ideas about god concept

1. introduction
• The Question of God
• Animal needs – quenched takes rest, Humans: begins to ask questions, vital
questions, ultimate questions about himself and his world,
• The question of God arises because the world is a puzzle, a riddle that
provokes us, because humankind is an enigma unto itself that seeks
explanation, because the human being is a questioner who seeks the meaning
of his life.
• When did humankind begin? What is its place on Earth? What is its destiny?
• Is there life after death? Why is there evil and suffering in this world? Is there
any meaning and purpose to human life?
• What does all this matter to me? Why am I in this world? Am I only a cog in the
wheel of time? A fragment in the flux of history? Is there any sense and
purpose to my life? Am I all alone in this world?

2. Is a meaningful discourse about God possible?
• riddle that is the world, and the enigma that we are to ourselves, lead us to
look beyond the world and ourselves for a possible answer in a Someone,
• does it make sense to search for such a transcendent reality? Is it possible to
know anything definite, or to say anything sensible about such a reality that
completely surpasses us on all sides?
• Objections from the Logical Positivists (A. J. Ayer, Antony Flew): a discourse
about any presumed transcendent reality is meaningless, because it is not
falsifiable. A statement is falsifiable if it can be shown that under certain
circumstances the statement is untrue
• . E.g. Under what circumstances can I state that it is not true that God loves me? If there
are no circumstances, then the statement that God loves me is meaningless.

3. Objections from some modern Atheists:
• “God is a projection arising from the human need for security, for power, for self-
fulfillment.” “It is man that creates God, not God who creates man.” “It is man who
fashions God after his own image and likeness.” (Feuerbach)
• “God is a useless passion.” (Sartre)
• “Religion is the opium of the masses.” (Marx)
• It would seem from the above objections that a meaningful discourse
about God is impossible.

4. The Notion of God
• what we mean by the term “God” – normally not possible – exceeds human
understanding
• it is not possible to give an exact definition of the term that is applicable to it
in a precise manner
• a nominal definition, that is, a term that is not possible of a precise
connotation according to its genus and specific difference (e.g., the definition
of man as a “rational animal”, “animal” being the genus, “rational” being the
specific difference),
• characteristics, however, that are applicable only and exclusively to that term,
designating it alone and distinguishing it and from all others.
• the term “God,” we understand a Supreme Being, an Infinite Being, The
Totality of All Perfections, Eternal Being, Self-Subsistent Being, Necessary
Being, the Absolute – terms that designate him exclusively

5. Understanding god term
• When we understand the term “God” in the way we have stated above, we
realize, that the question of God is more a “mystery” than a “problem.”
Gabriel Marcel
• we must also distinguish between “knowing about God,” and “knowing God.”
• the question of God does not lead us merely to know about God, as we would
know about anything in an impersonal sort of way. Rather, the vital import of
the question of God leads us to the further question: Who is this God? What
is he to me? What am I to him? Does he care for me? Can I establish a
personal relationship with him? Can I know him, can he know me, in a
personal, intimate way?

6. 1.1 Terms Used for this Subject
• 1.1.1 Theodicy
• It comes from the Greek word ‘theos’ – God, ‘dike’ – right, custom, usage
manner
• theodicy’ was coined by a German philosopher, G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716) in
1710.
• He used it to mean ‘the righteous manner of God’s dealing with mankind’,
‘justifying or pleasing in defense of God’.
• Literally theodicy in the beginning meant ‘God’s justice’ or ‘God’s righteous
way’
• The original meaning was later expanded to mean the whole of God, referring
to his nature, attributes, and operations

7. 1.1.2 Natural theology
• It is a science of God as knowable by unaided human reason.
• there is supernatural or divine theology, which is a science of God as
manifested by divine revelation.
• 1.1.3 Philosophical theology
• It is a study of god with a philosophical out look.
• If you have a miserable outlook on the world, then it makes sense that you
would also feel miserable. However, there is some more nuance to this notion
– that your philosophical outlook is tied to your well-being – than just
accepting that pessimism leads to poor mental health outcomes. For instance,
mental health aside, which philosophical outlook is more grounded in reality,
pessimism or optimism?

8. • Vatican II documents, especially ‘Optatum Totius’ uses this term for
the training of personnel for priesthood
• 1.2 Object
• 1.2.1 Material object
• Material object of theodicy is the field of investigation and in
theodicy, it is God.
• 1.2.2 Formal object
• Formal object is the way it deals with the material object. It is the
purpose or aspect under which it is studied. Here it is God as
knowable by unaided human reason.
1.1.4 Philosophy of God

9. 1.3 The Procedure
• Basically, we are answering three questions
• a) is there God? – It consents God’s existence.
• b) What is God? – It consents God’s nature.
• c) What does God do? – It consents God’s operations.

10. CHAPTER 2
EXISTENCE OF GOD
• 2.1 God’s Existence – A Demonstrative Truth
• There are some who deny God.
• There are some who accept God.
• There are some who say that no proof for God’s existence is needed
because it is self-evident
• There are some others who say that no valid proof is possible.

11. 2.1.1 Meaning of the Terms ‘existence’ and ‘God’
• 2.1.1.1 Existence
• By existence what are we referring to? We are referring to reality or ‘is-ness’ or
being (not as noun but as verb).
• Realities are classed into two: potential realities and actual realities.
• Potential Reality: potential reality is one that can exist. It is one that can be
thought of. Can anything thought of exist? No, e.g. square circle (not possible,
because it involves contradiction).
• Glass mountain, Joe’s son (possible, does not involve contradiction). There is a
power or a being, which is able to draw the potential being into reality.
• E.g. parents to give rise to a son. Sculptor to carve a statue.

12. • Actual Reality: it is not a mere possibility, it is there.
• There are two types: a) cause by something else – it is a caused being, an
effect. It is a contingent being.
• . b) Uncaused self-sufficient perfect being. It is not an effect. It is a necessary
being
• When we speak of the existence of God, we speak of – not as potential
existence, but actual existence
• not caused existence, but uncaused existence – not contingent existence, but
necessary existence – not effected existence, but pure actuality.

13. 2.1.1.2 God
• God means a being that is thought of actual, one, first, supreme, the
originator and the ruler of the universe
• Common man talks of God as almighty ruler. Philosopher talks of God as
necessary being and pure actuality
• It is of such a being that we ask: a) does God exists? b) Do we have the need
to prove his existence? c) Can we provide valid demonstration?

14. 2.1.2 Theories of God’s existence
• Theism: it declares and believes that god exists. This belief stresses both the
immanence and the transcendence of god.
• Atheism is the position of those who explicitly deny or reject the existence
of God. It is a conscious and deliberate exclusion of God’s existence and
influence in the world and in human affairs.
• Atheism is always a conscious and deliberate choice. One does not
inadvertently become an atheist or remain so
• In this sense, it is more than a simple denial of the existence of God;
• it is a refusal.

