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


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
    • Strenght (Last post by MartaLina)
    • Quote: But my question is , do i have to be strong to be a Jedi ? And if a Jedi is weak , is he then a failure , and where does he get that strength if not from believing in the Force ? My opinion is that every weakness can be a strength and what we believe is strength can be a weakness. Failure is a lesson from which we can grow and in a similar way, achievements are also lessons from which we grow. Strength and weakness go hand in hand, so you need both. I don't believe that we get strength from believing in anything but ourselves, while I also believe we are a part of the energy/force so believing in ourselves is using the strengths and weakness we all have to help/improve ourselves and those around us. And not sure if that seems confusing. Sorry. That makes sense Elizabeth , that was what i was looking for, so by believing in myself my failures become my best lessons and letting the Force be what it is in letting me improve myself and others. I am so glad you say we need both weakness and strenght , sometimes to much strenght can hold someone back i think. It struck me as difficult that we had to be Strong all the time , it would make it the more painfull when we are weak then , i see people struggle with that , i want to get rid of that Ego, so i can be gentle and reliable , that sounds nicer than weak and strong ;) Thank u both for this feedback , it helped a lot :)
    • The Force as described by a physicist? (Last post by Gisteron)
    • What, again? Alright, let's get on with it then... Quote: there is a very real possibility that science is going to wipe us off the face of the earth No, there isn't. No part of either the body of knowledge gained through science nor any part of the philosophy of science would motivate that. Now, the former may enable it in a very literal sense, in that it gives us potentially catastrophical tools, but whoever ends up using them to that end will be doing so on no scientific grounds. Quote: scientifically speaking, there is no real reason not to Agreed. There is no real reason not to, that includes that there is no scientific reason either. Quote: all things being equal, THAT I FEEL LIKE IT is as good a reason to "drop the bomb" as any, and more and more entities have access to "the bomb" than ever in our history And what if I don't feel like it? Will access to the bomb mean that I will wish to drop it all the more? See, I'm granting you that science can give us the bomb, but it can't give us reasons to drop it - or not to drop it. Quote: i dont know that i accept the idea that a model of understanding reality which may very well result in the obliteration of the entire species is the only, or the best of all potential models I don't know if it is the best possible either, but it is the best of all those currently available. But of course, science is not a very solid model at any rate. Its defining criterion is reliability, so if you find any reliable means to know things that are not currently part of science, they will become part of it that very instant. Ironically however your criticism will still apply, because regardless of how you go about knowing things, you will not end up with a real reason not to wipe everybody out, because motivations are subject to the individual whereas facts are subject to the collective and that is not a mere gap but a proper discontinuity. Quote: science is a baby from an evolutionary perspective, and still quite juvenile in terms of the history of human civilization And a thirty-year-old has only been adult for ten, maybe twelve years. So therefore her adulthood is by all means prepubescent. Look, I'm not saying science is flawless. There is a lot it lacks in. You however make it seem as though that is so bad that we should drop science in favour of something better rather than just watch out for its limitations. I'll join your side the instance you can present something that has achieved half the good in the past 30000 years that science has in the past 300 and if that isn't quite generous enough, I will allow the thing you suggest to also produce any and all kinds of evil along the way. Quote: ... "mythology" and "religion" offer models of understanding reality which are much older, and which are equally "true" and very possibly much more functional for the maximal survival of the species, and the psychological well being of the individual I'm no psychologist, so please correct me if I'm wrong in saying that there is little psychologically healthy about thinking of yourself as vermin deserving a fate worse than death nor in having continued relationships with invisible friends well into adulthood. At least a part of this is true of almost every religion and cultural mythology I ever heard of. Neither mythology nor religion do offer models of understanding reality that are anywhere near as "true" as those offered by science by almost all definitions of truth that are not begging the question. As for their functionality for the maximal survival of the species I shall say this: Back in the day science and religion coexisted, at least as far as the latter would allow the former. Two of the ideas that were around in that day were that smallpox is a plague and that the Jews were a plague. Smallpox made people suffer to death. Jews didn't. Science left the Jews alone and took their labs to smallpox. Religion took their prayers to smallpox and their swords to the Jews. By the 1980's smallpox was eradicated. The Jews are still around to this day. They were never a threat, seldom fought back and no good would've come from wiping them out, and yet even at that religion failed. Quote: objective material reality is not the EXPERIENCED HUMAN REALITY which we live, so there is a limit to what knowledge of material objects, external to the self, can do for us Correct. And those limits are far. They are further than the limits of the alternative you suggest which keeps telling us to quit investigating even our full-caps experienced human reality. Quote: this is not to suggest that i am sitting here typing a message to the internet on my smartphone, in my air conditioned apartment, to say that i am ANTI science No, of course not; who would possibly think such a preposterous thing after in every thread science comes up you go out of your way to declare it inferior to superstition. Quote: i have a great fascination with scientific discovery and i dont hesitate to say that it benefits us in inumerable ways i just like to promote an appreciation of ALL forms of useful, beneficial knowledge and wisdom, and that includes areas and subject which many consider to be unscientific No, it actually really doesn't include those. If it did, you could by now have named one piece of knowledge that was at all reliable, let alone useful or beneficial, that did not come from science. But you can't, because science is not by recognition but by definition the only thing that can generate any such knowledge - at least when it comes to actual reality.
    • Heaven, Hell, Re-incarnation? (Last post by Loudzoo)
