been together for a bit over a third of my life time, so I didn't know who I was or how to behave. 2. A key aspect of this stage is the hero stepping outside of their ordinary culture, and into a different world, with different rules. Describe the biggest "culture shock" you've ever experienced. What was so strange about it? How did it make you feel? My parents are separated since I was about five years old and the two of them have very different types of life styles and cultures. My mother is a social worker and is what I would call a middle class woman, when my father on the other hand is a professional golf trainer and his own business and is doing quite well. In the company of my father’s friends and visiting is work I feel like I don’t belong, like an outsider. So since my childhood has been pending between these to “cultures” I feel like I am pretty tolerant in the face of different cultures. And try to add there point of view to mine instead of replace it with my old one or to adapt to it. Because I think that it is in seeing things from different views that can make one understand. 3. Read this article on homeostasis in the human body. (web.archive.org/web/20141006124710/http:.../what-is-homeostasis) This is a picture of a certain system. It describes 6 elements which must be controlled. Pick any one of these elements. What do you think would happen if this element was halved? What about if the same element was doubled? How would that affect the system? If possible, please relate your answers to the idea of homeostasis in the Hero's Journey, described in this topic. My choice of element is easy I am a diabetic so I could ramble on forever about what happens to the body and how it feels and such if the sugar is doubled or halved, but I won’t because that would be boring for you to read, but if you have any questions about diabetics or you just want to talk about it, feel free to contact me. I love discussing it with others. To give a simple and quick answer you would die. And that goes for all the elements there has to be a balance to sustain life. And I think that goes for the point of no return as well if the hero are too attached to the stage of the monomyth that hero is in right now he might make excuses no to leave. And if he is to eager to leave he might miss the value of the point of no return and the stage of monomyth that he is currently in. 4. There are a number of thresholds at TOTJO. An obvious one is joining the Temple and making your first post. Describe your experience of starting out here. How did you feel? What were you major concerns? Can you think of further thresholds here at TOTJO? It felt like I found people who had the same idea of thinking, beliefs of the force and the same tolerance towards other people and curiosity. It felt like I found something that was missing in my life and it doesn't go a day without me thinking of our order and the meaning of it and what it has done to me as a human being. When I did my application to join as a guest I was lyrical. I had so high hopes of what I had found and my expectations were very high and the Temple lived up to theme times ten, and has taught me things I didn't thought was possible. As for further thresholds I believe that completing the initiation program is also an obvious one, and so is all the different rankings in the Temple are thresholds. But I also believe that it is in all the things we learn in every sermons that make me think of things in a different way that is testing my beliefs and reasoning how things work. And in all the lessons and all the other members of the temple. They become a threshold because they define who I am by questioning what I think and makes me think of myself and how I think over and over again.
    • BBC News - "Have Jedis created a new religion... (Last post by Proteus)
    • I feel, we are only what we are, both on an individual basis, and on a whole. I am a part of the community known as real world Jedi. However, I am just Ethan. I have many sources of inspiration both fictional and non-fictional. I will not try to speak for nor flat represent the entire community since I am only one member in it. So, whether or not this group uses one particular source of inspiration or another, or none at all, does not concern me. We all have other sources of inspiration other than just Jedi and those sources are always present in one way or another. We can acknowledge our inspiration from Star Wars, but we can also acknowledge our inspiration from whatever else we each personally derive that inspiration from. It makes no difference. However, I feel none of you should be neither ashamed nor attached to any one source, such as Jedi. It is meant as a loose reference, picked as a personal choice, representing a deeper reference to simply "the hero" in every individual, as part of a larger story we all comprise. At the end of the day, do whatever you want to do with the terms and labels. Just don't let yourself be insecure about it in either manner. :)
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by Exarchias)
    • 15 x 3 x (2 hands) 3 kg Biceps 15 x 3 Push ups 15 x 3 Sit ups 15 x 3 crunches 15 x 3 air squats 15 x 3 Push ups 15 x 3 x (2 hands) 3 kg Biceps
    • Jedi Altar (Last post by steamboat28)
    • Quote: I've seen miniature altars/sacred spaces that are created within a used/recycled Altoids tin with a hinged lid. I've always like these because they are very simple, and travel well. That and a book would be all I need. These are both adorable and terribly functional. A friend of mine made something similar (but slightly larger) for his work in the woods, and I have one that's about the size of a tall cigar box.