15. Kinds of atheism
• Practical atheism:, even if they admit the existence of God, live as if God
does not exist.
• in the conduct of their practical life and affairs, God does not enter in any way
• They simply ignore his existence or his influence in their life and in the world.
• In this sense, practical atheism is equivalent to religious indifference
• ignores the presence of God in his life
• Humanistic atheism:they claim that the existence of God is incompatible
with human freedom, autonomy and growth.
• the existence of God is seen as an obstacle or impediment.
• The presence of God is seen as detrimental to the full development and
progress of humankind
• Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche David Hume

16. Agnosticism:
• : in Greek ‘agnostikos’ means ‘not knowing’ or ‘ignorant’
• It declares that god cannot be known
• They neither affirm not deny the existence of God
• They claim that the question cannot be decided one way or another, because
there are no good reasons for either side
• Pantheism: in Greek ‘pan’ means ‘everything’ or ‘all’. So pantheism holds that
everything is God. It holds that bodily world is part and parcel of the
substance of God. Eg: A tree is God, a rock is God, an animal is God, the sky is
God, the sun is God, you are God, etc.
• The belief that god is identical with the universe, i.e., god is equal to
universe. All is god and god is all. The universe taken as a whole is god. God
and nature are synonymous or two words for the same reality

17. Panentheism:
• Panentheism: in Greek ‘pan’ means ‘all’, ‘en’ means ‘in’. The belief that all
things are imbued with god’s being or that all things are in god. God is more
that all that there is.
• panentheism is essentially a combination of theism (God is the supreme
being) and pantheism (God is everything
• God Is beyond the material world
• God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe.
Events and changes in the universe affect and change God.
• As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and
being.
Pantheism means that all is God; panentheism, that all is in God

18. Theories on god
• Panpsychism: In Greek ‘psyche’ means soul, life, and spirit. The belief
that god is completely immanent in all things in the universe as a
psychic force (mind, consciousness, spirit, soul).
• Monotheism: in Greek ‘monos’ means one, alone, one and only. It
declares that there is only one god.
• Polytheism: in Greek, ‘polys’ means many. It declares that there exists
a plurality of god or world controlling forces.

19. Theories on god
• Kathenotheism: in Greek, ‘kathhen’ means one by one or each in
turn. Of the many gods believed in, each in time turn at a designated
time of the year is worshipped.
• This god is given the allegiance, customary to a supreme deity. Each
god symbolizes one of the innumerable facets of a more complex and
fundamental reality, which is the source of all things
• Henotheism: in Greek, ‘heis’ or ‘henos’ means one. Of the many gods
it is believed that one is their supreme ruler, to whom all the others
must give their loyalty and obedience.
• Dualism: in Latin ‘duo’ means two. It is a belief that two forces exists.
One is force of good, and the other is force of evil. Both vie compete
in control for the universe. E.g. Manichaeism.

20. Deism:
• in Latin ‘deus’ means god. In declares that god exists and it is knowable. But it
denies his providence and governance of creatures, i.e., god made the world
but he did not care for it (on most occasions, god is wholly transcendent,
wholly other to the universe.
• a) god is the first cause who created the world.
• b) God created the unchangeable laws, by which the universe is governed.
• c) God is in no way immanent in his creation, he is totally different from it. He
transcends it, for e.g. just as the watch maker transcends the watch, which he
designs and makes

21. Gnosticism:
• Gnosticism: it comes from the Greek term ‘gnosis’ means knowledge. In it, the
emphasis was laid on knowledge, derived from secret revelations and such
knowledge was capable of bestowing salvation to the knower
• Anthropomorphism: it comes from the Greek term ‘anthropos’ means man.
‘Morphe’ means form, shape, and figure. It is the representation of god, gods
or natural forces in human forms or with human attributes. It is the belief that
god or the gods have characteristics to a human condition: consciousness,
intentions, wills, emotions, sensations, time and space. An extreme form of
anthropomorphism maintains that god has all this characteristics in a perfect
way.

22. Theories of god’s existence
• Indifferentism: it holds that all religions are equally true and valuable.
Indifferentism can be:
• a) evolutionary – each historic phase (brought) brings out new truths.
b) Participative – each religion illustrates some attributes.
• c) Corporate – no one religion has the whole truth, altogether have
something of the truth.

23. Some other theories
•1. Skepticism: it denies man’s ability to know anything for
certain, including god.
•2. Rationalism: it declares that anything which cannot be
known by reason to be rejected as untrue and fictional. So
there is no place for mystery.
•3. Relativism: it denies eternal standard of morality and
eternal source of truth. It says that truth or goodness
depends on the aspect in which it is seem or circumstances
referred to. It makes the existence of god also relative.

24. 2.1.3 The need for demonstrating god’s existence
• Many deny god’s existence. Some say that it is self-evident. But we know that it
is not. So we need to demonstrate, offer compelling proof for god’s existence.
• 2.2 Demonstration of god’s existence
• There are traditional ‘a posteriori’ proofs for god. These apply the principle of
causality.
• 2.2.1 Causes: cause is anything that contribute s in anyway and measure
whatever to the producing of at thing whatever to the producing of at thing.
The thing produced by a cause is called effect.
• There are two types of causes: a) intrinsic cause, b) extrinsic cause

25. Intrinsic cause
• : it is one that is right in the effect. It is part and parcel of the effect. There
are two types of intrinsic causes:
• 1) material cause – it is the bodily matter, out of which the object is made.
E.g. clay-pot, milk-curd, marble-statue. (Spiritual things do not have material
cause because they are not composed.)
• 2) Formal cause – it is that which gives the effect a form a precise kind of
thing that it is.
• There are two types of formal causes: (i) substantial formal cause – it is that
which makes it what it is that which makes it clay. In short, ‘the thisness’.
• (ii) Accidental formal cause – the shape, size, colour, the image value.

26. Extrinsic cause:
• it is outside of the effect. And it is not part and parcel of the effect. There are
two types of extrinsic causes:
• 1) efficient cause – it is a cause which by its own activity produces an effect.
E.g. sculptor-statue, watchman-watch, carpenter-table. Efficient cause is sub-
served by:
• (i) instrumental cause – efficient cause uses instrumental causes. E.g. tools
used by the carpenter.
• (ii) Exemplar cause – Efficient cause is helped by an exemplar cause. E.g.
model
• 2) Final cause (motive): it is a goal, aim, end, towards which the work is
directed. E.g. making table is to make money, or to put the talent into reality.
This aim is found only in the rational beings.

27. 2.2.2 Proof from Efficient causality
• 2.2.2.1 Proof from motion : Motion means any change from one state of
being to another. E.g. movement from one place to another. Transition from
ignorance to knowledge.
• The decisions we make. Movement from state of sin to grace. From non-
existence to existence. Whatever is moved is moved by something other than
itself, i.e., movement requires a mover
• Mover and the moved cannot be one and the same. (Metaphysical principle –
nothing is actualized except under the activity of something, which is already
actual.)
• Note: living bodies have the power of self-movement but they do not move
themselves to existence. It did not assemble itself (living being).

28. ……
• Life movements depends upon the existence of an inner substantial
principle, (which did not move itself into existence) called the life-principle or
soul or psyche.
• We cannot go on forever like this with a series of movers and things moved.
It should come to an absolute, which is not moved at all.
• (It is one of the self evident principles that ‘a process unto actual infinity is
impossible’.) The first mover we call god. Therefore god exists.
• Note: the first mover is efficient cause of the movement. So this is called as a
proof from efficient causality
• There are some who deny the validity of this argument, as it is based on
causality. They say that causality has been disproved by science. They say
that science has proved that things can happen just at random and so
without cause

29. ……
• E.g. in radio-activity, there is spontaneous radiation. Answer is we do not
know how causality operates here, but failure to know how causality operates
does not prove the absence of a cause.
• We sum up our argument thus: if there is motion in the world, there exists a
mover and ultimately a first mover itself unmoved. Now manifestly, there is
motion in the world.
• Therefore there exists a mover and ultimately a first mover itself unmoved.
This first mover we call as god. Therefore god exists.
• Infinite regress
• An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition
P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires
the support of proposition P3, ..., and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires
the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity. Distinction is made
between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not.