    • I believe heaven and hell (and purgatory for that matter) do exist - not as places we go after we die, but psychological spaces we inhabit whilst we're alive. Most simply hell is separation (selfishness), heaven is connection (love) and purgatory is that feeling I experience most of the time: some combination of the two. None of these states are permanent - they are all subject to change. However, through practice we can gain some control as to which psychological space we reside in. As for any experience after physical death, I agree with Liwa Nim, it is probably very similar to the experience before birth (or conception, or whatever). I like the Richard Bach quote on this: "What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly." Its off-topic but I was enjoying the discussion on the prevalence of metaphor in our human experience - might start another thread on that . . . *ponders*
    • a new toy for fitness (Last post by RyuJin)
    • Quote: people dont realize how demanding it is to throw combinations at a fighting pace - its tough it's been so long that i had forgotten how demanding it could be....luckily my first try with it i went easy....just did the 1 minute session...40 lights 35 hits...
    • Techwear for Jedi (Last post by Jestor)
    • Quote: Yes! I am a big fan of this idea. Betabrand used to carry more of this, but not as much now. It was often very expensive. I have a decent edc set that goes everywhere with me. Multitool, flaslights, knife, cordage, space blanket, poncho, etc. I've been thinking about an augmented set for my car. Bigger tools, first aid, stuff I could throw on in a pinch, perhaps in something like this. It often comes back to money, but I think about this often. I tell you, I search for "cop clothes" (just for window shopping), as I have access to some of their magazines, and that stuff reminds me of the 5.11 brand of clothing...
    • Rants far and wide (Last post by Cayce)
    • I've been interested in becoming a certified Yoga instructor / teacher for some time now, but the cost of Certification is insane. Most places in my area charge $2,500 to $3,000. I so hate how certifications have turned into cash grabs. Ugh.
    • A Message (Last post by 6h057)
    • Agreed. I think that for any real religious order to work, it needs to be a group of philosophers/scholars that can comfortably agree to disagree. I don't like any system that props up anyone's right to pontificate to others as if they are somehow more in tune with the mystical or have God speaking in their ear. However I have a tendency to approach life a little dudeist and inject as much Slack as is appropriate.
    • The Thing All Women Do That You Don’t Know About (Last post by carlos.martinez3)
    • I see. It takes courage to admit this. It takes wisdom to see that it's not ONLY a women problem. It's a people problem. It is sad to see hate in any form. Can we deliver the opposite? Is it possible to build, not only female but male too, instead of breaking things down. Me and my wife remove the man and woman words as often and see the heart or the person. We ALL have some sort of coping mechanism. The day we as humans stop hurting humans will be a great day, till then friends take care of each other. The ones that are closest. My own opinion, sad things make me,sad but they also allow me to hold my own closer and appreciate them better. Thanks Akkarin for this one!
    • Today I felt lonely... (Last post by Almeida)
    • And then, I decided I couldn't just let myself feeling it. Loneliness brings emptiness, emptiness brings sadness, sadness brings anger and we all know it leads us to the Dark Side. I decided to close my eyes and clean my head. I leaned backwards, with my head leaning on my window safety net. There, with eyes closed, I opened up my hearing, and listened to everything that was to be listened to. I listened to the sound of cars coming and going, I listened to people having fun or just living their lives, I listened to the sound of the wind. When I was just thinking that the wind brings air, the air that I breath and the same air that everyone else breathes, one of my cats jumped on the window, and laid there, right beside my head. Breathing exactly the same air, showing me I was not alone. Then, I felt some raindrops on my face. The drops that evaporated into air and became clouds and were now falling. Once were part of something bigger, bathing people on rivers, waterfalls, in the ocean. They were transformed over and over and over again, until they were but a single drop of rain that fell in my face and was absorbed by my skin. Now, that very small part of the biggest of the oceans, were inside me, part of me. By means of that single drop, I was connected to everyone who had bathed in those waters. By the wind that was blowing into my face, I was connected to everyone who was breathing the same air. By the Force inside and outside, I am connected to every single thing in the Universe. And I didn't feel lonely anymore.
    • How did you know when you were a Jedi? (Last post by Bareus)
    • When searching for news about buddhism on a swedish newspaper, i found jediism (through that the article described that jediis was like a mix of several philosophies) The moment i read the article i knew that was the true philosophy for me, ever since i registrated here it has become more of a way to live then just a way to think (wich it also is)
    • Physical temple (Last post by Kitsu Tails)
    • Quote: Why not donate to the TOTJO instead? Donations are (I would think) a much higher priority being that the site needs money to stay running, rather than a physical temple that much fewer members will have the luxury to visit... Truth. Donations to the community is a far more worthy cause. I try and inform folks that there are many Jedi that could use the help more so than a physical temple. Gatherings themselves need alot of help and if folks cant even make it to a gathering...how do we expect them to make it to a temple? A gathering averages about $4,000 a year. (Community Wide / Not sure what it is for TOTJO's gatherings) $150 per person (Although that pricing has been going up) Aaand I can't find the thread that discussed TOTJO's Expenses but I know it was nearing a $500 mark per year....Jestor or Br. John would know more? I think...I know from my own web experience that it is pricey to keep a place like this up and running. And then of course there are the individual communities and Jedi such as Rosalynns Jedi Community Action group. Or those that Run for Charity. As Jedi. What we do is far more important than where we go. :)
    • The Grateful Thread (Last post by Alexandre Orion)
    • All my apprentices ... every last one of them ... and theirs too .... ... and some that aren't mine, but still ! ... and some who aren't quite apprentices yet, but still ! ;) Stars in the chilly clear mid-winter night ....

There are 673 visitors, 5 guests and 25 members online (none in chat): Br. John, Streen, ren, Phortis Nespin, Adhara, Gisteron, Takenobo, Proteus, Reacher, Alexandre Orion, KageKeeper, Kamizu, mdk, Kohadre, Edan, Senan, Tarran, den385, Loudzoo, Atticus509, bitoverwatch, JLSpinner, MartaLina, Dariax, BionicPianoMan, Maeros.

Follow Us