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


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
    • Jedi Lightsaber (Last post by rugadd)
    • I should amend that by saying I DID craft one...but its 4 solid steel plumbing pieces and a solid steel pipe for the blade, wrapped in green electrical tape. I treat it the same way one might treat a weighted bat in baseball practice. Also, will likely be my head bashing tool when the zombie apocalypse happens.
    • Everything is Made of Energy Stuff (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • Quote: No spiritual mumbo-jumbo, much less any fiction can ever compete in beauty with the magnificence of the true universe as it is. I'm not minimize science or logic. I do feel there more ways to know and understand that goes beyond them and we have to be more semsitive/receptive to experience them. If it "makes me feel warm and fuzzy" I'm OK with that. I didn't post my thoughts to argue with or put anyone or thing down. It was just a muse. :) Be happy. Peace Quote: “The brain is so powerful that the imagination has allowed us to conceive of any delightful future we choose, pick the most amazing one, and pull the present forward to meet it.”-Jason Silva Nice quote.
    • My Philosophy of Life (Last post by Gisteron)
    • Jestor, Philosofer, I apologize in advance. I'm sure if you read on you will understand at least the motive behind the following rant addressed at scott. I realize it is still off-topic and I kindly ask that it not be deemed as a display of disrespect for the thread at hand. Thank you for your understanding. No, I'm sorry, I won't have it said that I am unwilling or incapable of changing my mind. I am a breathing, living and growing human being who has been both correct and incorrect in the past and had to and did change his mind over and over again both with witnesses on this very board and outside of it. Name me one piece of my reply that would display anything remotely contrary to that, and I shall concede that I'm a close-minded prick who just seeks fights for the fun of it. The only thing that makes you think that is that I dare to not see your flawless reasoning as you do. I do agree that it is pointless, since you "won't tell how you know", which sure raises the question of why you kindly posted in the first place if you don't care that anyone gives an excrement. Because I do care I hope to learn something but apparently since I'm not already with you on your pedistal it would somehow be beneath you to share your insights such that we ought climb towards you ourselves instead. Perhaps you have access to some information I have no access to. Perhaps you are more than the mere primate I and everybody else here is, and perhaps I am in no right to question anything you say and you are perfectly justified in smugly looking down at petty old inferior me. Now, look, you are free to be as arrogant and secretive as you like. If I had a kid and I wouldn't tell it that it ought not touch the hot stove, I would probably be a bad parent for not sharing my insights with somebody who quite clearly needs it (although the better analogy would be if the child asked me whether it could touch the stove and I'd say "I know the answer but you better find out yourself"), but I wouldn't be a criminal by any means unless I put its hand on that stove myself. Maybe in your world a good parent, friend or a good person in general wouldn't share such important information with his fellow people. I wouldn't understand, but then again, I am just another primate without your sources of knowledge, so I may be wrong in the end. But don't you ever dare again to imply I was intellectually dishonest and close-minded for that. I will have you talk to me in any tone of voice you deem appropriate (though I might not appreciate every single one), but there are things I will not have said about me and remain silent. For anyone interested, I recommend AronRa's 4th Foundational Falsehood video where, though criticizing a particular group, he illustrates the difference between belief and knowledge.
    • What form(s) of magic(k) do you practice? (Last post by RyuJin)
    • I've written my own book of shadows filled with information about herbs, incense, crystals, rituals, blessings, wood properties(for wands/staves), reiki, runes....it's currently 36 pages... Left out is anything pertaining to deities as I don't see anyone or anything as superior or inferior to me...
    • Connor is back (Last post by Brenna)
    • Urg. green with envy on all counts :S Its been almost two years since I was last in Europe and a teeny bit longer since I did residential intensives. sigh. Im glad you had such an awesome (and productive) time
    • This Week In Science (Last post by Khaos)
    • CAT PARASITE MODIFIED INTO AN EFFECTIVE CANCER VACCINE t has been estimated that a third of the world’s population is affected by Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite that prefers living in feline intestines. While it produces no or mild symptoms for most people, it can be fatal for those who are seriously immunocompromised. Scientists have found a way to make the parasite’s actions work for good by reprogramming it to team up with the immune system to attack cancer cells. The research was conducted by David Bzik of Dartmouth University. "We know biologically this parasite has figured out how to stimulate the exact immune responses you want to fight cancer,” Bzik said in a press release. Cancer cells can disrupt the immune response for self-preservation purposes. In the presence of T. gondii, those responses are restored and the body will create cytotoxic T cells as well as natural killer cells in order to fight off infection, and these cells are also responsible for fighting cancer cells. Of course, it would be too risky to inject T. gondii into a cancer patient, researchers needed to find the best way to alter it. Prior research by Bzik indicated that while virulent strains of T. gondii attack cells on the surface, avirulent strains are actually ingested by phagocytes. Instead of getting