A History of Philosophy | 25 Aquinas on God

The first and second proofs concern a metaphysical cause of the whole causal order, not merely a temporal first mover that started a domino effect, because Aquinas emphasizes continuous dependence of creation on Creator and God sustains existence continuously rather than merely initiating it.

“a deist would be content to have God as number one back there who starts the ball rolling and it keeps on rolling starts the domino effect and it keeps on toppling dominoes uh but um aquinus is not satisfied with that um another way you can see that he's not satisfied with it is that uh he tells us and we've already talked about this in his metaphysic is that God is the very essence of existence as jilon puts it God is not simply an Essence that exists he's the very essence of existence”

God is the very essence of existence (esse ipsum subsistens)—not a being that happens to exist, but existence itself—meaning it is of His nature to exist and He continually imparts existence to every created thing which is contingent on Him for its continued being, not just its beginning.

“God is the very essence of existence as jilon puts it God is not simply an Essence that exists he's the very essence of existence you see it's of his nature to exist”

The medieval quest for knowledge does not have the same epistemological motivation as the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment quest for indubitable certainty, which arose after the breakdown of Church authority and was precipitated by skepticism rediscovered through Sextus Empiricus.

“the fact that he has God as the highest good in mind comes out in the reply to objection one you may just want to take a look at that uh 528 since God is the highest good says Augustine he wouldn't allow any evil to exist in his works unless his omnipotence and goodness was such as to bring good even out of evil and um aquinus adds this is part of the infinite goodness of God that he should allow evil to exist and out of it produce good you see the greater good argument concerning evil existing for greater good we'll come back to that later on uh any any questions comments so thus far yeah um Ryan as I was readingon on the first proof he made a note that most people consider it a horizontal movement in that you know yeah but that means there could be an interal digression and he said no it's more a vertical I didn't understand exactly yeah um the question is whether in this series of mov going backwards backwards backwards whether to speak of the first mover is to speak of number one back here that got the whole series going and the whole domino theory you see whether it's first in that sense or whether what he's speaking of is a metam mover that one seems to be dead let's try another one or whether what he's speaking of is a metam mover up here here who um is involved in maintaining the motion”

Aquinas rejects a priori arguments for God's existence (like Anselm's ontological argument) in favor of a posteriori arguments from effects to cause, because he is too much the empiricist in the Aristotelian tradition to accept rationalist a priori arguments as the Platonists did.

“aiori Arguments for the existence of God such as the ontological argument and all of those aquinus Rejects he's too much the empiricist being an Aristotelian to have a rationalists a priori argument as the platonists did”

Being itself has transcendental attributes (goodness, truth, beauty) that apply to every being and transcend the differences between species and genera; these attributes are not stripped-down existence but existence loaded with possibilities and perfections.

“being is a much more complex thing than just existing or not existing uh being has certain nature of its own that is to say there are certain trans transcendental attributes of all being or if you like of all beings attributes which transcend the differences between species and Genera and larger classes and applies to every being you'll see every being now to be or not to be to exist or not to exist is sort of a notion of stripped down existence uh devoid of those transcendental attributes of being the baress of existence”

Thomas Aquinas set out to modify Aristotle's position to satisfy the needs of Christian theology, responding to the Averroist interpretation of Aristotle which was incompatible with both Muslim and Christian theology.

“in response to the aist uh interpretation of Aristotle which was incompatible with either Muslim or Christian theology uh Thomas aquinus set out to modify Aristotle's position in order to um satisfy the needs of Christian theology”

The Summa Theologiae discusses the relationship of faith and reason, reason and Revelation in order to repudiate the two-fold truth notion of the Averroists and to establish the mutually complementary nature of reason and Revelation.

“the sum theologica that major work written with this in mind the sum theologica proceeds to discuss the relationship of faith and reason reason and Revelation in order to stake out a position uh that repudiates the two-fold truth notion of the heroist and sees the mutually complimentary nature of reason and Revelation”

From the effects of God, the existence of the cause (God) can be demonstrated with logical certainty, but from these effects we cannot know God perfectly in His essence, only that He exists.