30. 2.2.2.2 Proof from the order of efficient causes
• Efficient cause is which by its own action produces an effect. In efficient causes,
we find that one causes another that causes another. E.g. sun-light-plants-fruits-
Rama eats.
• That is we find subordination or chain or order of efficient causes. A thing
efficiently caused, cannot be its own cause (it would be as if it would exist
before itself).
• E.g. before I was born I was there. Therefore, we must look for its cause in
something other than itself. The chain of efficient cause does not reach back to
infinity.
• One must come to the first cause to account for all in the chain. This first cause
itself uncaused, we call god. Therefore god exists.

31. 2.2.2.3 Proof from contingency
• Contingency means dependency. A thing caused is dependent on the action
of the efficient cause that produced it (it is contingent).
• A thing uncaused is not dependent on causes (it is not contingent). It is said
to be necessary. A thing caused exists because it has been caused by other
causes.
• There is no necessity in itself for it to exist. It did not have to exist. If
everything was contingent, then it is possible that there has been a time,
when absolutely nothing existed.
• If so, how did contingent things came about? Therefore, existence of
contingent beings is a proof that there exist a being that is not contingent but
necessary.
• The first necessary being we call god. Therefore god exists.

32. 2.2.3 Proof from formal and final causality
• 2.2.3.1 Proof from grades or degrees of perfection
• We find in things, degrees of more or less. E.g. more or less good, more or
less noble, more ore less true.
• If there are real degrees of more and less in things about us, there must
exist a maximum, a greatest, not only in a relative sense as a greatest in a
certain order, but in an absolute sense as boundlessly greatest.
• Now as is manifest, there are real degrees of more or less in things about us
in the world.
• Therefore, there exist a most, a maximum, a greatest, not only in a relative
sense but in an absolute sense. This greatest we call god. Therefore god
exists.

33. 2.2.3.2 Proof from government of the world
(argument from design)
• If the world exhibits a most wonderful and constant order and design, and
is directed to an end, it has an intelligent designer or governor.
• . Now the world does exhibit a most wonderful and constant order and
design and is directed to an end.
• Therefore, the world has an intelligent designer, whom we call god.
Therefore god exists.

34. 2.2.3.3 Proof from man’s ultimate end or striving
for happiness
• All of us seek happiness; we are ready to do anything for it. How do we try to
get happiness-by acquiring various things?
• But whenever we get something though is gives us joy for sometimes we
soon realize that it does keep up for long. When we find partial happiness,
• we think of greatest, more intense, more lasting and more stable good and
happiness, i.e., we find that no limited being can fully satisfy and give us
complete happiness or perfect happiness.
• Why? Because the mere thought that it is a finite thing and that it will pass
away causes sorrow. E.g. temporary jobs, permanent jobs – what about after
retirement. Therefore only infinite being can satisfy us

35. …..
• . ‘Our hearts are restless until they rest in you’ – St. Augustine. Therefore,
infinite being exists and it is called god.
• But does our longing necessarily imply god’s existence. There are two types
of striving or longing:
• a) natural – it proceeds from one’s very nature, essence, structure. It is not
preceded and directed by knowledge. E.g. tendency to live in society, to
satisfy one’s hunger, chickens chased by its own mother hen, when grown.
• b) Elicited – strives after that which one perceives as good. It is preceded
and directed by knowledge. E.g. to stand first in the class, avoiding disease,
etc.
• In the second type of striving the thing towards we are striving need not
exist but in the first it should exist, because nature cannot strive towards the
impossible.

36. 2.2.3.4 Certain supplementary proof
• 2.2.3.4.1 The moral proof
• We feel within ourselves (in our conscience) a law which commands us to do
what is right and to avoid which is wrong.
• As regards which action is right and which is wrong, men differ
• . But all agree that, that which is right should be done and that which is evil
should be avoided. We may over look or disobey this law, but most men feel
at least temporarily unhappy about doing so.
• On a closer examination, we find that this law does not come from our
education or from our environment; this is an element in our very nature.
• There can be no law without law-giver and this law-giver, the author of our
conscience is god.

37. 2.2.3.4.2 Historical proof (from universal consensus)
• All men of the past as well as the present have been convinced of the
existence of god. Therefore god exists, because men of all time cannot be false
or wrong
• 1. there are atheists what about them? Answer – when we say all men, we
mean man in general and not every individual.
• 2. Cannot all be deceived? Were not people fooled to believe that earth was
flat and sun goes around the earth? Answer – we come to know through
senses and senses do not mistake. But in judging we go wrong
• E.g. earth is flat; in this we go wrong; based on sense knowledge, reasoned
conclusions by legitimate deduction from certainly known data. In this we
cannot go wrong
• Truth of god’s existence is a mediately known truth. It is reasoned from first
cause, first mover, necessary being, etc. in such a reasoned truth, it is not
possible that we go wrong.

38. 2.2.3.4.3 Indirect proof
• Indirect proof is the one which establishes the truth of a position by showing
the impossible character of its contradictory
• Now what is the contrary position? God does not exist – it is caused by
atheists. Let us have a look at the atheists.
• 1. Statement of the atheists is never a simple denial. It is always a
substitution, i.e., substitution god with something else. E.g. Nietzsche – super
man. Denies god and makes man divine. Talking about superman, forces and
energies, nature, impulses, etc.
• 2. Atheism conflicts with reason: reason demands an ultimate explanation of
things. That is what we have done in giving proofs. Atheism conflicts with this
reason.

39. …..
• 3. Atheism denies man’s finest tendencies. Man tends towards
happiness naturally. This is made illusory and cruel, if atheism is held.
• 4. Atheism leads to impossible consequences. Denial of god, takes
away the foundation of morality, i.e., man is not accountable to the
supreme judge.
• He is accountable to others. It only binds him externally. If so, moral
laws have no lasting force. Can this be held? Will not human race face
extinction?

40. 2.2.3.4.4 Proof from religious experience
• Men do not need proofs for god’s existence, because they have experienced
god. Selfless lives of the person for others who have experienced god are the
best proofs for god’s existence. E.g. mother Theresa, martin Luther king, don
Bosco, etc.
• 2.2.3.4.5 Conclusion: our study has shown that there is plenty of evidence for
the existence of god. These however are not proofs but pointers to god. They
cannot be proved or disproved like mathematical sums, theorems, or formulas
or a scientific problem. Each of us has to decide whether to remain blind to
these evidences and say god does not exist or to accept the evidences and
surrender to god in love and service.
•

41. KARL BARTH
• Karl Barth, a Swiss Lutheran theologian
• Man, left to himself, cannot arrive at the knowledge Of god
• God himself who must call man, reveal himself to him : two
ways his conscience, or through sacred Scripture
• does not consist in an intellectual assent, but with a “decision”
• Hence, man cannot properly speak of God, but only to God
• He is a Person – not a third person –, but a Thou.
• it, cannot be formal and abstract or metaphysical, but concrete
and personal, that is, existential.

42. continuation
• one proves the existence of God from finite and contingent beings, is
considered by Barth to be “an invention of the Antichrist”, or “the
devil’s dung.”
• and is based on St Paul’s strictures against philosophy in 1Cor1:19-
21: “It is written, in fact, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
the understanding of the intelligent I will reprove. Where is the wise
man? Where is the scribe? Where is the intellectual of this world?
• For Luther, human reason is totally corrupted by sin and is unable to
grasp God in an intelligible way

43. continuation
• Catholic tradition, reason is weakened but not totally corrupted by sin.
• St Paul himself in Rom 1: 20, asserts the possibility that human reason can arrive
at the knowledge of God: “In fact, after the creation of the world, God has
manifested to them his invisible properties such as his eternal power and his
divinity,
• Vatican Council I in Dei Filius, ch. 2, clearly asserts: “Holy Mother the Church
holds and teaches that we can know God the beginning and end of all things
with certainty from created realities, through the natural light of human reason.”
• Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) and the Encyclical
Fides et Ratio (1998) corroborated and confirmed the teaching of Vatican
Council I.

