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


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
    • UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime (Last post by Reacher)
    • Edan, You ask some questions based on fair concerns. I will address them as thoroughly as I can, given my experience and limitations inherent to this forum. Quote: Whether or not the USA is more inclined towards bombing their allies I don't know, but incidences like the attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan requires me to ask if military action causes a 'desensitisation' towards people in general. The answer to the first clause is flatly 'no'. The US is not more inclined towards bombing its allies, at least in sentiment. The US military has dropped more airpower on its conflicts by several orders of magnitude than any force in history...so from a sheer volume perspective, I guess it IS more inclined to bomb its allies when it is dropping the most munitions. To the point that DWOB isn't an 'ally' in the traditional sense of the word...that demands a closer look because it has bearing on the second part of your question here. When you really take a look at armed conflict throughout history, one thing you'll notice is that symmetrical warfare is by far a minority. Symmetrical warfare, in this case, is 'like' forces battling 'like' forces - uniformed soldiers with rifles shooting at uniformed soldiers with rifles, tank-on-tank battles, etc. Militaries often find themselves mired in conflicts against a more population-based enemy...one who works constantly to make that military's strengths irrelevant to the conflict. Hence using schools, hospitals, women and children, and religious temples as places from which to attack. The stronger adversary calls the weaker one a coward for not fighting by its rules (and moralities), and the cycle continues. One thing we have re-learned after nearly a decade and a half of conflict is that wars of this kind are often won or lost not on a traditional battlefield...but in popular opinion. We have dominated the air, sea, and land domains so well for so long that our adversaries naturally gravitated to another with the onset of technology - the human domain. With social media maturing, public opinion often moves faster now than news networks' ability to report it. Considering all that as contextual overlay...bombing one of the most altruistic non-governmental organizations in existence is a really, REALLY bad move if done deliberately. I cannot imagine a scenario short of ending the war in Syria where a commander with release authority would assume that level of risk. On that...risk. Prior to every operation...whether it's a soldier driving home on vacation all the way up to the Bin Laden raid, there is a risk assessment done. A risk assessment does two things: 1. Demonstrates that the executing element has considered the risks associated with their mission, and 2. Provides higher commands with a recommendation as to who can approve the mission and at what level. A low level of risk (To men, mission, population, etc.) may stay within a specific task force commander's purview. The higher the risk, the more likely it will land on a politician's desk. Another consideration as to who can approve is the operating space in which the mission occurs. If it is NOT a declared battle space...The US Department of State often has primacy, which complicates things (appropriately so) for the action element. I write this only to show that there is a process for establishing the authority to release munitions for a mission like this. Part of the reason you see the president apologizing is that, while one can delegate authority...one can never delegate responsibility. Is it enough? No...but it's a start. We will see how the investigation pans out. Quote: Why is this happening still? Is it carelessness? Lack of information? I appreciate that friendly fire comes in various different 'guises'... I can't say, in this particular instance. I do know that there is a process of establishing a trigger for releasing munitions...and there are always multiple ones that feed, independent of one another, into a drop order. In most cases, you are assuming unacceptable and ILLEGAL risk if you're dropping a bomb solely because one observer saw the target enter a hut...or on one UAV feed. A lot more goes into it than that. That said, the US does have a habit of relying on technology too heavily to provide certain capabilities. It bit us hard with ODA 574 and again on Roberts Ridge. Unfortunately, the more denied the environment is to us, the more we have to depend on technology as a bridging solution to do the things we want to do. At first glance, it seems we reached too far again. Thing is...someone decided it was worth the risks as they saw them, and operator error is a part of that risk assessment process. All conjecture, on my part. I hold with Avalonslight in that we don't know what happened...and may not ever get the full story. However it shakes out...this is just terrible.
    • Your Inner Council: What is it and how to develop ... (Last post by MadHatter)
    • So LoudZoo how do you communie with these counciors of yours? What have you done to be able to tap into their mind and spirit so as to get their perspective and not your own? Oh and I got to ask is your name a play on Lao Tzu the philosopher?
    • Guns in America (Last post by Alethea Thompson)
    • Which is my point. I twisted what you stated. (btw, you were the one that stated initially that you would have a higher chance of getting killed by vehicle than heart disease, I just took what you [accidently] said and proved it to be the bigger concern. I didn't say it would be accurate. I made your statistics state a much different picture by giving context. People look at what someone has to say, and then never look into the work themselves to determine things for themselves. Your heart disease is not that big of a concern when you consider that heart disease on average is something you can easily prevent. You cannot prevent the drivers around you from being idiots- only yourself. So given that only 11.3% of the population is even diagnosed with heart disease, it is not something that people need to worry too terribly much about if they are taking eating habits and exercise seriously. But there is nothing they can do about the road.
