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
    • Wind Turbine Without Blades (Last post by ren)
    • It's doubtful it will beat the energy to waste ratio of nuclear or hydro though. I'd certainly love to see thorium on base load with engineered reservoirs for storage and peak.
    • Listening to our bodies (Last post by ren)
    • Sodium gives high blood pressure by first giving water retention. The rest of the time it is a necessary part of our diet. So are fats, by the way. What's really worrying are the carbs in the pizza dough and the sugar in the tomato base (both of which are just as addictive as the mtn dew). The cheese and pepperoni are harmless in comparison.
    • What kind of man or women are you towards Jediisme... (Last post by Locksley)
    • I'd love to have confirmation of alien life. Statistically and logically there's no doubt that other life, probably very much like ours, exists out there in the universe. But I'd love to meet some in my lifetime. I also think that a lot of people wouldn't be ready for it - too many closed minds and tiny, walled-off hearts. Not enough joy and imagination left. I'm not sure how those people would react - confirmation of alien life would shake a lot of people to their core, and a lot of people might just outright try and refuse the proof in front of their eyes. "I want to believe" isn't "I want to believe in the existence of aliens," it's: "I want to believe that they'll show up soon, and be friendly too." ;)
    • In the News: I am A Jedi (Last post by Cabur Senaar)
    • Quote: Have you considered that there IS only one way to view Jediism? But many ways to live with in that view? I have considered it. After careful consideration and much furrowing of brow, I decided that was just silly.
    • saber build (Last post by RyuJin)
    • venom claws arrived today, i already mounted them and modified the raven claws, the blade retention screw is hidden by one of the claws. and now until i get the internal parts i'm at a standstill on silver fang.... [attachment]
    • What Are You/We Looking For? (Last post by SilverWolf)
    • I will tell you why I joined TOTJO: All my life I belonged to a Baptist church, and then one day my mother stopped taking us. I never understood why, but I continued to read my bible and believe in God. My dad was a old-time movie buff : Top Hat, Easter Parade, Show boat, The King and I, so I guess you could say my first teachings of "how to be a gentleman" and treat women with respect came from watching those movies, with the help of my dad teaching me how those movies translates to real-life. As I got older, I watched movies like Star Wars, Camelot, Tron , Dragon Heart, and began going to National Geographic Lectures in Washington,D.C. with my parents. Though the lectures were long and sometimes boring, they awakened my mind to different cultures and religions and I began learning about religions of all types throughout elementary school, middle school, high school. Religions such as Mormonism, wicca, Satanism, Buddism. Basically, if it was a religion or belief system, I learned about it. When I finally started to play MMO games, I played "Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire divided" and was a Jedi, I was so helpful and kind, I gained a reputation that extended through two separate servers. I was kidded many times by people "Wow you really are a jedi" I laughed it off at first, but then I started to think about my life, and the friends I've made, the help I've given others in real-life and in the games I played. I am Disabled, I have epilepsy and cerebral palsy, I live on a limited Income, but yet I go out of my way to help others for no other reason other than it is the right thing to do. I then laughed and said "Oh My God! I'm basically living the life of a Jedi" However, In all fairness there are other religions that teach the same things as well. I believe the turning point for me was when my Son Aiden was born. I went to the pastor of each church within 50 miles and asked the same thing "Will you please just say a non-formal simple blessing over our son please?" Nothing fancy, just a simple "I bless this child so he may grow up strong and healthy and safe, may he learn the ways of right and wrong, and grow to be a kind, loving child. EVERY SINGLE PASTOR within 50 miles denied us a simple prayer over our son. That is when I began my search for churches in other states, and I found TOTJO. I had looked at other Jediism sites, but this one seemed to be the most forthcoming, and honest, and Though I sometimes disagree with certain members posts and beliefs on certain subjects. I find that the Majority of people here are very good, honorable, people and I have been very lucky to consider all of them "Friends". I am currently doing two types of classwork. The Jedi studies lesson ("The book" by Alan Watts) Though It is considered a very good lesson. I am also working on getting my Associates degree in Business Administration at Ohio Christian University. For my opinion and belief of what a Jedi is goes something like this: A jedi is not what is in the movies, a Jedi is like what someone would describe what a hero is "A person who helps another person for no reward other than just because it is the right thing to do" Jediism as far as I know has no rules on wether or not a woman can become a clergy, or a Jedi. Compared to most other religions they don't have many restrictions. I actually admire the Women of the Order, they can give very well thought out posts and can give as good as they can get sometimes too. They are just as formidable as any guy in this place. So that is my story, that is why I became a Jedi, and why I am staying with TOTJO and going to work on becoming clergy at some point. If you join a religion, it must feel "right" it must feel like family. Speaking for myself alone, TOTJO feels that way for me. So much so that my son wants to learn TOTJO lessons just like daddy ( he is 5) I only wish TOTJO had lessons for his Age.