44. I Kant cosmological argument
(Maj.) If anything exists, an absolutely Necessary
Being must also exist;
(Min.) I at least exist;
Hence, an absolutely Necessary Being, that is,
God, necessarily exists.

45. I Kant : critique
• the min.premise is evident; but the maj. is problematic
• the notion of an absolutely Necessary Being, according to Kant, is
most vague (unclear) and indeterminate (uncertain)
• it must therefore be made determinate by equating it with “Most
Perfect Being” (Ensperfectissimum
• this is to relapse (set back) into the ontological proof, which was
shown to be invalid
• the major premise goes beyond what is available to the senses. The
transcendent use of causality beyond the sphere of sense
experience is illegitimate and invalid.

46. Physico-theological argument
•We observe in the world manifest signs of purposeful
arrangement
•adaptation of means to ends
•This adaptation of means to ends is contingent, in the
sense that it does not belong to the nature of things.
•There must exist, therefore, at least one cause of this
adaptation, and this cause or these causes must be
intelligent and free

47. Kant criticism
• the existence of a superior architect of the world, whose activity
would be limited to putting order into the things of the world, and
not of a supreme creator of the world.
• To establish that he is also creator of the world, one surreptitiously
introduces the notion of efficient causality into the argument
based on final causality.
• Thus, the physico-theological proof reverts to the cosmological proof,
which has been shown above, to relapse into the ontological proof

48. Our response to Kant’s critique of the three proofs:
• Kant was so deeply impressed by the progress made in mathematics (by
Descartes and Leibniz) and in science (by Newton)
• He is not happy with the negligible progress made by philosophy
• he felt that all knowledge should be built on the scientific model.
• in his Critique of Pure Reason, he asks three questions: How is mathematics
possible? How is science possible? Is metaphysics possible?
• The existence of noumenon? it is inferred from the sense experience. Sense
experience is the cause
• But for Kant, causality is not valid.

49. continuation
• The term "inference" refers to the process of using observation and
background knowledge as well as other known premises to determine
a conclusion that makes sense. a guess that you make or an
opinion that you form based on the information that you have
• Eg: Julia works at a pet store and owns four cats, a lizard, a dog and a
rabbit. It can be inferred that Julia is a pet lover.
• causality in Kant’s theory of knowledge is not obtained from sensible
experience, but is an a priori form of the mind among the 12
categories of understanding

50. Our response With regard to the ontological
proof
• Both Kant and Aquinas reject the ontological proof
• Kant rejects it because in the assertion “God exists,” the predicate “exists” is
not included in the subject “God”, since existence is never a predicate, but
must be attributed to a subject on the basis of experience.
• Aquinas says only in the case of God, the predicate “exists” belongs to the
subject “God”, since only as regards God his essence is to exist. In him alone
essence and existence are identical.
• is the irrefutable(convincing) force of Anselm’s a priori argument for the
existence of God,
• And so Aquinas started to explore God’s essence through sensible data.

51. With regard to the cosmological proof
• According to kant causality cannot be extended beyond the domain of
sense knowledge
• he was unable to see that causality is an exigency (need or
requirement) of things, which in themselves are not self-explanatory as
regards their existence, and so require a cause.
• He failed to grasp that the whole chain of caused causes cannot explain
the series unless one rises to a First Cause that transcends the whole
order, is self-explanatory

52. With regard to physico-theological
proof
• Kant fails to grasp the true nature of the final cause, as the cause of
all causes, inasmuch as it is the first in the mind and the last in the
realization
• the final cause is the ultimate cause with regard to finite things, it is
not a question of putting things in order after they have come into
existence, but of giving them a nature intrinsically ordered to its
proper end.

53. Heidegger critique of religion
• He divides his cirtique in to two parts
• They are destructive metaphysics and constructive metaphysics
• He argues that destructive metaphysics is
• For the being, it is not focused, culprit is Plato
• From Anaximander to Nietzsche the forgetfulness is clearly seen
• During plato reasoning and logic depends on world of ideas
• Metaphysics became subject of onto-theological subject
• Nietzsche “god is dead”
• Higher values or world of ideas became defunct (invalid)

54. continuation
• New values must be thought
• These values are gained thruth the will to power
• Those hold world of ideas which are abstract, did not remove the
stentch of decomposition from their nostrils
• We need to stop logical argumentation first inorder to commence
new authentic thinking
• Philosophy already started to disintegrate into different disciplines

55. Constructive critique
• Being lights up beings. both revealing and concealing it in a process that
leads to truth
• The thinking that uncovers or discloses Beingto man (Dasein) is meditative
or contemplative thinking
• Unlike reason, which chops and dissect beings, contemplative thinking is a
listening to the call of Being
• The awareness of his inevitable death causes anxiety (Angst).
• Such contemplative thinking is to be found in poetry, literature, art, music,
dance and mysticism
• the attention is focused on the unique and the singular. The poet, the writer,
the artist, the musician, and the mystic are the true metaphysicians

56. CHAPTER 3 THE ESSENCE OF GOD
• 3.1 The physical (natural) essence of god
• 3.1.1 Meaning of terms: physical and essence
• Essence: it comes from the Latin word ‘esse’ means to be. essence is that
whereby a thing is what it is. We cannot analyze or define essence, because
it is elemental and simple.
• Physical: it comes from the Greek word ‘physis’ means nature, which comes
from the Latin root ‘natus’ means to be, born.
• Therefore, physical means that which a thing born to be or to do. Physical
refers to actual elements or ingredient or parts of things. E.g. man – physical
element of man is body.
• Physical is not necessarily bodily or material. Physical her refers to ‘essential’
it is not referring to bodily or material.

57. Physical essence
• Essence of a thing in itself
• As exist in the order of things outside mind
• Sum total of constituent parts, which make a thing
• Physical essence of human being – body and soul
• It answers how a thing is made up of

58. Metaphysical essence
• Essence of a thing as conceived in the mind
• Eg: inhuman beings, rational animal,
• Here we find no physical parts that are mentioned
• Remember it is not merely or purely from mind perspective

59. Four fundamental perfections of god
• Unity
• simplicity
• Infinity
• Spirituality
• By using these we are going to discern the physical essence of god.

60. 1. unity
• God is one substance and essence. He is separate, one,
• Unicity: god is the only of that nature. No other being in this category
• God is the only thing of this kind. Ther eare not many gods,
• Metaphysical point – every being is one, limited beings have other of
their kind
• Eg: Socrates – is one, no other Socrates but he belongs to humankind
and there are many
• So Socrates has unity and not unicity. Ze unicity refers to one and only
thing of that kind.

61. Proof for unicity (no polytheism)
• In the cosmos we find unity order and harmony. The unity is complex
in design to understand, the design is the product of one and not
many
• Eg: an artist paints, but at the end he does not complete, the other
completes, you can find the difference easily.
• We have already seen god is the necessary, unmoved, uncaused.
There cannot be other. Plurality.
•

62. 2. simplicity
• Simple means indivisible. – it has no parts
• Composite – it has parts.
• Creatures has 3 types of composition – physical, metaphysical and
logical composition

63. Physical composition
• Refers to bodily parts – these can be physically divided.
• There are also physically simple creatures – human soul. – substantial form
• So substantial form of anything is simple physically
• 2. metaphysical: creatures are composed of existence and essence.
• Potential and actuality, substance and accidents.
3 logical composition: in creatures – man is a relational animal,
• Man is composed of genus – animal and species
• God has no composition. In god there is putting together of parts.

