Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Desolous, tzb

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
    • A brief matter of time.. (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: Huh? I thought we already had a new one , i am in year 39 now :P Mic drop :lol: Epoch Alderaan Time - EAT :dry: [image]
    • What do you think comes after death? (Last post by Senan)
    • Death, yet the Force or There is no death; There is the Force And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life Each of these would suggest that the Force is eternal, and as I believe that I am an expression of the Force, I too am eternal. So are you. Perhaps the "I" (*cough* EGO) that I currently know and love will cease to exist, but the Force will remain. I am born of the Force and I represent the Force expressing itself in a tangible way, as do you. I don't know how it will choose to express itself next, but whatever it is I will be included in it, as will each of "you". One day long after "I" am gone, someone will remember I said this and realize that we are all part of the salad they are having for lunch. That will be a great day for me :laugh:
    • General Economics Discussion (Last post by Rickie)
    • "Laws go both ways given they also enable capitalism." Laws that are greatly influenced by political contributions. I don't know where the cut off is for a definition of wealth but the capitalist I'm referring too have hundreds of millions. They are the rule makers.
    • World Trade Center Steel (Last post by r3dleader)
    • The Oklahoma City Bombing museum and monument gets to me every time. I don't believe in psychic energy or spirits or anything like that, I just think it makes you realize your own mortality and brings out one of the most fundamental human emotions, empathy.
    • A World Without Ageism | Ashton Applewhite (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • ok she has some good points and some reassuring information for those of us who are looking at the reality of our own aging, and i dont want to detract from those, but she also really got on my nerves lol she got on my nerves more than she reassured me lol so thats what im going to respond to first is this: if someone considers you (or me) too old (or too young) for them to have sex with, that is their right none of us are entitled to sex with any particular person just because we want it and im saying this as someone in his 30s who is attending college; "too old" is a wall that i personally have to face sometimes, but its not one i or anyone else have the right to say "you need to tear down that wall and let me through" Quote: ageism is to age what racism is to race: both are socially constructed ideas that change over time and that serve a social and economic purpose. they are not about how we look, they are about what people in power want how we look to mean holy crapoly crazy-old-batman; this woman just blamed the illuminati for jokes about adult diapers! considering the goofiness of people today i feel obliged to point out that it is the "ISM" part of both ageism and racism which she describes as "socially constructed" the actual race and age parts are biologically constructed, though society may make any number of interpretations about their value or meaning and why does everything have to be an ism? why is everyone so excited about the idea that they ar ebeing victimized and oppressed? up till now i thought it was just a trend that had infected the brains of affluent millennials she does lot of stereotyping and generalizing for someone who seems to be saying "dont stereotype me" and honestly, i expect someone her age to know better lol Quote: Ageism is why teenagers get no respect... teenagers "get no respect" most definitely is not always true, but when it is true, its often because teenagers generally dont know their arses from a hole in the ground and yet still seem to think that the rest of the world should defer to their brilliant insight on whatever issue reddit or MTV happens to have spoon fed them in the most recent weeks Quote: why twenty-somethings who arent having peek lives every minute feel overwhelmed i think they are overwhelmed because life is overwhelming, especially when youre first starting out on your own Quote: why 30 yr old women freak out about getting "over the hill" ok this one is more valid/accurate than the others, but once a functional level of competence has been achieved, youth is biologically useful/valuable than oldness humans tend to venerate beauty, and -for women especially- attractiveness is a major component of social value anything which threatens our social value will "freak us out", and 30 is often perceived as a kind of threshold age where we have to accept the fact that our youth, and the beauty of our youth, are beginning to recede this is even worse for women who arent married and want to be and/or realize/decide that they want children, but havent had any, because child bearing is something that has got risks and difficulties at any age, biological and financial, and it doesnt likely get EASIER after 30 the standard that men are traditionally held to places a greater emphasis on performance and accomplishment and the the process of accomplishing things takes time while a young stud MIGHT be biologically more attractive than a randomly generated 30 something, a man who is seasoned by that process is not only more attractive in terms of his personality, but also in terms of his resources and reliability appearance is pretty important fror men too regardless of gender, people dont even notice you (as a potential sexual partner) until youve achieved a basic level of attractiveness Quote: why 40 yr olds cant get job interviews ever? anywhere? really? i think she is describing something that is real enough but i see 40 yr olds everywhere from wal-mart to wall street and i dont think that being 40 makes finding a new job insurmountable there are plenty of legit reasons why a 40 yr old wont be likely to get an interview doing jobs that are typically given to hungry, attractive 20 yr olds, including the fact that the 40 yr old more likely wants to actually be paid for their time, whereas the 20 yr old isnt worth as much, doesnt really know what they ARE worth anyway, and really wants to get their foot in the door she speaks as if people dont want to use a cane simply because they dont want to be judged, but i dont want to use a cane because i dont want to NEED to use a cane hell with the judgement of others (barring injury) a cane is what you need when youre too old to safely walk without one thats not an easy thing to accept and it doesnt have nearly as much to do with social conditioning as it does with basic honest recognition of our own deterioration i agree that society should treat all people with respect and that we should avoid making generalizations and stereotyping one another im glad she paints a picture of aging which isnt totally bleak that being said, she can rail against the social stigma of aging all she wants, but if she thinks shes going to kick start the GILF movement then she's already gone senile lol