    • Best martial art? (Last post by M Gray)
    • I practiced Kenpo and Karate for several years before I came to the realization that many of the techniques I learned simply were quite superfluous after I got my ass handed to me in a series of fights I did not start. I'll say this much, those fights changed my outlook on the martial arts. Yes, it really does depend on what you are looking for. Are you looking for mind/body meditation, fitness, or streetwise effectiveness? I happened to want to actually hold my own in a fight, so I switched to taking classes of Muay Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, and Boxing, as well as a few classes of Jeet Kune Do and Krav Maga. Then, I found HEMA. After looking into historical swordsmanship as a side-interest, and after studying Medieval combat for awhile I fell in love with it. It combines my love for history with the brutality of actual no-holds-barred fighting. I still do Muay Thai for striking and BJJ for groundfighting and incorporate elements of those into my HEMA training. So, I guess I can say that what I was "looking for" evolved. I might say this to any practitioner of a martial art, however: if you haven't been bloodied and bruised, the 'martial' element is somewhat lacking :P
    • Jedi lifestyle IRL - Yet Another model of Life (Last post by Adder)
    • :) Have you seen this; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinate_system I meditate on using equilateral triangles to tesselate visible physical 'material' into surfaces as a cognitive/spiritual 'ground', where I then project imagination into this to try to approach 'feeling' in a new way; www.tetryonics.com/ Which is probably psuedo-science but is fun enough to help me learn quantum stuff. I also visualize iterations of the Fano Plane as a tool to exercise my mind in working in that 'language' of Force feeling; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_plane I hope that helps. It seems to link into computer programming doesnt it!? Which if you think about it is a type of electronic 'spirit' of its own :ohmy:
    • How many different languages are spoken in the Tem... (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: Quote: Maybe this in Mandarin (requires font installed) 愿 原 灵 与 你 同 在 - which has 'Force' as spirit/alert/intelligence Yuàn yuán líng yǔ nǐ tóng zài 愿 原 力 与 你 同 在 - which has 'Force' as strength/power/force Yuàn yuán lì yǔ nǐ tóng zài Not 道 ?) Yes, nice one, perhaps each SIG would have its own unique version of the saying (in some languages)... which makes me wonder just how many characters would be suitable in Mandarin :huh: 愿 原 道 与 你 同 在 Yuàn yuán dào yǔ nǐ tóng zài
    • The Grateful Thread (Last post by elizabeth)
    • I am grateful to those that show me who I truly am. To the companions that walk by my side. Thank you :)

There are 1058 visitors, 9 guests and 27 members online (one in chat): Br. John, Zanthan Storm, steamboat28, Shadouness, Jestor, ren, Proteus, Alexandre Orion, PatrickB, Arcade, Kamizu, Edan, Zenchi, Pyrus Erath, Calanon, Radar6590, Matsukaze, GalUnDrux, Culla, Exar Qel Droma, Rocda, Loudzoo, Atticus509, Krieger, MaGnA CrYsTaL, PaintedWarrior, WayneTec, Protonix, Dokugan Ryu, Plasmawiz, Stroke, Izoshua.

Follow Us