“from effects not proportioned to the cause no perfect knowledge of the cause can be obtained and um yeah certainly God is um to be understood as not just sufficient to produce those effects but is far far more than sufficient so in that sense disproportionate to the effects yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be demonstrated so that we come we can demonstrate the existence of God though from them we cannot know God perfectly as he is in his Essence um now what that last sentence seems to say is that we can know his existence okay but we that does not give us perfect knowledge of his essence or nature okay that's where the limitations are”

Knowledge of the nature of natural objects in the Aristotelian tradition proceeds by abstracting the essence or nature or form from experience of the species, but this method cannot work for God because there is no species of gods to gain experience with—God is sui generis, the only member of His own genus.

“in the Aristotelian tradition so it is with aquinus that a knowledge of the nature of natural objects is on the basis of experience by abstracting the essence the nature the form from our experience of the whole range of members of Any Given class knowledge by abstraction but when it comes to talking of God and our knowledge of God there's a problem because there's no species of gods to gain experience with from which we could abstract the essence of God so knowledge by abstraction from experience does not work in relationship to a knowledge of God”

We know God and speak of God through analogy, not abstraction. Aquinas distinguishes analogy of degrees (God is infinite perfection at the top of the hierarchy of being) and analogy of proper proportionality (the degree of goodness corresponds to the degree of being, so proportions between creatures reflect proportions in God).

“the answer is not by abstraction but by analogy not by abstraction but by analogy and um that analogy depends of course on the whole hierarchy of beings which is in step with the whole Hier Archy of good and the whole hierarchy of Truth or intelligible form”

Goodness is twofold: the goodness belonging to a thing's essence (which God cannot make better—you cannot make a human better than human) and the goodness of actualized qualities (virtue, wisdom, knowledge) which can be improved and which God can enhance in His creatures.

“the goodness of anything is twofold one belongs to its Essence thus to be rational belongs to the essence of man as regards this good cannot God cannot make a thing better than itself you can't make a man better than a man is made to be good I see but there is another kind of uh goodness um the goodness of a man is to be virtuous or wise or knowledgeable to use the other example that's not of essence that's something which is achieved something which is actualized and in regard to that God can make better the things that he has made he can make you virtuous and wise you'll see”

Evil cannot be reduced to God as a cause because evil consists in the defect of action caused by the defect of the agent, and there is no defect in God; therefore evil must be traced to a defective agent.

“evil consists in the defect of action caused by the defect of agent but in God there is no defect hence evil which consists in defec of action caused by defective agent is not reduced to God as its cause”

In metaphysics and theological epistemology, understanding God's existence demands recognition that God's essence is His existence (esse ipsum subsistens), which is the fundamental metaphysical difference between God and all creation.

“God is the very essence of existence as jilon puts it God is not simply an Essence that exists he's the very essence of existence you see it's of his nature to exist”

All five of Aquinas's proofs for God's existence rest on Aristotelian premises—potentiality and actuality, efficient causes, contingency and necessity, hierarchy of being, and final causes—making the proofs system-dependent rather than philosophically neutral.

“if you look at the premises for the five proofs they're not philosophically neutral premises they're Aristotelian premises for while they are premises drawn from experience they are premises that represent a knowledge of principles abstracted from experience”

A proposition can be self-evident in itself (because God is His own existence, making God's existence necessarily true) without being self-evident to us (because we lack direct knowledge of God's nature as necessary being).

“a thing can be self-evident in either of two ways on the one hand self-evident in itself but not to us and on the other self-evident to us and he goes on at the end of the I that uh and you you see the way he puts it a thing can be self-evident in either of two ways on the one hand self-evident in itself but not to us and on the other self-evident to us and he goes on at the end of the I that to say that the proposition God itself God exists rather God exists is um uh self-evident um in itself because God is his own existence as will be shown here after existence is necessary to God but that is only valid as long as we know that about God so it's not self-evident to us”

Aquinas argues for a non-Aristotelian God (theistic, with efficient causality and omniscience) from Aristotelian premises, achieving a remarkable transformation where a necessary being known through efficient cause becomes the cause of being and goodness for all creation.

