Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

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
    • Why a Jedi Knight ? (Last post by Adhara)
    • A few days ago I saw a quote by Albert Schweitzer: “Example is not the main thing in [teaching] others. It is the only thing.” substituted influencing for teaching Thanks you :)
    • To be "an instrument of peace" (Last post by Adder)
    • What is exactly the extension of the Jedi obligation of "be an instrument of peace"? Which "peace" is this? It's just metaphorical/symbolic? I'd suggest there might be no absolute concept of 'peace' and it better describes a direction of change - an 'instrument of change', with that change being peace. From peace can come better understanding (less confusion, distraction, competition), and from understanding can emerge wise action (broader perspectives). So perhaps for me its about being orientated to sorting things to the best most peaceful outcome realistically possible. It does not have to be reactive, it can be predictive and act to preempt conflict. Not an easy thing to do well under good conditions, and probably impossibly narrowed in bad conditions.... but I'd think it comes down to having good and unbiased understanding of as many parameters influencing both sides of any conflict as possible. Can we change the world? If yes, how? Well if we are all interconnected by a Force then its possible everything we do changes the world ;) In your context of post regarding social protest, probably not in the way that is being hoped (IMO). I'm unfamiliar with the circumstance your asking. Generally speaking though, my thoughts are people perceive causality only so far, but its impact can be further reaching or completely not what is expected. The poorer citizens might be less coupled to processes of wealth in a society and therefore potentially seen as less cognisant of acting responsibility to that system, and together with the effects of emotional contagions formed from poverty, it can cause concerns for security of the 'main body' of the system - the 'middle' class. That class is often where the public servants fit in, including the military and police.So while democracy can enable social transformation through penetration into that middle class; poor class actions like protests and revolts about poor class problems will probably end up fighting the military and police head on!! Those 'instruments' of government firstly need to recognize they serve the people instead of the government, but secondly must also feel like they are part of the 'people' of that action. If they (middle class) feel marginalised from the action, then the action becomes marginalised. Protest can be seen as a benign trigger to create conflict with authority, and as such seems to be literally walking into a dead-end strategy (unless the authority is on your side, then you get things like coups). The middle class could perceive it as trying to deconstruct the society which supports them and they support. Deconstructive change seems to introduce less chance of controlling the change, and perhaps even increases the chance for the same influences which led to corruption in the first place etc - and this is part of the middle class and rich class concerns for 'security' of the incumbent system. Unfortunately constructive change seems to take many years of gradual effort which can at times even appear retroactive!! If we can, should we fight, even if this put us in danger? It's a deep and broad question, and only one the individual could answer!? What would the fight be really for, and would you actually even be fighting (from their perspective). It's not much a 'fight' if one side is doing all the suffering for no result. It's action's like that which change the reason for people's will to fight into cycles of revenge for picking the wrong fight to being with!! It might not be the best word to use 'fight', as it can be taken in so many different contexts it could lead to confusion. If you mean violence, then generally speaking I think it should be avoided and instead exposed... perhaps information warfare is the least harmful, at least directly harmful. In which case honesty, truth and fairness would assist in penetration to accumulate popular support on both sides, I guess?!! I don't mean propaganda, but more like good journalism almost. Just thinking out loud again.. good questions.
    • Best martial art? (Last post by RyuJin)
    • The more arts you study, the more options you have... I'm skilled in several grappling styles, several striking/kicking styles, several weapons styles, and a few styles that would be considered "excessively violent"....for those nasty situations...what ever it takes to come out on top...I prefer the immobilizing techniques, but can/will use harsher techniques if I feel it necessary...
    • What Are You Listening To Right Now? (Last post by Zeph)
