Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Adder, Desolous

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
    • Nepal (Last post by Connor L.)
    • Only a million in assistance? Oh geez. :unsure: They're gonna need a LOT more than that from us.
    • The Reiki Thread :-) (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: Quote: Start low, end high. I tend to breath in through nose only when their is obvious particulate or its really cold, otherwise I get better flow in through the mouth and adequate filtration through the moisture in the mouth, and out through the nose to retain moisture. Switch them both around in different configs depending on circumstance. Is it releted to Reiki? the original intent of the question was specifically during a reiki treatment but since its been asked i guess any good suggestions on breathwork are beneficial in general also id like to be clear with the responses so far - when people say "start low" are you meaning "belly breathin/use your diaphram" low or "draw from the center of the earth low"? that may seem like a silly question i have had great resluts from using the feeling that my feet and legs draw in from the earth with every inhalation similar to how a plant might draw water into itself from the ground and generally, i feellike i project outwards better either when i hold my breath or on exhalation I cannot speak for Khaos who used the same wording (prior to me), but I was just referring to normal breathing and so only meant diaphragm, draw into the belly sort of thing. I've always just used CV-6 气海 as a cauldron of energy to punctuate with breath... like a wind blowing into a room and mixing with a stream of incense to fill the space with smoke. I don't do Reiki so I cannot comment beyond that, but I do do various breathing exercises from the Doctrine/Yoga of Inner Heat, Tummo, Kundalini, whatever you'd like to call it!
    • Interactive Art (Last post by Edan)
    • Saw this today on Reddit, love it (Definitely check out the Scream) fff.cmiscm.com/#!/main
    • Rewrite the Bible? (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • Quote: Quote: That's why I think it'd be better to rewrite it. Our nature hasn't changed, but the life and culture of the US of today is vastly different than the life and culture of the Middle East 4,000 years ago. Jesus washed feet. Big deal? Actually it was. But you have to know the culture and history of the area to understand why people were flipping out about it. Maybe he washed their car instead? haha no idea. But that's why I think a group of people who know the history and culture could better rewrite it for today. I think the myths are there, and they're wonderful. The spirit of the message really does pertain to today, but without being a historian, I feel a lot of the impact is missing. But make a new New King James Version with Jesus walking the streets of New York today. ...although I think the troubles will come with the whole crucifixion thing haha. We really don't have the same kind of executions that could reflect near the kind of suffering crucifixion inflicts. Pick three stories you like, and I'll make it my weekend project. since no one else seems to be taking you up on it, and minus any kind of time expectations, if you get the feeling for it id personally love a jonah/jonas and the whale update in a way, i feel that story pretty well encompasses the "spiritual crisis" of our era
    • what is the significance of... (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • what is the significance of the associations which make up the concept of "the devil"? embodiment of evil overlord of hell rebelled against god tempts and corrupts man likes to party original appearance as the serpent which is deeply associated with (among other things) wisdom referred to as "the adversay" whose name is lucifer which translates as "morning star" and has astronomical implications also there is the translation "light bearer" or "light bringer" light having the symbolic associations of wisdom or reason is this coincidental? if not then what is the significance? if so then what new ideas does the association activate?
    • Vegetarianism (Last post by Locksley)
    • The main thing is making sure your diet stays balanced, as there are some nutrients which are more accessible in meat, and therefor require a good alternative - tofu is great if cooked right, but be wary of too many soy products in the diet. Various types of beans give you a high protein yield, and root vegetables will help keep your mineral levels up as well - so will certain leafy veggies like chard. I'd suggest paying for a professional consultation with a nutritionist who can talk with you, go over the pros and cons, and help you tailor your diet to your lifestyle as well as any health concerns.
    • A Daily Practice for Somewhat Spiritual Noobs... (Last post by Locksley)
    • Mindfulness meditation, like Connor said, is great - and any form of daily meditation really starts to change things for the better - or so I've found. A mindfulness technique I was taught is to simply take notice whenever you make a value judgement about yourself or other people, don't try to stop the judgement, just notice that it occurred - it helps build an awareness of how your mind functions, and can let you deal with powerful emotions better in the long run (with a little help from yer friends).
    • Hi I'm new! And I want to tell you about Kundalini... (Last post by Jaksis)
    • Hi! I'm new, and just wanted to tell you all about Kundalini Yoga! It has been a life changer for me, and it focuses equally on breathework, core work, and mental focus at all time, feeling as though it is a constant meditation. At the end of most classes, a unique guided meditation is lead by the instructor, followed by a deep gong bath and meditation, which honestly makes you feel as though you are, as they say, feeling the same deep vibration and resonance that you feel when you both enter, and leave this world of ours. I could not give it more praise, and it has helped me clear my mind and more importantly helped me immensely with meditation practice. I couldn't say anything of higher praise than I do of these classes. When it comes to yoga, this is a different experience not to be missed, as it is truly beneficial and will help strengthen ANY spiritual practice.
