Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Desolous, Reliah, Edan

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
    • Team E - 100 days of discipline (Last post by Dechlain)
    • Quote: my computer is crashed :( I have been keeping up - every day with meditation - however i have laxed on reporting due to my 2 thousand dollar ouchie... Fit, relax, and ready for day 29!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Back up computer GO! :D @ D "i got ur back bruh" Oh wow, jake! Sorry to hear that, man. I'm sure it can be overlooked!
    • Dealing with laziness (Last post by JLSpinner)
    • If you truly are stuck doing more than your share, and it upsets you, stop doing it. Go a few days without cleaning and watch it pile up. If they ask you about it explain the situation. I've been in a similar spot. We drew up a chore chart and shared responsibilities.
    • Pacifism. (Last post by JLSpinner)
    • I am a pacifist. I hate fighting. I hate confrontation. Oddly though I fight with a mixture of form I and form VII. While I don't like to fight I can and will over power you. I just pray it doesn't come to that.
    • Edan`s question round: Unanswered questions of Aqu... (Last post by Aqua)
    • Quote: What do you mean by practice area? What do you mean by "mechanics" and "method"? practice area: surroundings of were you practice meditation. But I meant the effectiveness area to the mind with in meditation. Mechanics of meditation: mechanics can be found within the method, it is how the method is build up, just like car parts (If I say it incorrect, please correct me Alan) Quote: Ok I tried to answer your questions, but then I got irritated. Not because your questions are not good, useful, important questions to have, but because I have a different view of meditation altogether since I began reading "Wherever You Go, There You Are", found here: www.amazon.com/Wherever-You-There-Are-Mi...coding=UTF8&qid=&sr=. Meditation (to me) is not so much a thing that we "do" some time during the day, adopting certain postures in certain places for a certain amount of time to attain a certain goal. It can instead be considered "mindfulness", that is to say NOT living on autopilot. I am thankful for your open words about how you feel about my opinion. Really appreciate that you are so open with your word choice! Hmm.. I feel that you are too irritated to see that I switch between minding aware of my surroundings the whole day, and concentrated meditation. To relax more.. I am sorry to say. I tend to switch between forms. Depending on my emotional state, that will bring me to the next quote. :unsure: Quote: I just spoke with a doctor about this and he told me that you can lower your blood pressure by closing your eyes and breathing deep while relaxing. This was after I had stressed my heart enough to bring on the symptoms of a heart attack. I also just spoke with a psychiatrist and he told me about something called progressive muscle relaxation and a whole host of other things called: stress management. Thank you for your time to respond and to find research about my question! I do not want to have a heart attack again, but that is actually not my trouble point I try to explain. I am searching to understand how to change my meditation learning and doing, dependent to the situation I am in. I do not have stress, it is just that I do not always feel comfortable in the way I do meditation, mainly because meditation needs to flow with the situation to be of use in changing the situation. Not sure how I should manage to do that, so that is one of the reasons I asked these questions if I may speak out free. Quote: Personally, I think it depends on what one is trying to achieve... I don't think that the traditional idea of meditation itself is 'wonky', neither do I think that it is definitively not meditation... Even the question "Am I awake" - in this scenario the question itself is still an aide... ;) Perhaps meditation is being one with 'now' Likewise, perhaps meditation is not an activity that truly exists, but a state of being that some of us will not understand without first running with the concept of the activity... I know, because it's been said to me a number of times (this 'you should just meditate every moment of your life, there's no point in sitting still' idea), and sometimes it's actually made me feel pretty small (although that might well be just me) and hasn't helped me to understand what meditation might feel like. Having said all that, I'm not sure that I'm qualified enough to answer Aqua's questions properly. :laugh: :pinch: (Although, Aqua, I'm more than happy to chat about my thoughts on it...I'm just not quite comfortable putting my thoughts in a public arena where they might be taken to be some sort of 'expertise' when they would really be nothing of the sort!) Edit: Also, I've been inspired to read that book - 'Wherever you go, there you are'... :) Thank you for your reaction! You are more than qualified, V. :blush: I think that every person is qualified to answer my questions. I like to hear all opinions of people, we all think different about it. Saying one is not qualified would limit the possibilities and I do not like that.. much.. Ehm.. Meditation is something I tend to do always, but sometimes I just switch for comfortable reasons of emotion. Guess you are on one line with my own idea of deep personal thoughts in public areas. Happy to chat about it. :) Some may have noticed that I try to keep my words as flat as possible, most of the time.. The main importance for me to not share is because I feel totally not comfortable in doing, one asks me, why are you open in your Journal? Well.. Just because I have no other option in doing I guess. Sometimes I have to, other times I feel more play area to say no. Ehm.. Meditation is linked with the situation and the person within the situation. So I think it is of some importance to dig a little bit into it, because I feel that there are multiple forms and understandings within one single aspect of meditation. I like to learn, little bits every time, not want to haste it out.. If one can not answer my questions, I shall wait till the day comes. I have patience to wait as long as it is needed. :) I find it important to not rush into my questions, that is the last thing I would do, haste brings uncontrolled results. Force shine with you all, ~ Aqua
    • Light and Dark (Last post by Streen)
    • Quote: Quote: ... I find there really isn't an answer to where the line lies between light and dark. ... Do you admit that there is a definite light and a definite dark? Or, is it, as you quoted from the book, just degrees of separation -- by which point one happens to feel they belong? Is one's degree of light/dark dependent on the individual's perception, or an outsider's perspective? No I don't think there is a definite anything when it comes to light and dark. We decide what is light and dark. Humanity in general has decided much of this for us. One could argue that religion, or God, has defined much of it, but even those concepts differ between religions. There are the basics, like no killing, no lying, etc., but I tend to fall back on Christ's two commandments: Love God with your whole being, and Love others as you would have them love you. It makes things a lot simpler when you look at it that way, rather than trying to define black, white, and shades of gray.