    • Cultural Sensitivity/Appropriation and Anger (Last post by Parnerium)
    • Quote: Quote: Cultural appropriation is a very serious topic. It is, however, often misdiagnosed. serious how? can you demonstrate a harm more significant than "i find it distasteful" or "i dont like it"? Not speaking for Steamboat, but I thought about this question a bit. Say somebody hears about "Native American sweat lodges" and thinks its a fine idea. They figure "Hey, I'm human. People who came up with sweat lodges are human. So I can do a sweat lodge, even though I have no connection to the culture that created it." So they call themselves a "guru" and build a sweat lodge. They then tell everybody to come to their genuine sweat lodge for spiritual awakening. Then a bunch of people die because, it turns out, this person didn't actually know what they were doing. Why did those people think a sweat lodge would help them spiritually? Because this guy said so, for sure. But also probably because they have deep associations between "sweat lodge" and "wise Indian elders going on spirit journeys and being one with the land or whatever." This also made me think about how commonly consumable Americans find any element of Native American cultures that are fairly widely known. People are willing to pay a buttload of money to have a sweat lodge experience, meanwhile, Cree members themselves are being told they can't have a private sweat lodge in their own backyard. I find discussions on cultural appropriation very complex (and feel like these complexities are often glossed over in favor of catchy one-liners like "we're a culture, not a costume" and the ensuing argument). But these are some of the things I think about when trying to figure it all out.
    • Can a force senstive person train themselves (Last post by Loudzoo)
    • I spent 18 years or so studying and practicing before I found this wonderful community. 'Progress' can be made alone (indeed some of it must be alone) but its a bit like stumbling around in the dark by yourself, rather than walking along a well-lit path. The metaphor isn't quite right but hopefully you see what I mean! Guidance and support from a like-minded community makes a huge difference in my experience :) Incidentally I believe that everyone has the potential to be 'Force sensitive' and although holocrons don't exist - fortunately libraries, and all the resources of the internet do ;)
    • The Avengers and Phil Coulson endorse Hillary. (Last post by Goken)
    • Honestly, I don't care at all about who they are or aren't endorsing and I'm still not sure I believe them that voting actually matters all that much (thank you electoral college system). But I did enjoy this ad a lot simply for Mark Ruffalo's reactions at the end. "What? I never agreed to that." "No, guys. They should just vote because it's important." :laugh: He's great. :laugh:
    • The Block (Last post by carlos.martinez3)
    • Carlos Temple secret : work a break in the process as often as possible. Helps for good form, sanity and focus!
    • What would happen if humans disappeared? (Last post by Hrafn)
    • Quote: In my opinion, the planet (and / or entire sector) will be barren once humans are gone. I am not so sure of that, unless we upload our consciousness in a computer (Transcendence style) and turn the entire planet in a machine, life (even bacteria or fungi) will adapt to our absence and will go on starting a new evolutionary path. Moreover, even if we "computerise" all the surface area of the planet and sterilise it natural events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and meteorite impact will occur. This events bring complex chemicals, heat and so on and can make the life cycle start again in the same way it started in the beginning. So I don't think the end of humankind will be the end of life in out system. Quote: Earth is already a relatively old planet in terms of the development of life. Most other planets in the universe are considerably younger in this respect (which is now a theory for why we haven't been able to detect other intelligence - there simply hasn't been enough time for it to evolve on other planets yet). Slooow down Cyan ahahah The theory your are quoting exists (is by Dimitar Sasselov if I remember correctly) but is just an hypothesis with very little support to it. We have discovered around 2100 exoplanets (number of exoplanet confirmed in 2015, but there are other 700 candidates). Around 350 of them are Earth-like planets or supearths. I'll do not take into account exomoons. Of these 350 exoplanets we have calculated the age of less than 10 and every result is around 3.5 Gyr or so. The Earth, in comparison, is 4.5 Gyr old (1 Gyr = 1 billion years). If every one of these planet have earth-like life on it probably there is just some multicellular organism and nothing more and your theory would be true. We have to notice, by the way, that we have the age of less than 10 planets and looking at the results I suppose is really unlikely not to find a planet (or many) older than the Earth. Anyway, no one know at the moment, we can be the oldest or the youngest planet, we don't have enough data to establish that. Quote: And this might sound arrogant: will it matter if there's life on Earth if there are no intelligent, self-aware beings? Who will be able to reflect on it? Not arrogant, maybe just playing the devil's advocate and it's a good thing. We weren't intelligent life forms. We were monkeys. And before being monkey we were unicellular organism. So yes, I think it really matters because some other life form can evolve, become self-aware and reflect on these things. If what you say is true then 4'499'800'000 years of 4'500'000'000 would have no sense; but is because of that gigantic number of years that we are here today, so I think they matter.
    • Marijuana and its use (Last post by Sephiroth_deus)
    • I have nothing to add regarding whether one should or should not use marijuana that hasn't been said here and on a million other message boards. However I was wondering about people's experiences with its use and how it effected one's meditations and/or spiritual connectivity (IE does it make this or that meditative exercise easier? Harder? If you feel the Force on a day to day basis does its use inhibit or improve that connection?). My personal understanding and experiences with such things (meditation/spiritual awareness) is extremely limited and I would be interested in reading other people's experiences and insights regarding such things and how they combine with marijuana.

There are 124 visitors, 9 guests and 44 members online (none in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Grom Fett, Jestor, Connor L., Adder, Wescli Wardest, Desolous, Proteus, V-Tog, rugadd, Rosalyn J, Lykeios, rrhodes67, Kit, elizabeth, Avalonslight, tzb, Senan, Zenchi, Namid, Loudzoo, Atticus, Tellahane, Hyrum Tigerprice, Ke JinnDakken, Jack.Troutman, MadHatter, Cayce, Brick, Kyrin Wyldstar, Snowy Aftermath, x57z12, Leah Starspectre, Albali Cometlast, LiamRevan, Luce Stellare, mfayj, Arisaig, Jaxz, Parnerium, Dukkah, piezv60, Genoe Jhalam, sirena, Truthseeker25, guave319, stoneoxmike.

Follow Us