"Therefore I say that this proposition, 'God exists,' is of itself self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is his own existence....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."The reason why the existence of God is not self-evident (not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious) to us is because we do not know the essence (what a thing is) of God; and if we do not know the essence of God, then we cannot know what makes up his essence. For example, the proposition, "Fire is hot," is self-evident to us because we know, in some measure, the essence of fire and that heat is part of that essence. Heat is so much a part of what fire is that it is impossible for there to be fire without heat. In contrast, the proposition, "God is existence," is not self-evident to us because we have never experienced God with any of our senses (like we have experienced fire); therefore, it is impossible for us to know that existence is part of his essence.
We come to know that God exists through the effects he has created, effects that are self-evident to us because we experience them with our five senses. In other words, from the visible creation, we learn that the invisible God exists (for the wonder, order, and beauty of creation could not have happened on its own, for nothing is the cause of its own existence) and that he is all-powerful (for only a being with unlimited power could have created such an amazing world).
Nicely done. You seem to have a solid grasp on Thomas' important point here. Thomas' empiricism (although not the complete empiricism of the later "enlightenment" philosophers is also the reason he disagreed with Anselm and Bonaventure, etc, and said we could in no way prove the Trinity from reason.
ReplyDeleteIf my memory serves me, the distinction he makes is between notum in se and notum quoad nos, being known in Himself, and being known as far as we go. God is self-evident in Himself since His existence is necessary and fully knows Himself, therefore fully knowing the necessity of His existence. We don't. There is nothing in the world like God. There is no proportion between our mind and God. We only know God through unknowing, that is through faith. We can, on the other hand, come to a certain knowledge that God exists (different than knowing God), and then faith becomes unnecessary for holding that God exists, and this we do through through the study of God's effects, reasoning to the existence of the unknown cause. Good essay!
ReplyDeleteYes, we know God as a cause, but not as an object of our study, at least not through reason alone. We know that being exists and know it has a cause, but we dont know this being directly. We can know certain attributes that must exist in the cause of all we know, but more in terms of what this cause is not (not finite, not a body, not movable, etc).
DeleteA popular way of putting this is that you have to have an ontology before you can have a (natural) theology. Indeed, God is not even in the Genus of "being" and cannot be said to share that similitude with all other beings, but rather, our being is merely analogous with his, not univocal. If our being was univocal, we could actually know God in some similar way as we know other existing things.
Yes. There is a difference between the one who knows God in a unitive sense and the one who knows God in a non-unitive sense. Also, as you said, God fully knows himself and so knows that his existence is his essence. This full knowledge God has of himself is the Word or the Second Person of the Trinity.
DeleteThank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to comment on my blog. Both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in Theology and Scripture. However, I have no formal training in Thomistic thought in general or the Summa in particular. I think my background in Theology (and a little in philosophy) helps me to understand most of what St. Thomas is saying in the Summa. However, I don't understand everything; and I'm sure some of what I think I understand, I incorrectly understand. Thanks for helping me understand correctly. The Summa has greatly enriched my relationship with God and the Church.
ReplyDelete