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
    • Star Wars: The Force Awakens International Teaser ... (Last post by Cyan Sarden)
    • Quote: It's actually not at all what he did to Star Trek. In fact, Into Darkness was as timely for its audience as the original series could ever hope to be. While it didn't carry on the tradition of Roddenberry's ungodly abrasive optimism, it still resonated with his memory in the way it tackled current issues (terrorism, sleeper cells, the mistreatment of soldiers, etc.) in the same way I believe he would've. Only, slightly darker and with lots more lens flare. Personally, I'm a sucker for GR's "ungodly abrasive" optimism - to me, that's the essence of Star Trek. And Abrams really sacrificed that on the altar of boom and bang. I thoroughly enjoyed both Star Trek and Into the Darkness - but certainly not from a long-time fan point of view. Anyway - that's just my personal opinion and I'm not in the business of arguing about personal views.
    • Userpics and nicknames (Last post by steamboat28)
    • Quote: @steamboat28 - what you're saying sounds like works of Ursula Le Guine, where magic worked out of knowledge of "true names". It is. But Ursula didn't invent that concept, she just borrowed it. ;)
    • Fear Leads to Anger... (Last post by den385)
    • Fear leads to anger only if you act out of inertia or are not used to discipline emotions. The more practical guideline for me sounds like "It may be hard to tame fear, but if you don't - it will enslave you."
    • Conscription - Draft (Last post by ren)
    • Quote: Quote: In reply to what senan and goken have said, how do you know you have a choice? And that your ability to choose isn't a mere belief? How do you know that the "choice" you have made was not inevitable? As in, if you you take a look at your entire situation, life history, and say that in one instance you choose to join the military, is it possible to "copy" you (your life, history, situation, etc), and watch that copy choose not to join the military? That discussion probably needs its own thread. Well fire up the quattro then :P
    • Should Jedi carry weapons? (Last post by RyuJin)
    • A well learned and well trained jedi IS a weapon... Most define a weapon as a tool or device used to inflict harm upon another....I define it as anything that can be used to defend,distract, or attack....a sheet of paper crumpled into a ball and thrown at the eyes (thus distracting) is a weapon, a stick is a weapon, a sharp mind is a weapon, a silver tongue is a weapon... Funny I was thinking about this very subject last night too :whistle:
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by Exarchias)
    • 15 x 3 x (2 hands) 3 kg biceps 20 x 3 push ups 20 x 3 air squats 15 x 3 x (2 hands) 3 kg biceps And Meditation. 15# day without coffee.
    • Live Service, Monday, 1 December at 20:00 UTC (Last post by Alexandre Orion)
    • Hello everyone ... :cheer: We'll be having a Live Service in the TotJO chat this Monday, 1st December at 20:00 UTC. The topic will be our monthly reflexion for the month of December : Greed, yet Generosity. It will be nice to see as many of you there as can make it. :)
    • Survivors (Last post by Rocda)
    • I was listening to NPR this week and there was a discussion about survivors, people who survived avalanche or being lost at sea. There are some common traits of people who survive these disasters. 1. They are aware of dangers and tend to prepare. Things like bringing blankets, flashlight and food when traveling through a blizzard. 2. Their attitude is never, why did this happen to me or who is to blame. The attitude is, this is the situation. What do I need to do to survive the next half hour? After surviving the half hour, they congratulate themselves for surviving, then concentrate on surviving the next half hour. It's survivors attitude and outlook.
