13. God's Existence: Self-Evidence and Demonstrability

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Self-Evidence and the Problem of Knowledge #

• Thomas distinguishes between what is self-evident in itself (per se notum in se) and what is self-evident to us (per se notum quoad nos)
• A statement is self-evident when the predicate is contained in the subject, or when the meaning of subject and predicate are known by all men
• Following Boethius: some statements are known by all men because they know the parts (subject and predicate), like “the whole is greater than the part”
• Other statements are known only to the wise (sapientes)—those with education—such as “bodiless things are not in place”
• God’s existence is self-evident in itself because God’s essence is His existence (“I am who am”), but it is not self-evident to us because we do not know what God is

Confused Natural Knowledge of God #

• All men naturally know God in a confused way as the source of beatitude (happiness)
• Man naturally desires beatitude, and what is naturally desired is naturally known
• However, this confused knowledge is not the same as knowing explicitly that God exists
• People confuse the perfect good with false goods: wealth, pleasure, power, etc.
• Even when one experiences partial happiness or satisfaction, one judges it to be imperfect—implicitly recognizing a standard of perfect happiness (God) in a confused manner
• This knowledge is called “praambula fidei” (preambles of faith): what precedes faith and is knowable by natural reason, not an article of faith itself

Critique of Anselm’s Ontological Argument #

• The argument claims: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought; that which exists in reality and in mind is greater than that which exists only in mind; therefore God must exist
• Thomas’s response: Understanding the meaning of the word “God” does not prove the existence of what the word signifies
• One confuses the meaning of a word with the existence of the thing named
• The argument assumes that something exists in which nothing greater can be thought—precisely what must be proven
• The defect: “You’re kind of assuming that there is something existing, right? Then which nothing greater can be thought. How do you know there exists such a thing?”
• Even if one grants the definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought,” this still requires proof that such a being actually exists
• Counterargument: One could similarly say “By God, I mean something that necessarily exists by itself” and conclude “what necessarily exists by itself must exist, therefore God exists”—but this too assumes what must be proven

The Two Kinds of Demonstration #

• Demonstration propter quid (demonstration through the cause, “on account of what”): proceeds from causes to effects; used primarily in mathematics; uses things that are prior simply (per se)
• Demonstration quia (demonstration that it is so): proceeds from effects to causes; used in natural philosophy and ethics; uses things prior to us (quoad nos)
• In the second kind, when an effect is known to us, we can proceed to knowledge of the cause
• Since effects depend upon their cause, when the effect is posited, the cause must necessarily pre-exist
• God’s existence cannot be demonstrated propter quid to us because we do not know God’s essence; it must be demonstrated quia, through effects known to us

Can God’s Existence Be Demonstrated? #

• Against: God’s existence seems to be an article of faith, and faith concerns what does not appear; demonstration makes us to know, whereas faith is about the unseen
• Against: The middle term in demonstration should be the “what it is” (essence), but we cannot know God’s essence, only what He is not
• Against: God’s effects are not proportioned to Him; there is no proportion between finite and infinite, so a cause cannot be demonstrated through a disproportionate effect
• For: St. Paul (Romans 1:20) states that invisible things of God are understood from things made; this would be impossible unless God’s existence could be demonstrated from created things
• For: The first question about anything is whether it is; only afterwards do we inquire what it is
• Thomas’s Answer: God’s existence must be demonstrated quia using effects known to us as the middle term, taking what the name “God” signifies (e.g., “unmoved mover,” “first cause”) rather than God’s essence itself

Faith Presupposes Natural Knowledge #

• “Nothing prevents that which by itself or in itself is demonstrable and knowable from somebody, right, to be taken as believable who does not, what, grasp the demonstration”
• Most people believe in God’s existence through instruction (as De Connick believed more from his mother’s teaching than from study of the five ways) rather than through understanding the arguments
• This is acceptable because faith presupposes natural knowledge just as grace presupposes nature and perfection presupposes the perfectible
• Articles of faith proper (those not knowable by natural reason) differ from those things knowable by reason but believed by faith