64. Why do we say god is simple
• God is the first and necessary being, we cannot see him as composite
• For compounding there must be a cause – i.e a being prior must exist.
• Bze composite being is contingent or dependent upon the union of its
parts or elements.
• In god there is no physical compostion- physical parts, - unmoved mover
• In god there is no metaphysical composition: existence and essence, etc
are identified completely. His existence is essence viceversa.
• For his existence and essence he does not owe to anybody.
• He is self existent and pure actuality. No potentialities bze he is necessary
being.

65. Logical compostion
• God is one and only being. No genus and species
• God is not subjected to literal classification by the mind.
• God is simple: what about different perfections (infinity, will, power)
• Is not god compounded of these perfections.
• Limited mind cannot think in terms of god. we give anthromorphic
terms so that we make intelligible to the nature of ours.
• To comprend god fully is not possible. The problem is with human
mind.

66. The infinite god
• Latin finis – end, boundary or limit in- negative prefix.
• Infinity means – boundlessness, unlimitedness.
• What do we mean by that: there is and no limit or boundary to his being or his
perfections.
• We cannot imagine or postulate infinity. What we can know what it means
• There is always a limitation in knowing infinity by human. (incomprehensive)
• Why should god be infinite? Limited needs unlimited to create.
• Infinity proves that God is one, united
• There cannot be two infinities – bze it will be difficult to distinguish, and if it
does it will again limit the two . No plurality of infinites.

67. The spirituality of God
• God is not material. God is not bodily
• God is simple (indivisible) – no bodily actuality is simple
• God is unicity (kind) – no bodily being is so
• God is infinite (limitedness) and bodily beings has boundries
• Therefore God is the spirit

68. The physical essence of god
• Physical essence is sum total of the perfections that constitute it.
• Unicity, simplicity, infinity and spirituality
• Metaphysical essence of god
• As conceivable in the mind. (about God we speak about perfection)

69. Perfections of God (metaphysical Essence)
• The Nominalists: a theory that there are no universal essences in reality and
that the mind can frame no single concept or image corresponding to any
universal or general term. the theory that only individuals and no abstract
entities (such as essences, classes, or propositions) exist — compare collection
of all the perfections we attribute to god.
• The attributes don’t have transsubjective value (being in a state of existence
independent of an individual mind or thinking. Objective in universe than
individual experience. Pertaining to reality beyond the sphere of direct
experience or of immediate knowledge.
• We cannot say which is the first attribute and it becoming the source.

70. Metaphysical essence of God…. Continue.
• Stoics: (followers of Duns Scotus) – root-infinity or radical infinity. All
perfections in an infinite degree.
• Who are this stoics: determined not to complain or
show your feelings, especially when something bad happens to you:
• Thomists (tomas Aquinas) – some: God’s Understanding – God all-
beholding, all comprehending. Most: HE is self existing. By himself. He
is self subsistent being itself.
• Self subsistence: subsisting independently of anything external to
itself

71. 3.2.2 True Metaphysical Essence :
A.Radical infinity
• Infinity is the way god exist - It is important essence
• Is it the first? - to say about God is infinite looks as though we have grasped
him, or already there as subject of study
• First we conceive a thing as existing before we conceive it as existing infinitly
• To be before to be infinite
• B. ALL UNDERSTANDING
• It deals about the operations of Divine Essence. But operation presupposes
faculty or power and operator. Therefor not the first idea

72. continuation
• C : SELF-SUBSISTANT Being itself?
• It is the first idea : God said “I am Who I AM”
• I Am has sent me to You (EX 3:14)
• The metaphysical essence of God is the fact God is self-subsistent Being
itself.

73. 3.3 The Attributes of God
• Meaing of the divine attributes:
• The perfections of a being by Natural necessity
• Natural necessity means – that which is demanded by the nature of
the being
• Eg: mans should have a body and reason.
• Remember attributes are different from essence, nature, substance.
• Therefore Man has a reason but man is not a reason (reason is not
identified with a being)

74. IN God
• Since God is simple, pure actuality, he is different.
• Therefore attributes of God cannot be predicated strict sense. But
in analogical sense.
• What is analogy: a comparison of the features or qualities of two
different things to show their similarities:
• [ C ] He was explaining that the mind has no form and is invisible,
and that a useful analogy is of the mind being like the sky.
• Attribute is called also as property. Latin : Proprius = one’s own
• Here Property is understood as Trademark, brand, eg: reason for
human
• Some of the attributes that we saw already: unicity, simplicity…

75. Classification of Divine Attributes
• ABSOLUTE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES - POSTIVE AND NEGATIVE
• RELATIVE
• ADA: studying god in himself, without reference to creatures
• Such as infinity, immutability (unchangeable; changeless.)
and knowledge
• Postitive attributes: which affirm a perfection as belonging
by necessity to god eg: divine life, divine will, divine
understanding.
• Negative attributes: which deny imperfections in God eg:
infinity: denies limitation, simplicity: denies composition,
immutability – denies change/alteration

76. Relative divine Attributes
• RDA are those involving the relation of creatures to god. eg divine
Providence- God looks after His creatures.
• The Divine Attributes
• Goodness: god is infinitely good
• Good means desirable, appetizable, every being can be the object of
desire,
• The measure of being is the measure of goodness (plant, animal and
human)
• It follows the infinite being is the infinite good.

77. God is good - arguments
• Grades of perfection: good, better, best.
• God’s grade is absolutely best, boundless good, Summum Bonum.
• Summum bonum is a Latin expression meaning "the highest good",
• Therefore God is infinite goodness. Good and perfection are
synonymous.
• To say god is infinitely good is same as saying God is perfect
• The term good in casual sense: kindness, devotion, thoughtfulness,
caring. Eg: good mother, she is very good to everybody.
• Infinite goodness of God includes all that is fine and perfect. Bze in
God they are in infinite degree.

78. II God is the first cause
• Perfection that we find in the effect should be found in the cause that produced.
(washing machine buying, and servicing)
• God who is infinitely perfect is the cause of all creatures. (analogical, not in equivocal
sense)
• Univocal Term: A term that has only one meaning. That is, it signifies only one
concept, and thus corresponds to only one definition. Such a term always has the
same intension wherever it is used. E.g. the term "entomology" signifies the study of
insects.
• Equivocal Term: A term that has more than one meaning. That is, it signifies more
than one concept, and thus corresponds to more than one definition. An equivocal
term has different intensions when it is used. E.g. the term "chihuahua" can signify (a)
a breed of dog; (b) a state of Mexico.
• Analogous Term: A term that is intended to convey one or more similar
characteristics that exist between two concepts. E.g. the term "data owner" is
applied to individuals who have no legal title to the data they manage, but are
expected to exercise responsibilities like those owners would typically
exercise. Sometimes an analogous term can be no different to an equivocal term.

79. 3.3.3.2 Immensity (Omnipresence)
• from Latin word immēnsitās. Means measurelessness
• A thing is immense when it cannot be measured, confined, estimated
and quantified.
• For God: immensity is a perfection, the divine substance is present in
all thing and places without limit or measured by thiem.
• Two types of immensity:
• Ubiquity : actual omnipresence. God is in all things. The fact of his
being everywhere
• Radical Omnipresence: God’s power to be everywhere. In all the
places and things

80. continuation
• 3 different ways of the place of a thing. Circumscriptively,
informatively, and operatively.
• i. circumscriptively : when its own dimensions are co-dimensional
with those of a surrounding body. Eg: basketball in the air, fish in the
water. (its place in the air is called circumscriptively.
• God is not present in things circumscriptively: bze it requires body,
and it is not a slice of bread, or a gooseberry in my mouth- bze god is
infinite spirit.
• God is not limited by his creatures.