    • Quote: @Zeph This trailer for season two of Legend of Korra had some of my favorite music from the whole series: [video] And the end credits!: [video] Can't get enough of the urhu. :) I also love it *--* Avatar state, yip yip!!
    • Assigning the Deity (Last post by Connor L.)
    • Do you project your wants and desires into your interpretation of the Deity? Do you say it's the Will of the Force when you lose something, but claim credit when you win? Do you think it's ok to say: "Jesus would not approve", when you aren't Jesus? Do you believe that the world revolves around your tiny, insignificant perspective? I have found myself guilty of "assigning" the Deity, meaning that I interpret the divine so that it fits my morality, my views. Some will often use God as a scapegoat for a moral argument: "You shouldn't steal because it's against Christianity". Or, some will say that Jesus is Lord... but only for rich white men (and their wives). This is a problem. If you find yourself doing this, as I often do, think about what you're doing. It's immoral. It's dumb. It's creating your own totalitarian ideology. Instead, have reverence for the Divine, and don't force your own ideas into your interpretation.
    • There is no Death (Last post by Zeph)
    • Quote: Quote: "(...)all the paths are empty (nothingness), do not born, do not end (...)", as the Heart Sutra says.. True (to a point), it's what we do with it that matters. Jediism as a path is essentially nothing until it is molded and wielded into a workable philosophy that instills it's followers with the awareness that they each possess the power to better their lives and the world around them... Exactly the point! All the phenomenons are "empty of inherent meaning". When we say "all," that means everything, including the the path. We see a phenomenon as something with characteristics, and as an object that is conceived by a subject. To hold that an object is something external is ignorance, and it is this that prevents us from seeing the truth of that object. The truth of a phenomenon is emptiness, which implies that the phenomenon does not possess a truly existent essence or nature: we (our minds) construct and give meaning to the phenomenon...
    • Jedi Sentinel Findings (Last post by Daniel L.)
    • I'm having a difficult time with this. Every month there is a new Missing Teen Age Girl poster at bus stop cross walks and store door way. I'm not sure if its just a Tucson thing but it's starting to get to me. Never have I felt so useless. May the Force Be With those that are lost missing or in a dark place. How I wish I could be your light.
    • Local Orginizations (Last post by Alethea Thompson)
    • If you are in:Memphis, Somewhere close to Murray, KY, Chicago, or in Arizona, there are offline chapters established. They are not necessarily ToTJO affiliated, but they each have great Jedi running them, and it will help drive home the ideas and concepts you learn here. You can even bring some of your knowledge from here to these groups and help them grow. ToTJO also has a map around here that can help you connect with others in your area if there happens to be someone near you ;)
    • The Order of the Good Death (Last post by Proteus)
    • What makes fear or lack of fear unnatural? Who is to say what is "not part of nature"? Is fear not a symptom of ignorance? And yet, death to this day is the biggest mystery in this world of "hard facts"... There were civilizations and eras where many people were rarely afraid of death, but instead, looked quite forward to it, due to setting aside some lack of facts for decided beliefs. That may sound dumb in common contexts, yet that empowering belief gave them incredible power over the life they did have, giving it a great meaning. The difference between the common person of today's society and one of them, is that they spent their life learning - not hard facts about the tangible world so much, but about matters of the spirit which taught them to be less attached to their physical bodies, and not so concerned with losing it in death - which is the common issue for us: attachment to the tangible experience of life, and not knowing (tangibly) what lies beyond it. "There is no death, there is the Force", is an affirmation, that the physical, tangible realm that we experience in this life is very likely but a grain of sand on a beach of further experiences beyond it.
    • Jedi Altar (Last post by JHolle3)
    • That is awesome! I love altars. Mine will most likely have several Buddhist items on it as well. I'd love to have one of those miniature zen gardens, with the little rake and sand.

There are 183 visitors, 5 guests and 23 members online (none are in chat): Br. John, steamboat28, Jon, Gaia Chi, Jestor, MikeBudo, Adder, Adhara, Proteus, Luthien, Reacher, MCSH, Pcoronaf, Tat2dtrouble, Buvan, Llama Su, Cyrith, Edan, tzb, ittymisskitty, RollFizzlebamf, Skydrrö, Jamie Stick, Xan Montagu, EEJim, Trey-Vor Hoyt, MrGrae.

Follow Us