Key Arguments #

The Problem of the Ontological Argument (Detailed) #

• The Argument: God is defined as “that than which nothing greater can be thought” (id quo maius nihil cogitari potest)

  • What exists both in intellect and in reality is greater than what exists only in intellect
  • Therefore, if God exists only in the intellect, something greater can be thought (namely, God existing in reality)
  • But this contradicts the definition of God
  • Therefore, God must exist in reality

• Thomas’s Objection: The argument confuses the meaning or signification of a word (quod nomen significat) with the existence of what the word signifies (quod res significata existit)

  • One may understand what the word means without understanding that the thing actually exists outside the mind
  • The argument assumes the very thing it must prove: that there exists something than which nothing greater can be thought
  • Those who deny God’s existence need not grant that such a thing exists
  • “Nor can one argue that it is in reality unless it be given that in reality there is something than which nothing greater can be thought, which is not given by those positing God not to be”

• The Underlying Error: Equivocation between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is)

  • The definition tells us only what we mean by the term
  • It does not establish that the thing defined actually exists
  • This is true even for necessary existents: saying “what necessarily exists by itself must exist” still assumes that such a being exists

Responding to Objections About Demonstration #

• Objection from Faith: If God’s existence is demonstrable, it cannot be an article of faith

  • Response: God’s existence is not an article of faith simpliciter but rather a preamble to faith (praambula fidei); it is naturally knowable but can be believed without understanding the proof

• Objection from Definition: Demonstration requires using the essence (what it is) as the middle term, but we cannot know God’s essence

  • Response: When demonstrating a cause through its effect, the effect itself serves as the middle term in place of a definition (in loco diffinitionis); the name of God derived from His effects (unmoved mover, first cause) suffices

• Objection from Disproportion: Effects not proportioned to their cause cannot demonstrate the cause

  • Response: While effects inadequate to God cannot give perfect knowledge of Him, they can still demonstrate His existence; we cannot know God adequately through creatures, but we can know that He is

Important Definitions #

Per se notum (Self-Evident) #

• In se (in itself): Something is self-evident when its predicate is included in its subject or when both subject and predicate are universally known (e.g., “the whole is greater than the part”)
• Quoad nos (to us): Something is known by those with education or understanding of the terms (e.g., “bodiless things are not in place”)

Demonstratio propter quid #

Demonstration “on account of what” or “through the cause”; proceeds from prior causes to their effects; characteristic of mathematics and formal sciences

Demonstratio quia #

Demonstration “that it is so”; proceeds from effects (more known to us) to causes (prior by nature); characteristic of natural philosophy and ethics

Praambula fidei #

Literally “preambles of faith”; truths about God knowable by natural reason that precede and support faith (e.g., that God exists, that God is one); not themselves articles of faith but preparations for it

Beatitudo #

Blessedness or ultimate happiness; naturally desired by all men; known confusedly as the perfect good

Perfect Number (Mathematical Example) #

A composite number equal to the sum of its proper divisors (all numbers that measure it evenly); example: 6 = 1 + 2 + 3. Used to illustrate the difference between what is self-evident in itself and what is self-evident to those lacking knowledge of the terms.

Examples & Illustrations #

Perfect Numbers and Self-Evidence #

• A perfect number is a composite number equal to the sum of its divisors
• 6 is the first perfect number: measured by 1, 2, 3; and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6
• Prime numbers (measured only by 1) cannot be perfect numbers
• To Berquist, the statement “a perfect number is composite” is obvious because he knows what a perfect number is
• To students unfamiliar with the definition, it is not obvious
• Illustrates: self-evidence depends on knowledge of terms, not universal acceptance

God as Happiness (Beatitude) #

• People commonly pursue what they think will make them happy: wealth, pleasure, power
• Yet even when achieving these, dissatisfaction remains—“Was the happiest year of my life, but there was something imperfect about it”
• This pattern reveals confused knowledge: we judge our partial happiness against an implicit standard of perfect happiness
• Anecdote: As a child, Berquist thought perfect happiness would be filling the refrigerator with various sodas and drinking them all day; his father knew better
• Romeo mistaking Juliet for perfect happiness shows how this confused knowledge leads to false identifications