81. INFORMATIVELY
• In-form : gives shape or colour. The located reality
becomes the determining factor of the reality in which
it is present.
• Human soul is the substantial form of the body.
Accidental forms are also included. Eg. Hardness in
the marble, strength of the person.
• God is not present informatively. He is not the
substantial form of the universe. God is not the shape
of the world, not its temperature or its appreance.
• God is self-subsistent Being. He does not depend on
anything.

82. OPERATIVELY
•Exercising activity in it. Eg: life principle present in a
tree
•It’s a definitive operation: presence limited to one
single substance: eg: life principle in a tree, soul in
humans.
•Operatively and extensively: eg: Sun’s rays present all
places on earth. Present to many things.
•Operatively and incircumscriptively: all things depend
on him for its being and becoming. (present but not
limited by things. Eg: god is present in all things but
not contained or measured.

83. IMMUTABILITY
•Literally – changelessness. Though it is in
negative form, it means positively
•It means that god is pure actuality
•God is not subject to change
•Is God frozen fixedness?
•It is not fixedness, but free and eternally active
•Let us see the proofs

84. PROOFS
• i) change gives the possibility of actualizing potential.
• Changeble things necessary for a change.
• Therefore it has capacity,
• But god is pure actuality. There is no conceivable capacity in
god
• Therefore God is immutable.
• ii) change implies – changes (accidents), and remains the
same (substance)
• The above process happens to compound beings, bze
composed of composite elements
• We have seen that God is absolute simple. Therefore he is
immutable.

85. PROOFS
• iii) change involves – loss and gain. Loss of one state and achieving
another state.
• In god it cannot be ze he is infinite. Therefore God is immutable.
• God’s will, does it change? – what is the use of praying? Are we
destined already?
• For God there is no past, present, future, all is present. All our
prayers are known to him from eternity.
• His answer to our prayers also is there from eternity. So our prayers
and his answer make no change in God.

86. ETERNITY
•Means – endlessness, absence of beginning and successive
duration
• Boethius: “eternity is the possession, at once, complete,
perfect, of boundless life.”
•3 sorts of duration
• Time: measure of the movements (or events), considered with
reference to before and after. Time is a measure of existence
in bodily things.
• Aeviternity: Beings having a beginning, but have no end.
Angels, souls
• Eternity: beings having no beginning, no end and no
succession in existence

87. Proof for eternity
• We have proved god is necessary being – dependent –
contingent- potential
• We have proved god is immutable –
• A being that comes into existence is not immutable – for it
comes
• A being that goes out of existence is not imutable for it goes
• A being that suffers succession is not immutable for it
progresses
• Since God does not come into existence, goes out of
existence, has no succession.
• Then we can say that God is eternal.

88. CHAPTER – 4 OPERATIONS OF GOD
• The immanent operations of god
• It is a vital life operation, remains in itself, within the principle
• Life of god is not an organic life. No talking about vegetal, sentient operations
• There must be operations of intellect and will
• The above operations are not accidental in God, all that God has He is.

89. Operation of God’s Intellect
•God’s intellect means divine knowledge.
•What God Knows? What God can Know? – he is omniscient-
knows all things.
•Comprehensive knowledge: not only extends to all things
but exhausts the knowability of things
•Proofs for God’s knowledge: proof 1 infinitely perfect
being, knowledge of his must be transcendent and
imminent way.
•Since God is simple, his knowledge is not added to his
Essence, but identified with his essence. God does not have
comprehensive knowledge but is comprehensive

90. Proof 2
• Gradation in realilty
•Material-vegetative-animal-human
• Less of materiality about the knowing creature, wider and
deeper its range of knowledge and more pure (crude oil to
refined oil)
• The knowledge becomes more pure, universal, and abstract
are the elements of knowledge.
• God is infinite spirit no materiality whatsoever. So in god there
is not limiting factor of knowledge(materiality). So God is
infinite knowledge/understanding.

91. Object of God’s knowledge
•All things knowable
• Knowledge can be distinguished into two
•Primary object of knowing power, and secondary object
of knowing power
•In the first, knowledge is attained directly, immediately by
the knower. Eg: watching a flower in the garden.
•Secondary object of knowing power, is attained by the use
of faculty reason. Eg: when you see smoke from far you
realize that there is fire.

92. continuation
• Primary object of the divine intellect: there is no sense
experience with god. it is not his essence to have smell,
taste, etc.
• In a knowing being, there is always proportion between the
thing it is framed to know and its power to know it.
• God is infinite being and God’s power to know is infinite.
• Therefore the thing it is framed to know should be infinite
object.
• That infinite object is nothing but the Divine Essence itself.
• God knows himself as the primary object. (god is himself)

93. Continuation : secondary object
• In knowing himself fully, he knows his powers too.
• He therefore knows all things creatable and all things
sustainable.
• God knows all other things,
• The secondary object of knowledge is All things other
than God
• All creatures (their actual and possible relations)

94. Manner of God Knowing future Events
• Doctrine of Cajetan: 16th c philosopher and theologian
• His doctrine is called thomistic doctrine.
• In his teaching he tell that god knows future events, including future
free events, in his own essence as present.
• It is in the light of his eternal determining decrees.
• A) knows future contingencies as present. No past, present,
future. What is future for creatures will be present for infinite
mind
• B) knows future in his own Essence: Knowledge for God is his
existence and essence. Embraces all future possibilities and so
embraces all future realities.

95. Continuation…
• C) knows in the light of His eternal determining decrees
• In god creatures have their being
•Human being is free to choose to act.
• This freedom depends on God’s eternal decree to create
the free wills
• This decree will sustain them, move them and to harmonize
in their free choices.

96. Classification of the divine knowledge
• we can classify divine knowledge as:
• Speculative and practical divine knowledge
• Necessary and free
• Approving and non-approving
• Knowledge of simple intelligence and knowledge of
vision

97. Speculative and practical knowledge
• Speculative –comes from latin Speculari means to look at.
• Knowledge that does not need to lead an action. Eg: studying
history is for enlightenment of mind. Aim of studying is
speculative
• In the above example there Is no direct concern with action.
• Practical: comes from Greek word Prattein means to make or to
do. Studying carpentry, music, electricity is for doing something.
Here the aim is practical.
• God’s knowledge of himself is speculative
• God’s knowledge of things is both speculative and practical,

98. Both practical and speculative
•For creatures (things) it is possible
•Speculative – God knows them perfectly
•Practical – god knows them in order to sustain them
(in being and operation.

99. 2. Necessary and Free
•God’s knowledge of himself is necessary
•Bze he cannot be ignorant of himself. Since he is necessary
being and his knowledge is one with his essence
•God’s knowing of things other than God is free knowledge
•He cannot be ignorant of them but it is not one with himself
in eternal essence

100. Approving (causing) / non-approving(non-causing
• God’s knowledge of creatures is approving
• Genesis 1:10 – God saw that they were very Good.
• God causes them.
• God’s approval of created things is not something
aloof and detached.
• God’s knowledge of evils, deficiencies is non-
approving knowledge. God is not the cause of them
• He is only the accidental cause of them.

101. Knowledge of Simple Intelligence
• Knowledge of things which are possible
• It is not about things that are ever to be
• This is knowledge of simple intelligence
• In divine knowledge the object of all things is actual
(past, present and future)
• This is knowledge of vision
• These things lie within the direct view of God.