    • Men Hardwired to be Better than Women at Chess (Last post by Radar6590)
    • Quote: Regarding Magnus Carlson's game, one game of chess doesn't prove anything, because at some point in the future the best player in the game will probably be a woman. You need to have a discussion about trends and averages, because there will always be a few data points which lie outside of the norm. I just want to make myself clear that the game was an example of what I was talking about, but my post was based on statistics. I talked about elo rating, which is the literal statistical chance that you have to win versus another player. Magnus' rates almost 200 elo points higher than some of the top female chess players. Statistically, this means he has about a 75% win chance against even the top players. Quote: For whatever reason, men seem to be able to do this more consistently over hundreds of games, thus their higher statistical wins and elo. Women can do it too, usually reaching high 2600's, but the current world champ Magnus Carlsen is almost at 2900, with the skill level increasing exponentially the higher you go. I posted the Magnus game because it seemed relevant to the topic as supplementary material, and to show you an example of one game. I don't think that Magnus' win percentage is actually that high overall, something like 60-65%, but that is of course versus other world caliber players. Versus a lower caliber players like a 2650 he has a much higher change to win. This would be based off of their overall tournament games of course, and there is something to be said for also checking personal records. I would also like to point out that I don't think it's reflective of chess players as a whole, but more of an indicator in top level play. (I myself peaked at about 1700 before I stopped playing tournaments when I went to college - many, many women can beat me!) So to back my statement up, here's a chart showing elo differences and the statistical likely hood that you'll win: Spoiler: Elo rating vs. winning probabilities This table shows the correlation between the difference in Elo points and the probability of winning a game (in bold). So for example if a player has won 60% of her games against an opponent, she would be approximately 72 Elo points stronger. Conversely, a player that is 150 points weaker than his opponent, has only a 30% chance of winning a game. .99 +677______ .66 +117______ .33 -125 .98 +589______ .65 +110______ .32 -133 .97 +538______ .64 +102______ .31 -141 .96 +501______ .63 +95______ .30 -149 .95 +470______ .62 +87______ .29 -158 .94 +444______ .61 +80______ .28 -166 .93 +422______ .60 +72______ .27 -175 .92 +401______ .59 +65______ .26 -184 .91 +383______ .58 +57______ .25 -193 .90 +366______ .57 +50______ .24 -202 .89 +351______ .56 +43______ .23 -211 .88 +335______ .55 +36______ .22 -220 .87 +322______ .54 +29______ .21 -230 .86 +309______ .53 +21______ .20 -240 .85 +296______ .52 +14______ .19 -251 .84 +284______ .51 +7______ .18 -262 .83 +273______ .50 0______ .17 -273 .82 +262______ .49 -7______ .16 -284 .81 +251______ .48 -14______ .15 -296 .80 +240______ .47 -21______ .14 -309 .79 +230______ .46 -29______ .13 -322 .78 +220______ .45 -36______ .12 -335 .77 +211______ .44 -43______ .11 -351 .76 +202______ .43 -50______ .10 -366 .75 +193______ .42 -57______ .09 -383 .74 +184______ .41 -65______ .08 -401 .73 +175______ .40 -72______ .07 -422 .72 +166______ .39 -80______ .06 -444 .71 +158______ .38 -87______ .05 -470 .70 +149______ .37 -95______ .04 -501 .69 +141______ .36 -102______ .03 -538 .68 +133______ .35 -110______ .02 -589
    • Just for Laughs (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • if you ever get cold try standing in the corner for a while theyre usually ninety degrees why cant ray charles see his friends? because hes married why do you never see elephants hiding in trees? because theyre really good at it i could really see myself in a job cleaning mirrors two fish are in a tank one is driving and the other is moving the cannon Last Christmas We Bought A Fake Christmas Tree. The guy behind the counter said “Are you going to put it up yourself?” My dad said, “Don’t be disgusting. I’m going to put it in the living room.” A man opens his front door and sees a snail on his front step. The man takes the snail and throws it across the road. A year later, the same man opens the same door to find the same snail on the same step. The snail looks up at him and hollers, “What the **** was that all about!?” hellen keller walks into a bar then a table then a chair my granpa has the heart of a lion and hes never allowed back in the zoo whats the stupidest animal in the jungle? the polar bear do you have holes in your shoes? how did you get your feet into them? two cows are standing in a field the first cow says "hey did you hear about the outbreak of mad cow disease?" the second cows says "its a good thing im flying this helicoptor" the lord said "come forth and recieve eternal life" john came fith and got a toaster times like these i wish i had listened to my mother what did she say? i dont know, i wasnt listening
    • Rants far and wide (Last post by Goken)
    • Quote: I try very hard not to hold other people up to the standards I set for myself, I really do. But today I have just been surrounded by so much incompetence that I wish I could fire all of my coworkers and train their replacements myself. Our jobs are not that hard! Luckily, a quick meditation during my lunch break has alleviated my need for mass firings. Ah, the Jedi way triumphs again. B) I feel the need to re-post this pretty much every time I work a Saturday. I get that we work at a bank and that makes us feel like having to work on a Saturday is a stupid and pointless thing but we still have a job to do and it should be done with the same care and skill as it was done the previous five days of the week.

There are 900 visitors, 8 guests and 46 members online (one in chat): Br. John, Zanthan Storm, Alethea Thompson, steamboat28, Shadouness, baru, Jestor, Damion_Storm, Nakis, Connor L., Adder, Darren, yobenjo, Proteus, Luthien, Locksley, Elemental Harmony, Talariq, Llama Su, Raikoutenshi, Kamizu, Zenchi, Pyrus Erath, peace, benedictveritas, Janice, Red, Radar6590, Matsukaze, Slebo, Rocda, Tk768, OB1Shinobi, Atticus509, TheDude, Krieger, Sonny, Talrin, Almah, Blackbeard, Lestaut, Kenno_62, WayneTec, Jayden the 2nd, Xhaiden.

Follow Us