Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Desolous, Reliah

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
    • The emphasis on blades/swords/lightsabers (Last post by Lleiffermawr)
    • Greetings, For me, it isn't about the blade itself. The reason that I use a blade upon an altar as a focus of meditation is the choice NOT to take up my weapon. As a Jedi Novice, I know that the temptation to act without thought is strong within me. I see the weak and helpless being trampled by the greedy and the 'strong'. Sometimes my conscience wishes to strike the oppressor in what I perceive to be Righteous Fury. And sometimes, I see the 'greater' picture. So to me, the blade is the symbol of choice. It is double-edged, showing that with each strike there is still the chance of cutting myself. With every action, there is a consequence. Am I willing to pay the coin for my action? Even my inaction is an action. A choice. I must be mindful of my thoughts and feelings and how it uses me. Will I let selfish pride take the place of conscious choice? My family use to have a battle ready sword on the wall above our fireplace. It was once used during the Revolutionary War and also the Civil War here in America. It had seen blood, sweat and tears. I am reminded of the price the soldiers that used it had to pay for picking it up. It has subsequently been donated to a museum, where I believe it belongs. Whenever we pick up a weapon, we WILL use violence to achieve an end. I think the choice NOT to pick it up to be more important than to use it.
    • What is our role as real Jedi in life? (Last post by Lleiffermawr)
    • Greetings, As a religious organization, whose aim is peace, it would be counter-intuitive to offer videos and instructions concerning self-defense and combat teachings through an online media. Most areas have at least one martial arts business which a dedicated Jedi could attend to receive such training. There are laws and regulations concerning such things, just as there are with psychological counseling, medication prescription and the like. While the willingness you have is appreciated, the Temple of the Jedi Order could receive retribution by the governmental authorities and lose their IRS status.
    • Why Master And Apprentice? (Last post by Lleiffermawr)
    • Greetings, This topic reminds me of an article presented by the Hare Krishna movement. While we in the West have a different relationship concerning such methods, I do believe that there is wisdom in such an arrangement. In the West, we have internships when we are entering a field of employment. Currently, I am finishing up my Bachelors of Science in Psychology and pursuing a career in Mental Health (with a focus on Chemical Dependency). In my Masters degree, I will be required to have a certain amount of hours of internship with a licensed professional to get hands on experience in the field. From this, I will build a rapport with a Counselor (aka Master/Mistress) and become their Apprentice or "understudy". This is not unlike the Guru-Chela relationship of Hindu teaching. The difference goes far deeper with any religio-philosophical society. Sometimes a Master-Apprentice partnership is created between two individuals with like-minded personalities, which allow greater learning to occur for both individuals. Sometimes, a Master-Apprentice relationship is established between opposites, allowing specific 'weakness' to be "ironed out". Say a Master shows great patience and understanding, empathy with others. The Apprentice on the other hand, is impatient and has a tendency for close-mindedness and can't seem to connect with others in deep meaningful ways. Should there be great devotion on both parts, the Master will learn how to interact with said Apprentice, becoming more mindful of their own faults and thus ability to deal with those around them that likewise show such personality traits. The Apprentice, desiring to learn, will temper his or her impatience in order to continue to learn, and thus become patient, kind and compassionate for others. www.harekrishnatemple.com/chapter13.html
    • Essentials of Jedi Spirituality (Last post by CableSteele)
    • Thank you, Lleiffermawr, for bumping this. I do not believe I would have ever found this otherwise. What an amazing text! This should be stickied somewhere or maybe linked on the FAQ or Doctrine page. I'm going to print it and add it to my physical library.
    • Is I is, or is I aint a Jedi? (Last post by Lleiffermawr)
    • Greetings, It is rare to find a person that complements you in such a way. Most people have never even contemplated Jedi Realism as a considered path or lifestyle. Take for instance my own wife. She doesn't understand the seriousness of my Awakening to the reality and application of the terms "The Force", "Ashla", and "Bogan". The deeper connections between what is presented in the Legendarium (the Star Wars Universe) and its psychological and mythological connection with our own "Real World". That the beliefs, practices, and morality have actually existed on this planet for centuries. That the teachings of the Jedi can be found in ALL RELIGIONS (those that still exist, and those that have sadly died out). She just kind of brushes it all aside, and, as a Jedi hopeful, I recognize that we each must make our own choice, our own opinion. She accepts that this is part of WHO and WHAT I am, and so long as it makes me a better person, then she will acknowledge such. You have found a keeper my brother.
    • Distant Horizons (Last post by Joda Sett)
    • This happens a lot. If it isn't meant to be, then could you ask youself this: did I really see my spiritual self, or did I impose my subconscious wants onto the situation? Going a step further, I believe that you'll know when it's the one because your spirit will experince harmonic resonance around her. Like two tuning forks of the same pitch, when one is struck and brought next to the other, the motionless fork will begin to vibrate as well. Love is a lot like this. It's also an experiment I suggest to others to try. It's inexpensive to conduct.
    • A place for prayers (Last post by Wescli Wardest)