102. The Operations of God’s Will
• The divine will: first in human being, the will is the tendency to
follow intellectual knowledge by appropriate action
• It is the power to choose a course of action decided as good by the
intellect
• God does not have a will, but is. God is infinite will
• Is God equal to Will? “Will itself” – Yes, God has in a transcendent
way all perfections of creatures
• Yes: whenever there is understanding, there must be will. God is
infinite understanding. Therefore God is also infinite will.

103. Object of Divine Will
•Primary Object: that to which the faculty tends in itself. It is
the divine essence
•Secondary: that which the faculty tends to attain in, through
or by reason of its primary object
•All those which are means to the end of primary object.
•Acts proper to the will are six: wish, intention, consent to the
requisite, choice of suitable means, use of such means,
enjoyment of the good attained.

104. Loves himself as the primary object of the divine will
• Proof: Divine will is an infinite tendency for God
• Ultimate end must be infinite good itself. i.e the divine essence
• What is Will: is a tendency to follow understanding, and to lay hold of
and possess (that is, to love).
• Knowing that it is good and desirable (that is, as lovable).
• The divine intellect or Understanding knows the Divine Essence as
Supremely perfect and lovable.
• The divine will tends primarily towards the Divine Essence as its end.
• God therefore loves himself,
• The divine essence is the primary object of the Divine will.

105. continuation
•Will chooses what intellect proposes as good.
•Divine intellect knows Divine essence as supreme
Good.
•Divine will tends toward Divine essence (that it loves)
•Tendency towards the primary object is what the
faculty is for.
•Tendency: TENDENCY is a likelihood of behaving in a
particular way or going in a particular direction;

106. God freely loves things as secondary object of will
• God wills other than himself. The existence of things is a sign that
god wills
• Secondary object of divine mind is all things creatable.
• God loves things other than himself in a manner that is not necessary
but free.
• The divine essence is perfectly and necessarily and eternally attained
without reference to creatures
• Therefore the creatures are loved, in the free will of God. (God
chooses to create, not forced to create.

107. The divine Will and Evil
• Evil is the absence of Good. It is the absence that ought to be present.
• Evil is a defection, a falling away, a failing, a lack, an absence).
• Every being Is Good. There is no being which as such evil. i.e,
metaphysical evil.
• Evil is found in both physically and morally.
• What is physical: when a thing has all that its nature demands for
normal being and function, it is physically perfect or perfectly good.
• Eg: bread is good when it is properly baked. If one ingredient is lacking
then it is understood as bad.
• Physical evil is a lack and an absence of something that should be
present.

108. Physical Evil
• Sickness: is a lack of normal function in an organic nature, hunger, death,
plagues, wounds, Harsh climate
• they are physical evils inasmuch as these things afflict men and animals, and
hence induce a lack, an absence of natural and normal condition and
function.
• What about Poision? When it is used as food or medicine. In itself as poison,
it may be physically good. But not as food for human.
• It is not only limitation, but it a limitation of a due perfection.

109. Moral Evil
• It is an absence, a lack of the agreement of conformity that should be
present between free human conduct (thought, word, deed, desire,
omission) and the rule or norm of what that conduct ought to be.
• It is a lack of conformity between free human activity on the one hand, and
the eternal law (which is proximately applied by conscience, that is by
human reason) on the other
• Free human activity must coincide with eternal law.
• Physical and moral evil exist in the world

110. physically evil may be voluntarily
accepted
• out of love for another person;
• to serve and defend one’s country;
• to defend a moral good, to defend truth;
• to maintain the rights of God and of other persons,
especially of the poor and the vulnerable;
• to witness to one’s faith; to be faithful to one’s conscience.

111. Physical evil can lead to higher goals:
• as a preventive measure against greater evils;
• as a punitive (discipline) correction for a fault committed;
• as a deterrent or warning to others;
• to restore justice when it has been transgressed;
• to repair the scandal;
• to atone (apologies) for one’s own sins or for others;
• to train for future hardships;
• to bring out the best in one’s character (heroism, fidelity,
courage, sacrifice).

112. Moral Evil
• Question: how far are such evils (physical and moral) ascribable to
Divine will?
• Is god in any Sense cause of such evil?

113. 1 God is in no sense the cause of moral evil or sin
• God will not will sin either Per se (in itself), or Per Accidens (accidentally)
• If god wills per se, god would be a contradiction in himself.
• What is the contradiction? He is infinite good and he wills evil.
• He is perfect being ------ he has deficiency. He is imperfect.
• Therefore god is not the author but the sinner is the sole author of sin.
• As sin is understood as lack (it involves defecting, a failing agent).

114. continuation
• God does not will moral evil per accidens.
• It is to will it as involved in something willed in itself, directly or per
se,
• It is to will it on account of a good greater than that to which the evil
in question stands.
• Ge: from the physical order – a man wills the pain and inconvenience
and expense of a surgical operation (evils which stand opposed to
comfort of body and peace of mind) on account of a good that is
good/normal health.

115. • God cannot will moral evil, because moral evil is evil of human
conduct inasmuch as this is out of line with the eternal law and is
thus opposed to the divine Essence. And there could be no greater
good than god who is the infinite good.
• Therefore god cannot will moral evil per accidens.
• Conclusion: god is the author of human nature, which is
understanding and free. By freedom you can choose this or that
lawful thing.
• But freedom does not consist in man’s capacity to ober or disobery or
to do good or to do eivl.

116. c
• To disobe;y, to do evil is always an abuse and not a true use of
greedm.
• Eg: a poor man given clothes to wear- you are the true cause of his
comfort, and warmth
• You gift involves the possibility of an abuse. Which is entirely outside
your will and intention and even opposed to your will..

117. God and physical evil
• Physical evil is limitation or falling short of a due perfection. The
natural limitation of any fine thing, each in its own order are not
physical evil.
• It is a lack of normal and finite perfection that should be present in
a creature.
• Eg: sight – a perfection, even though its range be strictly limited.
• Lack of sight is an imperfection, it is the absence of a natural
perfection that ought to be present.
• Per se god does not will physical evil. (physical evil is not part of
our being.)

118. But evil present per accidens.
• He permits physical evil to achieve a greater good.
• The good is right order of the universe.
• The proper arrangement of fact and function that keeps all things
harmoniously tending towards their last end.
• Eg: in a family atmosphere, to maintain the moral order, in order to
achieve peace, each one values, obedience, mutual respect,
affection, deference, consideration and sacrifice.. It must be a
material order touching all the physical details of homemaking and
housekeeping.

119. continuation
• From the point of God, he wills per se the eternal peace,
happiness of men.
• To reach these goal a few hardships (called physical evil) which
are involved in the ordering of the world in view of that great
end.
• Like home, the universe is both a moral and a material order.
Each creature is dependent on the other for their sustenance
(plants-animals-humans).
• Aim is to preserve the order.
•

120. contunation
• Suffering of man should be endured – job, prophet Jonah, in
every day encounters.
• What about death? Is it limitation or a reminders of moral
duty.
• What are the reminders – able to perform and accomplish
with the time. Physical evils are opportunities to remedy the
fults of the past.
• A chance to strengthen himself for meeting the trials of the
future.

121. THE PERSONAL NATURE OF GOD
• Meaning of Person: philosophers defined as a complete individual and
autonomus substance of the rational order.
• A person is a substance: a substance is a being that is fitted to exist itself,
not a the mark, modification, or qualification. Eg: a man is a substance, but
weight, height, name, abilities are accidents
• A person is a complete substance; among creatures, a complete substance
requires no co-substance with which to join in producing a rounded
substantial existence. No single part of the person is called substance like
human body.