    • Rants far and wide (Last post by Cyan Sarden)
    • Quote: I don't know if hate leads to suffering, but my suffering of an 8 pound charge by royal mail for their handling of an international package with 9.50 VAT imposed at the border (which I obviously also have to pay) is causing a great deal of anger. This being said the company I bought from offers vouchers to encourage trade with the EU, and they even covered the royal mail fee, which is pretty awesome. Living in a non-EU country in the mittle of Europe, I feel your pain. They charge 22.50 CHF + tax here for every package that has a value of more than 65CHF. If it's over 200 Fr value, they charge 35 + tax. I love it :-(
    • Jediism and non Jediism (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • Quote: I was wondering.. what is the difference between someone who study Jediism, and someone who does not? The second question: Are there differences like insight or point of view between someone who study Jediism, and someone who does not?? ~ Aqua Not much that I can tell. It only makes a difference on where you can post. ;)
    • Ikigai - "a reason for being" (Last post by den385)
    • @Adder - But how are gonna be good at both maths and football to the point that you're getting paid? )) @Aqua - I am afraid, finding Ikigai is a way of uncertainty and sometimes it can seem quite a labyrinth. I can discuss how I've found mine, if it would be of any help. 1) I was studying pure higher mathematics in one of Russia's best place for it. I wasn't very good and there were problems distracting. It didn't inspire me, it didn't light fire in my eyes, it didn't make my heart burn, there was no drive. Yet, it was useful. 2) Then I did quite courageous and same time stupid thing - I transferred to much less cool university (MIREA) with applied maths and programming. It was hard to study in that place, but I've started to get what Ikigai is, though I didn't know this word then. The fire came only in tiny pieces - when I planned my programming course projects and reached success in 'em, and when I was meeting interesting people and interesting tasks on programming conferences, which more like a hangout than a serious thing. 3) On last course of MIREA, I started to work as Junior programmer. It was hell of a lot frustrations. You don't know much, people seemed mean sometimes, they didn't want me to grow, just want to be productive. Normal jobs, yet I wasn't much of a fighter that time. I understood, that some life distractions and bad structure of MIREA and much more - my own indecisiveness costed me chances to do my own thing and have precious experience. 4) I changed several jobs in next 3 years. Was searching for "the right thing". Never understanding, that the only "right thing" I was searching was drive from challenges. This search and personal issues rewarded me with frustrations, uncertainty and instability in my career. 5) Finally, due to personal issues and my own lack of experience, I landed up on an awfullest job I ever had. Bad wage, bad tasks, bad people. Anti-drive in overabundance. And here I've understood that Ikigai is your own game above every professional activity there is. I understood that you can have your own rules of craft. But if your rules are not strict enough, they will get you fired. So your rules should be "what is expected of ordinary ok worker" + "what gives you drive: purpose, autonomy, mastery". Sometimes it's something extra on job. Sometimes - a side-project. 6) Now I've left this job with resources for a few months. I can finish my own project and find a decent job. Over all I can say that finding Ikigai is what Jobs meant by "follow your heart, don't stop" in his famous Stanford lecture. It's not easy, but if you can do it, your working life becomes meaningful and rewarding. And I believe that when you are good at what you love, and if you have will, that is the only right road to success. Finding Ikigai depends on self confidence. What self confidence is - it's subjective. But when you have your own world, your own vision, your own life, than working just to get paid starts to be a bad deal. And you are on a search for another attitude. I could say, you're searching for your own game wthin the Game of Life.
    • Transcendence (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: I would recommend the documentary "Transcendent Man" if you haven't seen it ad enjoyed the movie. Essentially Ray Kurzweil is Johnny Depps character sans the science fiction....at present. Also Extropianism/Extropism & Max More. Here is an interview/debate between Max and Ray, and discusses things like the singularity.
    • Jedi Altar (Last post by Tk768)
    • When I priced them some where higher/some lower on both ends. Both are awesome companies, but the had been some negative talk on other forums about Ultra ( mostly their conversion and commissioned work). But I will still stand by both being awesome companies, fair priced, and still the most recommended. You can't go wrong either way. Ultra does have some cooler custom pieces though.

There are 372 visitors, 5 guests and 28 members online (2  in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Alethea Thompson, steamboat28, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, Joe, Nakis, Wescli Wardest, Garwa Mayharr, Rosalyn J, Alan, Rickie The Grey, Llama Su, Kamizu, Silvermane, babyblueyes247, Pyrus Erath, benedictveritas, Mathew Erickson, Revan Falton, Exarchias, Cyan Sarden, almosteasy69, Anyanwu, dr.seiss, MrBruno, AJGBlack.

Follow Us