digested, they will invade the cell from the inside and then continue to divide and spread once it has escaped the cell. This “trojan horse” approach was an attractive opportunity to modify the parasite in order to fight cancer more effectively. A gene that is critical to the parasite’s ability to self-replicate was removed, creating a safe version that can trigger the desired immune response without posing any threat of its own. Bzik and his colleague Barbara Fox have named it “cps.” "The biology of this organism is inherently different from other microbe-based immunotherapeutic strategies that typically just tickle immune cells from the outside," Fox explained. "By gaining preferential access to the inside of powerful innate immune cell types, our mutated strain of T. gondii reprograms the natural power of the immune system to clear tumor cells and cancer." Cps was injected into mice that had lethal forms of ovarian cancer and melanoma and resulted in high rates of survival. In the future, cps could be a very potent treatment or vaccine for cancer patients that could even be highly personalized. Cells would be taken from the patient and exposed to cps in vitro, creating the desired immune response. The cps-containing cells would then be returned to the patient to fight the cancer and could even provide immunity against recurrence of that cancer type. "Cps stimulates amazingly effective immunotherapy against cancers, superior to anything seen before," said Bzik. "The ability of cps to communicate in different and unique ways with the cancer and special cells of the immune system breaks the control that cancer has leveraged over the immune system.” Though the testing has gone well in the mice, human trials aren’t ready to begin. Researchers need to learn more about the mechanism that allows it to work so well in addition to identifying all molecular targets. Read more at www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/c...#suTwQL8KLkVC9GdQ.99
    • Sweden (Last post by AlexanderJ.W)
    • Hej tzb! Det låter spännande om det är något jag kan hjälpa dig med så är det bara att säga till. Må Kraften vara med dig
    • Rape Culture (Last post by ren)
    • It's the evil patriarchy man. We get to be dicks and women pussies. Coz you know, throughout history cats have been seen as disgusting worthless animals not deserving of any kind of attention and all. You know dem cats vandalized the pyramids with selfies in egypt? Filthy things. Now being named after male genitalia and the greatest politician ever Dick Nixon, that's just pure honour and glory.
    • The Imperishable Gem (Last post by Learn_To_Know)
    • "Nobody needs a smile so much as the one who has none to give. So get used to smiling heart-warming smiles, and you will spread sunshine in a sometimes dreary world" - Lawrence G. Lovasik.
    • Open Sermon Slots (Last post by Alexandre Orion)
    • Open Sermons slots are every Wednesday ... :) Please continue writing and submitting us your sermons. Open Sermons are pretty much free-writing exercises on any topic one finds a 'message' in. And, as we know, found messages are often just as important as planned ones. Furthermore, they are open to everyone. :cheer:
    • Live Service - Saturday 26th July at 2000 UTC (Last post by Alexandre Orion)
    • Transcript of Service : MCSH: Hello everyone and welcome to today's live service. (22:08:42) MCSH: To begin, please join me in meditating for one minute. (22:09:45) MCSH: Thank you all (22:09:56) MCSH: A Thousand Names (22:10:05) MCSH: Believing is in nature of every human being. Go and search for a tribe in middle of a jungle in Africa- surprise surprise they believe in something. (22:10:31) MCSH: "And no matter what they say, they cling to us in time of danger" - Quran (22:10:51) MCSH: This something could be a tree, a piece of stone or something like fire - although for most of us this is something we can’t see, yet we feel. (22:11:31) MCSH: The Pharaoh said:"Is this god of yours who I call Aten?" (22:11:37) Temple Bot: Proteus logs into the Chat. (22:11:47) MCSH: Joseph replied "He has a thousand names and each group calls her with a name of their own." (22:12:09) MCSH: I prefer to call him or her khoda - a name of my own language. Some call khoad IT, and some call IT, ALL. We Jedi, call ALL the Force. (22:13:30) MCSH: "Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force." - Yoda (22:14:03) MCSH: Of course, our strength flows from the Force for it is formed from and forms all living things, shapes and shaped from all living things. (22:14:26) MCSH: There is unity in our separation. We use different names yet we call the same thing - we pray, the same thing. (22:14:46) MCSH: “A sudden revelation came then to Moses. God's voice: “"You have separated me from one of my own. Did you come as a Prophet to unite, or to sever?......Ways of worship are not to be ranked as better or worse than another. Hindus do Hindu things. The Dravidian Muslims in India do what they do. It's all praise, and it's all right."”” - Rumi’s “Moses and Shepherd” (22:15:24) MCSH: No matter what, at the end, we all worship the same Force. Let’s unite by our similarities rather than separate by our differences. (22:15:50) MCSH: To conclude this service, please join me in meditating for another minute. (22:16:46) MCSH: Thank you all for attending and May the Force be with you. (22:17:01) Alexandre_Orion: And also with you ... (22:17:02) Edan: And also with you (22:17:07) Proteus: And also with you. (22:17:12) elizabeth: And with you (22:17:19) scott777ab: And also with you Saj. (22:17:20) tzb: And with you :) (22:17:29) Psyddhattha: and also with you (22:17:40) MCSH: This service is now concluded.

There are 337 visitors, 5 guests and 24 members online (none are in chat): Akkarin, Octagon, steamboat28, Shadouness, Jestor, Brian, Wescli Wardest, Proteus, Luthien, rugadd, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Alan, scott777ab, PatrickB, Thiddex, Rickie The Grey, Buvan, Llama Su, Archon, Kamizu, elizabeth, TheMcD, Pyrus Erath, benedictveritas, Trice Corbel, TambelSadera.

Follow Us