122. continuation
• A person is an individual substance: an individual is a being that is
not distinguished as a plurality. It is just that one thing. It is
distinguished or marked of from everything else.
• St. Thomas Aquinas say, “ an individual is that which is undivided in
itself, and is divided of from everything.”
• A Person is an autonomous substance: Autonomous = operating by
its own law. Each part is not autonomous. Eg: a Ma’s hand
operations are not its own. Its operations are of Man who has the
hand. Every complete individual substance has subsistence or is
autonomous.

123. continuation
• A person is a substance of the rational order: a being is said to be
of the rational order when it is endowed with understanding and
will
• B. personality of God: god as personal God, we mean tht God is a
true person.
• When we call God ‘a personal god’ that he is truly a substantial
Being.
• He is complete and perfect and autonomous and that he knows all
thins and rules all by his will
• Personality is a pure perfection.
• All perfections must be attributed to god in a transcendental way
(ze god is first and necessary being)

124. MISTAKEN NOTIONS ON THE POINT
•Is god a person?
•( person is a being with a body and mind)
•God hears our prayers?
•God sees You?

125. Answer to the questions
• The expressions are figurative expressions
• We see sunrise an sunset (there is actually no sunrise or sunset)
But we know what we mean,
What we mean by all these are God knows all things
God provides all things needed for substance.
Person is a being pictured in the imagination
Imagination is beautiful and helpful but its character is symbolic and
not literal.

126. The Transient operations of God
•Operations that proceed from god to the universe
•The operation is to produce, preserve, control and govern
the universe
•Transient operations involve no transiency, no change or
mutability in god himself.
•Transient is not to be taken literally but analogically
•These operations are, creation, conservation, concurrence
(harmony), governance and providence.

127. The divine operation of creation
• Creation is the active producing of a thing in its entirety out of
nothing.
• Nothing is not a kind of material.
• All bodily substances have their first origin in creation.
• Since Bodies are substantially changeable, they produce other bodies
by the process of substantial transformation called generation and
corruption
• All spiritual substances are directly created, neither can these
generate further spiritual substances nor undergo any corruption.
• Spiritual substances are not subject to substantial transformation.
Only god can create infinite power, will, perfect.

128. continuation
•Materialists: universe is eternal and unproduced. It cannot be
accepted.
•Reasons: what is eternal and unproduced should have in
itself the sufficient reason for its existence.
•It is the necessary being, but it is clear that the world is not
necessary

129. The divine operation of conversion
• Dependency of the effect on the cause may be bze of
• For production only and not for permanence. Eg: sculptor is required to
produce the statue and not to keep it. Chair does not need the carpenter to be.
• For production and permanence. Eg: Fire is required to make iron hot and keep
it hot. Sun is required to produce daylight and maintain daylight,
• electricity is required to make the bulb burning and to keep it burning.
• In this case the cause must continue in activity or exercise as long as the effect
exists.
• This is conservation: preserving an effect in being.
• Two types of preservation. Direct (promotive), Indirect (preventive).

130. continuation
• Direct: it is the positive preserving of an effect. The preservation is
done through an activity.
• The actual being supplies to the effect what is present in itself
• Eg: fire = directly conserves heat in hot iron, sun= directly
conserves daylight
• Indirect: it is the negative preserving of an effect by the exercise of
a cause which protects the effect
• It would shield, prevents what would harm and destroy it. Eg: maid
watching an infant, placing a manuscript in an air-tight case

131. continuation
•Divine conservation is direct conservation: creatures
are contingent realities.
•All creatures depend on the first cause for existence.
•All creatures depend on other causes for their
permanence.
•These other causes depend on the first cause.

132. The divine operation of concurrence (cooperation)
• Terms clarification: creation – to be, preservation – to be in being,
concurrence – to be acting
• To concur means to “run alongside” to go along with.
• It means that God cooperates, works, alongside creatures
• Creatures have natural powers and operations.
• These operations require the action and co-operation of god to explain
their existence. Eg: first time infant walking, first time bike riding, car
driving.

133. continuation
• Creatures are created and conserved not only as essences but as
natures, not only as things of certain kind, but as things with
certain connatural powers and functions
• Not only as things existable but also as things as operable. Not
only as things static, but s things dynamic.
• In short creatures have activities and operations, and these
require the action and cooperation of God to explain their
existence.

134. continuation
• What cooperation do the creatures need?
• The inpouring of power, by his power every other power operated
• Concurrence can be understood in two ways
• 1. As two horses pulling a wagon, God and man are two working side
by side. Here both are partial causes (both are equal in status)
• 2. As man using the pen for writing. Pen and man are not partial
causes but secondary and principal causes respectively.
• The result is attributed wholly to man and wholly to pen (both the
man an the pen each in its own way,
• It is the total cause of the letter: the whole letter comes from the
man (as the principal cause) and the whole letter is written with the
pen (instrumental)

135. continuation
• So also god will become the primary cause and creatures are
the secondary causes. Here both are not equal
•How does God concur with the free operations of human?
• If we hold free will: human is independent of God. human
becomes the sole author of everything. i.e you are putting in
god’s place.
• If we hold concurrence. We make human an inert instrument
of god. then god becomes responsible for human sin.

136. continuation
• How to maintain that God concurs without taking away the freedom of the
human person?
• Human will is a potentiality or power
• God moves the free will to choose the good,
• Moral evil like all the evils is a defection or lack, i.e, sin is ascribable to the bad
disposition of the will.
• In moral evil we can distinguish
• 1) the matter of evil: implies the material element of an action. It is in itself
good. It is ascribable to god (sex is good)
• 2) the form of evil: the formal element of evil action (i.e, that which makes evil
as such). It is ascribable soley to the bad will of human. Here god is not even
the accidental cause. Eg: sex with non-wife, material element – god, formal -
human

137. The divine operation of providence and governance
• Etymology: pro=for, before, videns = seeing; providence = a looking before, a
looking out for, i.e, providence is seeing beforehand what is required and
planning to meet the requirement. In Salesian understanding, preventive
system.
• Providence of God: it is god’s understanding and will. He eternally (ceaselessly)
and infallibly (without fail) directs all things towards their last end or purpose
in every detail. (providence)
• There are two aspects in providence: 1. knowing how to direct and arrange
things. This is providence proper, this is eternal
• 2. The actual directing and arranging of things in accordance with the
knowledge (is called governance) - noosphere
• Providence in God becomes government in creatures.

138. How does God Tolerate Evil?
• We know that god directs and guides all to their ultimate end
• He has given freedom to human. God will that man uses his freedom properly
• Man freely falls short of properly using it
• Failure is man’s own entirely. It touches human alone. It does not in any way
conflict with the ultimate end of providence.

139. Views of the philosophers about the existence of god
• Karl Barth (1 class)
• Immanuel Kant (2 classes)
• Martin Heidegger (2 classes)
• Thomas aquinas (2 classes)

140. • Kant reduces all rational proofs for the existence of God to 3:
• They are ontological (or a priori) proof, the cosmological (or a
posteriori) proof and the physico-theological (or teleological) proof
• . Kant presents these 3 proofs in the version he obtained them from
the Rationalist tradition of Leibniz, Christian

141. The ontological proof:
• Ontology: is the study of what exist in general. Eg: shoes are more real than
walking. Two types : ontological materialism, ontological idealism.
• God is understood as “Most Perfect Being”. means the totality of possible
pure perfections
• must include among its pure perfections, the perfection of “Most real being”
• . “Most real being” means “necessarily existing being.”
• The “Most real being” must at least be really possible to exist,
• “Most real being” to be really possible and not to exist would be a contradiction.
• “Most real being” cannot remain merely possible, but must necessarily be actualized,
i.e., it must necessarily be existing.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists.

142. Kant’s critique of the ontological proof: