Sect. 55The Demonstration of the Existence of GodThe Demonstration of the Existence of God
The complete treatment of the proof of the Existence of God belongs to Philosophy and Apologetics. We shall here confine our attention to some remarks on the nature, force, and organic connection of these proofs.
I. To be or to exist belongs to God’s very essence. The proposition, “God exists,” is therefore immediately evident in itself (per se nota secundum se). Nevertheless, since we have no immediate perception of the Divine Essence, this proposition is not immediately evident to us (per se nota quoad nos). To our mind it is a knowledge acquired by experience. The manifestations of God are immediately perceivable by us, and through these we prove the existence of God.
II. Although the existence of God requires proof, still our certitude of His existence is not necessarily the result of a scientific demonstration. A natural demonstration, sufficient to generate a perfect certitude, offers itself to every human mind, as it were spontaneously. The processes of scientific demonstration, if made use of at all, find already in the mind a conviction of God’s existence, and only serve to confirm and deepen this conviction.
III. The proofs of the existence of God are of two kinds—direct and indirect.
1. The indirect proofs show that our knowledge of the Divine existence is the necessary result of our rational nature, whence they infer that the existence of God is as certain as the rationality of our nature. Hence we have: (1) the Historical proofs, taken from the universality and constancy of this knowledge; (2) the Moral proof, based upon the moral and religious activity resulting from it; and (3) the proof taken from the logical and psychological character of this knowledge, by showing that it cannot result from internal or external experience, or from artificial combination, and must therefore result from the natural tendencies of reason itself.
2. The direct proofs represent God as the only Sufficient Cause of some effect which we perceive. They tend directly to prove His existence, and are a development of that natural process of human reason which, previous to any scientific demonstration, has already convinced us that He exists. They are classified according to the nature of the effect used as a medium of demonstration. At the same time, they form one organic whole, the several parts of which complete and perfect each other. They may be arranged as follows:—
A. Proofs taken from existing things of which God is the Cause:
(a) From attributes common to all things, and pointing to God as the Absolute Being (= Metaphysical Proofs):
(α) From the dependent and conditional existence of things, which requires an independent and absolute Cause (causa efficiens);
(β) From the imperfection, mutability, and natural limitation of things, which require an immutable and absolutely perfect Cause (causa exemplaris);
(γ) From the motion and development of which things are capable and which they accomplish, supposing thereby an immovable Prime Mover and Final Cause (causa finalis).
(b) From attributes proper to certain classes of things, and pointing to God as the Absolute Spiritual Nature (= Cosmological Proofs):
(α) From the nature and energies of matter, and the design in its arrangements, which can only be accounted for by the existence of an intellectual Being, the Author and Disposer of the material universe;
(β) From the nature and energies of mind, which suppose a Creator and an Absolute Mind;
(γ) From the twofold nature of man, in whom mind and matter are so intimately blended that a higher creative principle must be admitted, the Author of both mind and matter.
B. Proofs taken from possible or ideal things of which God is the Principle:
The possibility, necessity, and immutability inherent in certain conceptions of the possible, the unlimited domain of things possible—all of these suppose the existence of a Being, real, necessary and infinite, the foundation and source of all being and truth.
See St. Thom., I., q. 2, a. 3.
IV. It is an article of Faith that the Existence of God can be known by natural means. From this it follows that the proofs which are the natural means must themselves be convincing. It does not, however, imply that each of the above-mentioned arguments taken apart has the power of convincing. All, or at least some of them, taken together are capable of producing the requisite certitude. But the evidence of the demonstration is not like that of a mathematical proposition. In mathematics, especially in geometry, our imagination aids our reason; no moral considerations oppose the admission of the truths to be proved. The proofs of God’s existence appeal to our reason alone, and compel it to rise above the images of our fancy and to accept a truth often most opposed to our natural desires. At the same time, the evidence is far more than a moral evidence. It produces absolute certainty, and imposes itself upon the mind in spite of moral obstacles.
