Summa Theologica
Chapter 2 : Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture s

Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of G.o.d's arm, the literal sense is not that G.o.d has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

_______________________

QUESTION 2

THE EXISTENCE OF G.o.d (In Three Articles)

Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d;

(2) Of the rational creature's advance towards G.o.d;

(3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to G.o.d.

In treating of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 "G.o.d exists" is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether G.o.d exists?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 2, Art. 1]

Whether the Existence of G.o.d Is Self-Evident?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of G.o.d 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 G.o.d is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of G.o.d is self-evident.

Obj. 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 "G.o.d" is understood, it is at once seen that G.o.d 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 "G.o.d" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "G.o.d exists" is self-evident.

Obj. 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 G.o.d is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "G.o.d 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 "G.o.d is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no G.o.d" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that G.o.d 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 t.i.tle 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 s.p.a.ce." Therefore I say that this proposition, "G.o.d exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because G.o.d is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q. 3, Art. 4). Now because we do not know the essence of G.o.d, 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 Obj. 1: To know that G.o.d exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as G.o.d is man's beat.i.tude. 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 G.o.d 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 Obj. 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "G.o.d"

understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed G.o.d to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "G.o.d" 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 G.o.d does not exist.

Reply Obj. 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 2, Art. 2]

Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That G.o.d Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of G.o.d cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that G.o.d 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 G.o.d exists.

Obj. 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration.

But we cannot know in what G.o.d's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that G.o.d exists.

Obj. 3: Further, if the existence of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 Obj. 1: The existence of G.o.d and other like truths about G.o.d, 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of G.o.d from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "G.o.d".

Reply Obj. 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 G.o.d from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know G.o.d as He is in His essence.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 2, Art. 3]

Whether G.o.d Exists?

Objection 1: It seems that G.o.d does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "G.o.d" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, G.o.d existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore G.o.d does not exist.

Obj. 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's existence.

_On the contrary,_ It is said in the person of G.o.d: "I am Who am." (Ex.

3:14)

_I answer that,_ The existence of G.o.d can be proved in five ways.