“it is plainly a the IC being not an unmoved mover just thinking on his own thinking look at the conclusions of the five proofs and uh you see what he's doing the first proof on 527 leads to the conclusion that there is a first mover mov by no other and this everyone understands to be God you say the language is Aristotelian yeah a first mover a prime mover but notice the difference Aristotle's prime mover is only a final cause this prime mover is an actuality”

Regarding natural evil (corruption, decay, rotting), God is the cause because natural corruption serves the good of the order of the universe; for example, rotting apples are good for the ecosystem by providing seeds for new apple trees and recycling nutrients.

“on the other hand evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause and here he's speaking of the natural Corruption of things like of atom like of apples that rot and it's manifest that halfway through that paragraph It's manifest that the form which God intends in created things is the good of the order of the universe and if the good of the order of the universe require that apples should rot then rotting apples in that sense are good and after all where would the Apple crops be without rotting apples I mean you wouldn't have apple seeds in order to seed more apple trees to produce more apples so rotting apples are are they not for the good of the universe the good of the whole”

God could have made other possible worlds vastly different from this one which would be equally good according to their essences, but for this particular world with these particular essences, the present order of things is the best possible world.

“so this isn't the only possible World God could make other possible worlds vastly different which are as good but for this particular world it's the best possible World okay”

The assumption that Aquinas's five proofs are intended to be philosophically neutral such that anybody should agree they prove God's existence is false; their validity depends on acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics.

“I I'm inclined to think that when these proofs are handled outside of their context in the summer theologica and outside of the historical context of uh trying to adapt the Aristotelian tradition for Christian purposes outside of those context these proofs are very often misunderstood the um assumption seems to be that they are intended to be neutral such that anybody should agree uh that they prove the existence of God but in fact not because um if you look at the premises for the five proofs they're not philosophically neutral premises they're Aristotelian premises”

Truth can be understood epistemologically (as a property of propositions that correspond to extra-mental states of affairs) or ontologically (as conformity of a being to its essence or type, as when we speak of a 'true philosopher' or 'true man').

“nowadays if we were to dis be discussing the question what is Truth uh we would likely end up U saying that truth is a property of propositions uh a property of propositions that correspond to some extra mental state of affairs and in as much as propositions are thought and propositions are true then truth is in the intellect in the thinking in correct thinking thinking correct propositions would say truth is in the intellect in other words truth is an epistemological category”

Truth is primarily in the intellect of God (in the archetypes) and secondarily in created beings which are true to their essence, rather than truth being first in created beings or first in human knowledge; therefore God's truth is prior to and the source of all other truth.

“his response is truth is first in the intellect and therefore in the being that is to say truth is first in the mind of God in those archetypes and then in created beings which are true this true that true the other”

God is the logos—the archetypes in the mind of God that provide the patterns in accordance to which God creates, and in whom 'are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge' (Colossians). All propositional truth is truth either about God or about some aspect of God's creation, and all truth has its source in God.

“so you have these two conceptions of Truth wherein one the reference is simply to a proposition propositional truth you see and when we talk theologically about propositional Revelation we're talking about a revelation which can be expressed in terms of propositions that can be thought understood propositions that are either true or false you see or um so either then truth of an epistemic sort truth of propositions or ontological Truth uh true beings true type yeah and you see that's the way it is with regard to this business of Truth uh true the type what well the archetypes in the mind of God the archetypes which provide those patterns in accordance to which God creates you see that archetypal truth that is to say God God conceived as truth is the logos yeah the logos he's bringing AR Augustine's logos concept into Aristotelian philosophy this is God the logos in whom ahd all Treasures of wisdom and knowledge remember the phrase from Colossians”

The goodness of God is evident in His Providence—the good things manifest throughout creation—and all being is good in its own way; evil is a privation or deprivation of good rather than a positive principle.

“goodness which is another of those transcendental attributes the goodness of God is evident in his Providence that is to say in the good things all the way down through his creation an all being is good that is to say that um an Apple has its own kind of good a dog is good in the way that dogs are in their very nature good things a human being is good in the sense that there is a kind of quality to human beings fitting into the overall uh interwoven goodness of the creation good there um where there is evil evil is a privation of that good a deprivation if you like so that a bad apple is one that is no longer true to its Essence in fact if it gets bad enough it rots away into nothing where there is no goodness there is no being all being is in degree good you see”