|
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"
(Rm. 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.
|
|