    • Further Religious Structure (Last post by steamboat28)
    • Quote: Most people here tend to enjoy the looseness of the doctrine, and if it were more specific then it would, as has already been mentioned, cut some people out. That said, one of the joys of the way this faith is currently structured is that if you (as an individual) want it more strict or more cohesive or more whatever for you, it can be. You just can't expect everyone else to follow along with it, because it won't suit everyone.
    • Halloween Movie Suggestions (Last post by Proteus)
    • Quote: The Legend of Hell House (1973) - A group of ghost hunters find what they've been looking for in a spooky old mansion. Ohh! I didn't think there was anybody else I would ever meet who knew about the Legend of Hell House! I watched it as a kid and had nightmares about it for weeks! :D
    • Idea: topic/thread for insomniacs (Last post by Exarchias)
    • Quote: Quote: I always have called it the hour of the wolf or homework time when I was younger. I was exactly the same as a teenager... 3am was my usual essay writing time! At the night (the small hours) there are few advantages that we make a use of. The connection is better, we don't have distractions, (the distractions are sleeping), and it is quiet and cozy. Good choice for writing :)
    • The Never-Ending Story... (Last post by Proteus)
    • I grew up on the movie (and the sequel, but only the first one). I hadn't thought much about it since those days, so this connection to Buddhism is new to me (and rather interesting). I've read some reviews of the book which I think I would like to read someday. Given what I have learned about the Hero's Journey, and religions such as Buddhism, I think it might be an interesting read. As for that video itself, I actually don't know where they were trying to go with one character being overly dramatic and the other being dismissive - whether they were trying to support what they were pointing out or if they were just making fun of it, or both for some reason?
    • Virtues or Choices? (Last post by Llama Su)
    • Hurry up, but wait... :sick: :dry: :laugh: We all have to exist by rules, and natural universal law... There is a time and place to know the right "choice" to hurry or to wait... :silly: Conscious awareness of the impact of either, in the moment, is in our mastering the way of the tenants: Focus, knowledge, wisdom... The practice of teaching number eight. To have a patient mind and patient action, matched or balanced... Patience is of high value for it is inner work, self actualization.... Patience can accompany any other virtue, this is why I personally think it is the greatest of. To not have patience shows or exhibits desire, an attachment to expectation to rush or hurry, and or of young/youthful/immature/ or weak mind... A selfish trait to take/ receive/ demand patience in others for you, yet to have/ provide/ give no patience in others... I think it takes a conscious awareness, maybe choice, to balance the hurry with the wait... Just my opinion...
    • It would seem i've posted this in the wrong place.... (Last post by Adder)
    • [image] Mine catching up on the Jay Oh at the Tee Oh Tee. Had a diabetes type 2 diagnosis a couple of years ago, good news is after about 800 injections she is now 2 months off all medication, symptom free, and testing all healthy!!! Fingers xed.

There are 620 visitors, 18 guests and 25 members online (2  are in chat): Br. John, Alethea Thompson, steamboat28, Shadouness, Karn, ren, Kitsu Tails, Nakis, Wescli Wardest, discordor, Proteus, Reacher, rugadd, Alexandre Orion, Arcade, Llama Su, Archon, Kamizu, Silvermane, blindbat84, taidavrikaurvan, SeventhSL, porkapon763, AlexanderJ.W, Goken, Acheron, Tarran, Exarchias, Puerh, WRThore, Dynamite, Cozzy, Priestly, derekandrew34@gmail.com, Jorobbo1177, TheStoneCub, Matt.harrisapp, stevelavine, Martind12, olegend20, Luv Dr, Ja1979.

Follow Us