    • mind over matter (Last post by Zhaerys)
    • This is where meditation comes in, as well as the idea of practice. meditation allows you to control your mind and thoughts, meditating ( at-least closing your eyes and breath control for 2-3 minutes) before a test or event greatly helps with the nervousness. Practice is what we also fail to do, the more you apply yourself and do, the more you can do, .. a simple example is physics and my math homework, I have never done this before but do have a great interest in it. Its so making me angry right now but as i keep practicing and going over and over, I find myself do so much better. In our studies of the force, I believe what you put in into it and what you want it to do is up to you, mind over matter is up to the user in a way.
    • If people of all religions can be saved, why do we... (Last post by Aqua)
    • Quote: Aqua... create is the correct word. There is a created need that the creators fill. That's all. It fills from many different views. I as a Jedi don't have a need for salvation in the same religious way. My wisdom comes from within and the credit doesn't go to an individual but me...and that's where the path gets involved...the ,I know more I'm Jedi, mentality comes. The dark side lol feel free to pm of u like I graduated from Pensacola Christian College...name drop lol ''Creative thinker sees the invisible, feels untouchable, and achieves the impossible.'' :blush:
    • On War & Religion (Last post by Gisteron)
    • Quote: i dont see any reason to believe that morality developed separate from religion - theres no evidence to suggest it that i know of Well, in this case let me inform you that a number of animals living today (and one can reasonably expect it being similar in the past, with animals of comparable social capacities) do have a morality. This is a claim I make, and while I am no zoologist, I am willing and able to cite sources. Thus, I present to thee, monkeys that understand the concept of fairness and value: And here is a link to the research paper, just so nobody thinks I'm citing YouTube as a source: www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/publications/...snan_deWaal_2003.pdf If, as you say, it was not until the dawn of religion that hominini developed a sense of morality, we should expect to see other animal clades with any so rudimentary grasp of morality to have a rudimentary type of religion to account for that also. Since morality is a frequent result of and condition for social behaviour and can be sufficiently explained and accounted for as such, if you wish to maintain that morality in its beginnings requires religion, it remains to demonstrate that in every instance where morality can be observed, religion - past or present - is observable also. Go ahead.
    • Duty sword advice (Last post by Star Forge)
    • Quote: I'd recommend you get a body camera and take lessons on how to disarm someone. This whole fictional terrorism threat is creating mass delusion and paranoia. Don't add to the police state by becoming a corporate security tyrant. I haven't stepped foot in a mall for over a decade but you're more likely to encounter a teenage gangster wannabe with a knife than a terrorist. [video] By "terror," we mean organized gang activity, though we don't rule out having to deal with Jihadists. We once had a suspicious group of Chechens that we dealt with without causing any alarm. Also, the kids of today are not the kids of yesterday. Kids don't carry chromed .25 auto pistols and flea market switchblades anymore. I've confiscated several sawed-down semi-auto shotguns hidden inside backpacks, a full-auto Ruger 10/22, an endless list of high-capacity semi-auto pistols, a couple Desert Eagles, and even a sawed-down .50 Barrett. Not to mention all the weirdo left-wing kids who do half-assed terrorist acts to be cool. Terrorism is hyped up in the media, but not fictional in the least. I am not contributing to the "police state" in any way. The mall is a private business, and the owners have the right to use whatever security measures they want, just as a US citizen has the right to own a weapon to defend their home or business.
    • Jedi Community Page (Last post by Connor L.)
    • There is a Halloween Party scheduled for Oct. 31 with the Chicago Jedi. The Indy Jedi are heading up. :)
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by Luthien)
    • 3 x 5 Front squat 3 x 5 Overhead press 1 x 5 Deadlift For time: 30 185-lb Deadlifts 45 Sumo-deadlift High-pulls (basically an upright row that starts in the deadlift position) 4 Overhead squats (naked bar; could not do more since my shoulders wouldn't hold out for all 30 Rx'd. Still working on my shoulder mobility.) [7:39.9] 30 Leg lifts Edit: Song that helped me power through some of the rougher parts of this was The Dark Templar Symphony by BERSERKYD (see below) Spoiler:
    • 'Mo'vember (Last post by Kamizu)
    • No shave november (well to fall into regulation it would properly be called Movember lol) was always a big thing at my last squadron. I tried it every year. Never did win any of the awards... :dry: :silly:
    • Uplifting Thoughts & Quotes For The Day (Last post by Janice)
    • Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom. ~ Viktor Frankl
    • Jedi Charity (Last post by MadHatter)
    • Quote: we're scattered a good bit as well.... no matter how much i donate, it never feels like enough...so many in need... I totally understand the feeling but even if we were Bill Gates we couldnt end poverty. The only thing we can do is take pride and pleasure in knowing that what we do brings joy into the lives of others. So many need so much that we would go mad if we thought of the things we cant or dont do. We instead must focus on what we can and will do.

There are 687 visitors, 7 guests and 28 members online (one in chat): Sirius, Br. John, Sarus, baru, Jestor, ren, Connor L., Star Forge, Luthien, Reacher, Alexandre Orion, E-3_4L_Teeter, Kamizu, Edan, carlos.martinez3, Cristris_Jons, Loudzoo, Krieger, Seda Arksmen, PowderCat, Tellahane, Corsair Gorscue, Mikhael, ShizLAN, Tymmy, Ellipses, JLSpinner, flowerfie, obiwankenokie, MadHatter, Raven Crest, Uberbeam, Lane22, Kikyo.

Follow Us