Mahler and the Fall from Power #

• Biographical study of Mao reveals obsession with power above all else
• When losing power near the end of life, Mao entertained Nixon and contemplated other fallen leaders (Napoleon, Khrushchev)
• Berquist notes: “Likeness is the cause of love”—Mao recognized himself in these other mighty figures brought low
• Illustrates how a confused good (power) pursued absolutely becomes destructive and ultimately unsatisfying

The Painter’s Judgment of a Portrait #

• If shown a painting of an unknown person, one cannot judge whether the painting resembles the person depicted
• However, Lafayette, who knew Washington well, could see a statue of Washington and judge: “That’s pretty close, but not quite exact”
• This requires knowledge of Washington not derived from the statue
• Analogous to Socratic argument that knowledge of “the flat itself” (true flatness) cannot come from observing imperfectly flat physical objects

Vanity Fair (Thackeray) #

• Novel concludes: “Who in this life ever gets what he wants? Or if he does, is satisfied with it?”
• Common human experience: pursuit of satisfaction that either fails or disappoints upon achievement
• Suggests all earthly happiness is imperfect, implying confused knowledge of perfect happiness (God)

Notable Quotes #

“Part of a book isn’t as good as a whole book, right? No, no more.” — Berquist, illustrating that self-evidence depends on understanding wholes and parts

“It’s obvious to me that a perfect number is a composite number. But isn’t to you? It’s obvious to me. What’s wrong with you guys?” — Berquist, on self-evidence relative to knowledge of terms

“You’re kind of assuming that there is something existing, right? Then which nothing greater can be thought. How do you know there exists such a thing? You’re assuming that, right?” — Berquist, summarizing Thomas’s critique of Anselm

“You can’t assume that there is something in which nothing greater can be thought. Therefore, it must, what? Be.” — Berquist, explaining the circularity of the ontological argument

“By God, I mean that which nothing greater can be thought, but that doesn’t tell you that there is such a thing.” — Berquist, on confusing the meaning of a word with existence

“Nothing prevents that which by itself or in itself is demonstrable and knowable from somebody, right, to be taken as believable who does not, what, grasp the demonstration.” — Thomas Aquinas (quoted by Berquist), on faith presupposing natural knowledge

“For God to be in other things of this sort, which through natural reason are able to be known about God… they are not articles of faith, but what? Priambula [preambles], which means literally what? Walks before.” — Berquist, on the relationship between demonstrable truths and faith

Questions Addressed #

Is God’s existence self-evident? #

Answer: Not to us (quoad nos), though it is in itself (in se). We have only confused natural knowledge of God as the source of happiness, not explicit knowledge that God exists. This confused knowledge does not constitute knowing that God definitively is.

Does understanding the meaning of “God” (as that than which nothing greater can be thought) necessitate God’s existence? #

Answer: No. Understanding a word’s meaning is not the same as knowing the thing exists. One must assume the existence of such a being, which is precisely what the argument should prove. The argument begs the question by confusing definition with demonstration of existence.

How can God’s existence be demonstrated if we don’t know God’s essence? #

Answer: Through demonstration quia (demonstration that it is so), which proceeds from effects to causes. The effect itself serves as the middle term, using what the name “God” signifies (e.g., “unmoved mover”) rather than God’s essence. The question “whether it is” precedes the question “what it is.”

Is God’s existence an article of faith or knowable by reason? #

Answer: It is knowable by natural reason and is a preamble to faith (praambula fidei), not an article of faith proper. Most people, however, accept it through instruction or faith without understanding the rational demonstration. Faith presupposes natural knowledge, just as grace presupposes nature.

Can God’s effects adequately demonstrate Him? #

Answer: No—God’s effects are not proportioned to His infinite nature, so they cannot give perfect or adequate knowledge of Him. However, they can sufficiently demonstrate that He exists, even if not what He is or how complete His being is.