The complete treatment of the proof of the Existence of God belongs to Philosophy and Apologetics. We shall here confine our attention to some remarks on the nature, force, and organic connection of these proofs.
I. To be or to exist belongs to God’s very essence. The proposition, “God exists,” is therefore immediately evident in itself (per se nota secundum se). Nevertheless, since we have no immediate perception of the Divine Essence, this proposition is not immediately evident to us (per se nota quoad nos). To our mind it is a knowledge acquired by experience. The manifestations of God are immediately perceivable by us, and through these we prove the existence of God.
II. Although the existence of God requires proof, still our certitude of His existence is not necessarily the result of a scientific demonstration. A natural demonstration, sufficient to generate a perfect certitude, offers itself to every human mind, as it were spontaneously. The processes of scientific demonstration, if made use of at all, find already in the mind a conviction of God’s existence, and only serve to confirm and deepen this conviction.
III. The proofs of the existence of God are of two kinds—direct and indirect.
1. The indirect proofs show that our knowledge of the Divine existence is the necessary result of our rational nature, whence they infer that the existence of God is as certain as the rationality of our nature. Hence we have: (1) the Historical proofs, taken from the universality and constancy of this knowledge; (2) the Moral proof, based upon the moral and religious activity resulting from it; and (3) the proof taken from the logical and psychological character of this knowledge, by showing that it cannot result from internal or external experience, or from artificial combination, and must therefore result from the natural tendencies of reason itself.
2. The direct proofs represent God as the only Sufficient Cause of some effect which we perceive. They tend directly to prove His existence, and are a development of that natural process of human reason which, previous to any scientific demonstration, has already convinced us that He exists. They are classified according to the nature of the effect used as a medium of demonstration. At the same time, they form one organic whole, the several parts of which complete and perfect each other. They may be arranged as follows:—
A. Proofs taken from existing things of which God is the Cause:
(a) From attributes common to all things, and pointing to God as the Absolute Being (= Metaphysical Proofs):
(α) From the dependent and conditional existence of things, which requires an independent and absolute Cause (causa efficiens);
(β) From the imperfection, mutability, and natural limitation of things, which require an immutable and absolutely perfect Cause (causa exemplaris);
(γ) From the motion and development of which things are capable and which they accomplish, supposing thereby an immovable Prime Mover and Final Cause (causa finalis).
(b) From attributes proper to certain classes of things, and pointing to God as the Absolute Spiritual Nature (= Cosmological Proofs):
(α) From the nature and energies of matter, and the design in its arrangements, which can only be accounted for by the existence of an intellectual Being, the Author and Disposer of the material universe;
(β) From the nature and energies of mind, which suppose a Creator and an Absolute Mind;
(γ) From the twofold nature of man, in whom mind and matter are so intimately blended that a higher creative principle must be admitted, the Author of both mind and matter.
B. Proofs taken from possible or ideal things of which God is the Principle:
The possibility, necessity, and immutability inherent in certain conceptions of the possible, the unlimited domain of things possible—all of these suppose the existence of a Being, real, necessary and infinite, the foundation and source of all being and truth.
See St. Thom., I., q. 2, a. 3.
IV. It is an article of Faith that the Existence of God can be known by natural means. From this it follows that the proofs which are the natural means must themselves be convincing. It does not, however, imply that each of the above-mentioned arguments taken apart has the power of convincing. All, or at least some of them, taken together are capable of producing the requisite certitude. But the evidence of the demonstration is not like that of a mathematical proposition. In mathematics, especially in geometry, our imagination aids our reason; no moral considerations oppose the admission of the truths to be proved. The proofs of God’s existence appeal to our reason alone, and compel it to rise above the images of our fancy and to accept a truth often most opposed to our natural desires. At the same time, the evidence is far more than a moral evidence. It produces absolute certainty, and imposes itself upon the mind in spite of moral obstacles.
Seção 19% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.