    • Every day we face new challenges. Old ones continue and move forward whether we are ready or not. Let us not be impatient with challenges we face. Help us to understand the struggles laid before us. And help us to accept our roles in what we must do. Knowledge and understanding are the tools we use to gain wisdom. Let our actions reflect this wisdom and be true to the path we follow. And let that path be filled with love and compassion. I bid each of you a good journeying this day… May the Force be with you.
    • Is offending a group of people always bad? (Last post by Gisteron)
    • Quote: Only good reason will support a claim. So please refer me to the post number where you explained where the practice of justice is difficult? That'd be post #242165. You even responded to it in #242243, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, your "demonstration" that justice is simple amounted to asserting that it is something people either innately have or don't have. But as you said, only good reason will support a claim, no mere assertion can. So would you kindly point us to the post where you supported anything you said so far? Thank you. Quote: The context is offenders that committed a wrong is clear and simple, and therefore always bad. No. That is the context, and the question is whether it is bad any of the time, some of the time or all of the time. You keep insisting that it always is and your reason is that offense is an injustice. I'm sorry but choosing a label for it doesn't an argument make. If you take this position, you have a burden to substantiate it. Quote: But, if someone were to disagree that offenders are not always bad; let the reason speak to support the claim, otherwise the claim is unfounded and unsupported by reason; i.e. unreasonable No, that's not how reasoned arguments work. Dismissing your unfounded claim does not amount to making a claim of one's own. Until such time where you can support your claim with something, I need nothing to dismiss it as unsupported. It is if and only if I were to make a claim of my own that I'd need to bring forth any reason. And as a matter of fact, whenever Wescli - or myself for that matter - have made any positive claims, we did provide reasons to support them. You, on the other hand, didn't even once. Five pages worth of thread later, we're still waiting.
    • Defining Jedi and Sith (Last post by Rex)
    • Well, thank you all who have responded for your thoughts. I completely understand that the temple is purposefully vague, and did this not in the spirit of exclusivity, but rather to anneal my own understanding of Jediism. I purposefully ignored any comments regarding Star Wars sith/jedi lore, and even though I can occasionally nerd out on that, think that this discussion has deeper quality and merits similar answers. I'm not a Sith, I only discovered that Sith(-ism?) is a real thing this week; I have, however, been going through the Initiate Programme and feel that Jediism has much to offer, but lacks cohesive thought. Everyone has their own understanding of Jediism, and this has been mostly a way to question my own. To quote a book I recently read, "If nothing is an absolute reality, all is permitted." I don't ask that Jediism creates a ubiquitous system to answer every possible scenario, but do think that the vagueness of Jediism can easily lead to polar opposites flying the same banner while conflicting over who is the "real Jedi." A lot of the posts are people trying to define sith as a mix between the movies and the opposite (or sum) of their beliefs; you have the same questions as me. Anyways, real siths (who happen to be on here) please tell me your opinion, since we've spoken for you in your absence so far. If anyone else want to discuss this, I'd love to have a one on one chat in messages. Quick post-script: Edan, I have briefly read a few things where you talked about your beliefs, and so my comments weren't meant to poke at them, but rather to point out that a traditionalist of any one of those groups might disagree with you similar to how Jedi might argue what Jediism might be (and Sith).
    • Recipes and Goals (Just a thought) (Last post by Codama)
    • Ha, no worries Snowy. Thanks for sharing Shinobi. Maybe there could be a Jedi meal thread. Or a lesson in the IP on things to cook. We could even call it... Force Feed Luke, I am your Cook The Death Starved Can't cook, yet Recipe Cook or cook not there is no hunger Light Savory Jabba the hungry I don't know.
    • Force Realist TV (Last post by Lleiffermawr)
    • Greetings, The first thing I learned back when I first became a Freemason, which I have brought with me in any spiritual, philosophical, or religious group I have become a part of is that one's political views, should not be focused upon specific candidates or political parties, but more on the issues themselves, and certainly we have a right to our own views, but that sometimes it is better NOT to bring them up. Not because they do not matter. But because they may matter to us TOO much. We become attached to the expectations that our personal views SHOULD be shared with others, and by that I mean that they should agree with us. When they do not agree with us, that is when the natural reaction is to become angry, and thus, lose our sense of balance. That is when disagreements turn heated. We have the joy of living in a Republic, which champions a democratic method of choice. We choose our Senators and Representatives, who in turn vote according to their own views, which they try to mimic what the majority of their constituents decide it legal. We must also remember that what is legal isn't necessarily right. There is a difference between legal and moral or ethical. Thank you for sharing this video, it has given me a lot to meditate upon tonight. And I feel you have touched on something important for all Jedi to take a look at.

There are 159 visitors, 7 guests and 40 members online (4  in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Jestor, ren, Viskhard, Sven One, Wescli Wardest, Proteus, rugadd, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Lykeios, Khaos, Kit, Avalonslight, Senan, Cabur Senaar, Goken, Slebo, OB1Shinobi, Lleiffermawr, Atticus509, Adi, CryojenX, Tellahane, Hyrum Tigerprice, MadHatter, Braedon2011, Brick, Kyrin Wyldstar, Snowy Aftermath, Rex, FAT, Ryder, Diegogarciv, DanielBenYosef, thomaswfaulkner, Miss_Leah, CableSteele, LiamRevan, kkrispen, SamHumphries.

Follow Us