    • Team C - 100 days of discipline (Last post by MartaLina)
    • Day 35 just the meditation or i could consider cleaning the house after my daughters party excersise , yeah lets do that , because it looked like a bomb exploded :silly:
    • "...we are all responsible not only for ourse... (Last post by Aqua)
    • Quote: All of the past, present and future situations that we, as a race, create for ourselves...have these not all arisen from the human condition to which we are all subjected? Resistant as we generally are to the notion, much of the position that we each find ourselves in could be considered to be a result of luck - luck of the draw - our upbringing, the situations we have been exposed to, the external things that have affected us. Our actions contribute to the external conditions that influence others - take the Temple, for example - the attitude of the individuals here makes up the collective positive atmosphere that we all so enjoy. So there is responsibility in recognizing that we are always an external condition in the life of others - what we do affects them, whether we like it or not. And what they do affects others, and what those others do affect yet more others... The idea that 'one person can change the world' can sometimes seem a ludicrous one - it is often understood to mean that one person will single-handedly change the world, and for the most part this probably is unrealistic. Why? Because we are not islands...we exist as part of a collective humanity. Mmm.. what if one person is the universal word for all persons working together as one? What if our actions not only contribute to the external conditions of other people, but also to ourselves? Would I be a weird if I call this external contribution to others a influence and to myself luck? I find this 'luck' to be found in all contribution? Luck is nothing more than a uncontrollable favorable situation. So should we all consider ourselves lucky? I think we could.. But most people only favor the situations that they do not face every day as luck. Why is that? Is it because we stopped realising the every day little things because we began to see them as normal? :) ~ Aqua
    • [Open Forum] What is "freedom of speech?"... (Last post by Lightstrider)
    • Quote: Freedom of speech means the goverment cant come and arrest or exexute you. This. But I also think people are free to spew their nonsense and are entitled to their opinion. Look at the confederate flag issue, if people want to fly that flag they can whether they just think it is cool or if it's part of their history and culture regardless of what other people think it means. But maybe since it's not physical speaking the flag doesn't count? If people are spewing nonsense it's anyone else right to debate and argue with it or just ignore it, the second you stop someone from expressing themselves you allow yourself to be stopped at some point too. Don't get me wrong though, there's a lot of utter nonsense that can be spewed such as racist rhetoric, but even then the hates peech laws and what not are kind of anti-freedom of speech. There are laws on the books for when it gets physical. It gets tricky though because some places don't want anyone to be spreading Nazi or other types of propaganda, or citicizing of governments or what have you. There are a lot of people who can be duped into believing certain things, like ISIS recruiting, that an authority might say is because of free speech. :lol:
    • A path before/alongside jediism? (Last post by Whyte Horse)
    • Quote: Did you follow a diffrent philosophy or religion then Jediism before you became a Jedi? Like paganism, islam, christianity, taoism etc.. Or maybe you still do, in that case, do you have any problems with follwing two religions/philosophies? I personally used to be a Zen Buddhist, then i found Jediism and i eventually turned to Jediism. I do still apply some zen ideas to Jediism, but it isn't really a problem because Jediism and Zen are quite similar. Obviously, we all followed a different path before we met Jediism because there was no Jedi path for us before. Personally, I was on a buddhist path when I found totjo, but I wasn't really on that path. I was just exploring the world and by some "random accident" ended up here.
    • Negative Thoughts (Last post by MartaLina)
    • Quote: I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful discussion thus far. It sounds as if, from my anecdotal evidence and reading here, that we all have these thoughts. It seems that what we do with them is what defines us. I hope that is a succinct summation of it, at least from what I have read. I have these feelings and thoughts as well off course , i try to avoid not to get to wound up about it because it gets in the way of doing the right thing. But i also acknowledge there is such a thing as instinct and when i am weiry about someone i see it as a first warning, is his/hers behaviour offensive aswell the second warning sets in , and if it goes further its "enough" and then i might ask for an explanation or not.. It is sometimes the case that i dont like someone on first impression , but the thing is , you dont have to like everyone in order to do the right thing , in fact it is needed in this world that we learn that we are responsible for each other even if we dont see eye to eye :) Part of the Loving Kindness meditation i am doing lately is that you first forgive the people that hurt you and then you forgive yourself , because we are all Human, we used to live in tribes that uses to look and behave the same, we became afraid of change , and everything that is different , thats a shame really , because change is essential to growth ;)
    • Jediism in death (Last post by Whyte Horse)
    • There are no rules for Jedi deaths. I hope that you all will light my dead corpse on fire in a funeral pyre in open defiance of any laws. But seriously, I may never die if I make it to 2020 and receive reverse-ageing treatments
    • Let's Talk About Runes (Last post by Golan Wilder)
    • What do you mean by runes involved with the Greek Alphabet? From what I understand the runes were primarily the types of alphabets that developed in northern Europe. Might you be talking about the Theban Alphabet? (AKA the witchs' Alphabet)

There are 175 visitors, 6 guests and 33 members online (4  in chat): Br. John, Manu, ren, Kitsu Tails, Dechlain, Lightstrider, Proteus, V-Tog, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Whyte Horse, Kamizu, tzb, Zenchi, Cabur Senaar, Aqua, Tarran, Loudzoo, Tellahane, The Polish Winged Hussar, Jack.Troutman, MartaLina, Breeso, Konstan, Kjartan, Brick, Amandabonn, Kyrin Wyldstar, Reindeer, Snowy Aftermath, korum garek, ShannonMCD, Cenrus Kuno, Rider Black, Janko, JamesKenobi, Riyuma, Veto Miner.

Follow Us