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
    • Advice (Last post by Exar Qel Droma)
    • Quote: Quote: What would a true Jedi do if he was being manipulated, bullied and walked all over? (Apart from not let it happen in the first place) When I was in school, I was bullied pretty bad, and I just took it and buried it, which I do not recommend. I let my anger and hate build up so strongly in me that I still battle it today, some 20 years later. WWJD? What would Jedi do... well, honestly, I have no idea. I personally feel it is necessary for people to defend themselves, almost like martial arts, but mentally and spiritually. If you're repeatedly tormented, you have to do what you can to stop it. I know turn-the-other-cheek is a popular philosophy, but when you're living in pain, sometimes you have to do something to show your tormentors that you won't allow them to do so anymore. But as a disclaimer, I DO NOT condone violence. Everyone has to deal with these issues a different way. Sometimes bullies can be laughed at and pitied, allowing you to shrug it off. That worked for me in certain cases. In others, I wish I had punched a couple of those jack asses. That's me being honest with you, not saying that that's what you should do. Thank you for the advice fellow Jedi, mtfbwy always
    • One step closer to cyborgs? (Last post by Khaos)
    • Quote: this is only the beginning one day we'll write in our journals by putting on our thinking caps elepathic commands of technology telepathic conversation battles of wits thought crimes polygraph seduction yay Change thinking cap to computer and you realize how close we are already, in fact, its here. All the above is already done on the internet. Certainly, it will become smaller, more efficient, to the point where it is a part of you in a more intimate sense, but that is a matter off degrees, rather than a far fetched things. Espec
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by Exarchias)
    • 10 x 2 x (2 hands) 3 kg triceps 20 x 3 x (2 hands) 3 kg biceps 20 x 3 push ups 20 x 3 air squats 20 x 3 x (2 hands) 3 kg biceps 10 x 2 x (2 hands) 3 kg triceps And Running 600m
    • R.I.P. Leonard Nimoy (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • thanks leonard nemoy for your most excellent contributions to human imagination! your life made a difference!
    • Live Service - Sunday 1st March 23:00 UTC (Last post by V-Tog)
    • Hi everyone :) I will conducting a live service on Sunday 1st March at 23:00 UTC. It will be the first service/sermon on the new theme of 'Despair, yet Hope'. To check when this service will be taking place in your timezone, please click here. Looking forward to seeing you there!
    • Sometimes... (Last post by Senan)
    • I appreciate that you can construct a valid argument, and you have demonstrated time and again that you can do it skillfully. I'm not trying to defend a claim or solve any dilemmas. I'm making observations about the experiences I have had in my life and how those experiences have informed my reaction to the original post. There are people in this world entirely against censorship in all forms and I'm sure there are people who are entirely for it. There are also people who think some censorship is warranted and some is not. I consider that "the middle ground" as it is between the two extremes. Whether it fits your rules for an argument or dilemma does not matter in this conversation because it is this flawed argument that is actually happening between people everyday. If you're playing by the rules of Poker and I'm playing by the rules of Black Jack, we're never going to be able to play cards together. I understand your desire to hold everyone to the highest of standards, but it is not practical. Censorship in whatever form you choose to define will be something you have to deal with. Not because you tolerate it or favor it, but because you live on a planet with other people who do. As long as anyone tolerates it, it will exist in your reality. How you choose to react to it is exactly that, your choice, but everyone else is making that choice as well and they aren't all making the same one you are. You can be idealistic, and I'm glad you are. Someone has to be, or nothing would ever change. That being said, for you to expect that same level of commitment from everyone else is both naive and dangerous.
    • Let's Talk About Runes (Last post by Kamizu)
    • Runes have always caught my attention but since I had been using Tarot for so long I never looked more into them. I always figured they were just a mystical alphabet that could be used for divination but after reading this I'm even more interested in learning them and about them. Are they the kind of spirits you can shelve for a while and come back to or do they require regular attention to keep happy? Is it better to make your own set with your own intent or buy them? Is each individual physical rune a spirit itself or are they kind of like a phone call back to a single spirit each symbol represents?
    • Using the runes Odin (Last post by MrBruno)
    • Quote: Quote: I noticed and the only reason I read this thread was in hopes that you would explain it further. I never expanded because I just assumed no one was interested. Just for you, I started a new thread on the topic. His topic was very good and really enlightening. It's great to see people who love to share their knowledge with others. Just allow me to disagree, but we are all interested in what you had to share, it was enough to say right here, but either way thank you brother.
    • Unable to stop my anger. (Last post by Loudzoo)
    • I completely agree with you Edan - although for me its all about just one thing: Fear. If I examine my feelings (as Steamboat and Ban suggest) when I'm tense, stressed, angry, frustrated, greedy, it all comes back to a fear of something. The fear of missing out, not getting something, giving the wrong impression, making a mistake, or not making an "optimum" choice. A big one is fear of success - that's a fear that I spend alot of time pretending I don't have. In any case, the fear arises normally because I'm holding on too tight, I've become too attached to an outcome. It's ok to be fearful if something is a big deal, its ok to be fearful over something trivial. Once I realise that its actually fear (not anger, frustration, stress, greed etc) I tend to regain a little perspective. I'm not dealing with a whole host of negative emotions - I'm just dealing with one. I can then tell whether the situation is worth the fear or not. The reality is that we don't really know whats best for us (or anyone else) most of the time. We have incomplete information to make truly informed choices, maybe because we're deluded, but often because that information simply isn't available - there is much we cannot know. Not that I'm the slightest bit qualified to comment andyhaynes but it sounds to me like you're very nearly there. You've identified a problem, you're seeking advice - try isolating the fear next time. If its isolated it won't be able to stick to anything. Apologies - I got a bit preachy at the end there . . .

There are 397 visitors, 6 guests and 28 members online (none in chat): Akkarin, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, Karn, ren, Kitsu Tails, Nakis, Connor L., Proteus, Alexandre Orion, Elemental Harmony, scott777ab, PatrickB, Llama Su, Archon, Kamizu, Silvermane, jamesjohnston1741, a67, Jamie Stick, Mathew Erickson, Kwalker, carlos.martinez3, focone oceanlast, Tarran, Rocda, Tk768, OB1Shinobi, Sha Karn, Saile Tuk, Mandalore XIII, smirq, Atticus509.

Follow Us