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
    • geometric sequencing (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • i really think its at least possible that thats why the cameras are always built into the machines facing the user directly phones for instance didnt always have the front camera also ive taken phones apart and found what definitely looked like a camera lens on the inside the curious bug in me says its a great idea but the freedom loving individualist in me says that kind of power collected so covertly cannot at all be a good thing
    • Politics Everywhere? (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • gorrillas will oust an alpha if he fails as a leader a big part of his leadership role requires a kind of social sensitivity or social acuity to the members in the group wolves at first glance appear to be in a purely physical contest of strength, but its not always the largest wolf that leads and this is seen in many "alpha" social structures, intelligence and confidence -or assertivenesss, even personal charisma are major factors in determining status in a group. who wins an election if not the stronger candidate who ran the stronger campaign or had the strongest platform?
    • Jedi Community Action Group (Last post by Brenna)
    • Saw this and was reminded of this thread. "The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you're accountable." — Arundhati Roy
    • Jedi Bush-trackers... (Last post by steamboat28)
    • Quote: a tip for starting fires without a match.... So far, I have successfully started fire with every "element" (whether Classical or Wu Xing) except water. It's next on my list. My favorite method, however, is the fire piston. [video]
    • So, whos fault is it? (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • don miguel ruiz authored "the four agreements" as far as i can tell it is an evolution or perhaps a divergent interpretation of/to the works of carlos castaneda generally these can be found under the headings "toltec" "nagualism" and of course "new age" the agreements are 1 - be impeccable with your word 2 - dont make any assumptions 3 - dont take anything personally 4 - always do your best not making assumptions and not taking anything personally are the most relevant here, though being impeccable with your word means one the one hand expressing and explaining things as precisely as possible so that you are understood and also being resolutely honest, but also being absolutely inflexible about dishing out poison or emotional gunk. basically never using ones words to hurt or punish others or to vent our own negativity/spread poison into other peoples emotional states what he says about assumptions is that they cause of a huge amount of sabotage in relationships all kinds of relationships, but especially romantic ones because the assumption is that the other person understands how we feel about everything and how we will interpret their actions or words in virtually every instance, and so if they dont live up to our expectations we further assume that its because they dont care about us or about how we feel or that they dont respect us not to mention all the assumptions we make about what theyre thinking or doing on their own so the next thing usually is we take this personal and we say things we dont really mean and that serve no purpose other than to hurt or punish the other person as i think about it, adherence to any one of these agreements would have totally changed the way this situation played out even doing her best if she would have been deliberately mindful of the idea of always doing her best then she might have gone on to bed without him, or she would have found something else to focus on deliberately without being distracted or her best to not take personally that ole dude was late likely she would not even have dropped the cup to begin with thats what this conversation reminded me of doing our best means doing our best to live up to the other agreements also
    • Meditation tips (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: Rid your mind of any "empty head" nonsense you may have heard, and just be aware. Nonsense!!! My heads empty often and your right it is non-sense :lol: Perhaps better put, it could be the first step to being better able to focus on the 'mindstream' is just to observe it, but then for many later on it becomes second nature to work with it easily from emptiness to focused and back again as required - of course it cannot be empty, its just less detached and errant. Large chunks of Vajrayana are dedicated to 'cutting off' the mindstream to go deeper and deeper, perhaps better phrased as truer and truer or more 'now'!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6d
    • Mars One (Last post by a67)
    • It's easy to say, first we need to focus on Earth problem. Wich are the problems our planet are suffering? There a lot of things we don't know about the space. I don't think it's going to be a failure unless we begin a war on space. If we focus to the sucess instead of failure we can move mountain. Can we change the problems on Earth or do we really want? Who don't want the current state change? I am not pointing on anyone. I am just sure things can change easily in 10 years. Unfortunately, we are not aware of all the technologies we have now. www.nbcnews.com/science/space/life-mars-...hane-mystery-n269311 worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/question...evive-its-magnetosph www.mars-one.com/mission/risks-and-challenges www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/...blic-interest/47616/ Just like that. Life is a one way trip too.
    • Application Open: Secretary for the Synod (Last post by V-Tog)
    • The Synod is currently is looking for the right candidate for the position of Secretary for the Synod and welcomes applications from interested Clergy members. Job Description: The Secretary for the Synod is responsible for supporting a broad range of Synod initiatives, from recording Synod discussion, assisting the other members of the Synod with their initiatives, providing insight and aiding in engagement with the wider Clergy and the Temple congregation as a whole. Prerequisites for Application: Must be a member of the Clergy (Licensed Minister or above) Must be in good standing with the Temple How to Apply: To apply please send a message to the members of the Synod; Alexandre Orion, Akkarin and V-Tog. You may, if you wish, explain why you would like to fill this position. Closing Date for Applications: Saturday 11th April, 23:59 UTC Enquiries regarding the position or the application process should be sent in a PM to Alexandre, Akkarin or myself. Note: You do not need to send your questions or concerns to all three of us, but you do need to send your application to all three of us. There is also a vacancy for the position of Secretary to the Clergy, details of which can be found here. Please take your time to familiarize yourself with the differences between these two roles and to decide which one you may be more suited to. You are welcome to apply for both positions, if you wish, but please indicate your preferred role in your application.
    • Application Open: Secretary for the Clergy (Last post by V-Tog)
    • The Synod is currently is looking for the right candidate for the position of Secretary for the Clergy and welcomes applications from interested Clergy members. Job Description: The Secretary for the Clergy serves the TotJO by centralising communications between the Clergy and the community, between the Synod and active Clergy members and Seminarians. The Secretary for the Clergy is the primary chairperson of Clergy meetings, ensuring the orderly progression of the meeting and producing a comprehensive transcript of proceedings. It is also in this Office that the Sermon Schedule is determined and maintained. Prerequisites for Application: Must be a member of the Clergy (Licensed Minister or above) Must be in good standing with the Temple How to Apply: To apply please send a message to the members of the Synod; Alexandre Orion, Akkarin and V-Tog. You may, if you wish, explain why you would like to fill this position. Closing Date for Applications: Saturday 11th April, 23:59 UTC Enquiries regarding the position or the application process should be sent in a PM to Alexandre, Akkarin or myself. Note: You do not need to send your questions or concerns to all three of us, but you do need to send your application to all three of us. There is also a vacancy for the position of Secretary to the Synod, details of which can be found here. Please take your time to familiarize yourself with the differences between these two roles and to decide which one you may be more suited to. You are welcome to apply for both positions if you wish, but please indicate your preferred role in your application.

There are 200 visitors, one guest and 29 members online (3  in chat): Br. John, steamboat28, RyuJin, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, Damion_Storm, Nakis, Connor L., Adder, Desolous, Proteus, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Arcade, Brenna, Archon, Kamizu, Wudan, SilverWolf, a67, BeBe, GalUnDrux, Jeffery Williams, Tk768, Hitira38, Ramadeus, Mandalore XIII, Atticus509, bloodx.

Follow Us