A
m
eri
can
Ca
thol
ic
P
hi
lo
so
phi
cal
Quart
e
rly
Vo
lu
me
77
Nu
mb
er 1, W
int
er 2003
Ar
ticle
s
Mark
D. Gos
si
aux
: Th
om
as
Aqu
inas
and Gi
le
s of
Rom
e
on the E
xi
st
en
ce
of
God as
S
el
f-E
vi
dent
Mar
k
D.
G
o
ss
iau
x
:
Th
o
m
as
Aqu
ina
s an
d Gil
es
of
R
o
m
e on
t
h
e Ex
is
te
nce
of
G
o
d as
Sel
f-Ev
ide
n
t
Pa
ge 57
Abs
tra
ct
. T
h
om
as
A
q
ui
na
s ho
ld
s tha
t th
e e
xi
sten
ce
o
f G
od
i
s
se
lf
-e
vi
d
ent i
n
itse
lf
(because
Go
d
’s e
ssence
is his e
xiste
nce
) but not to us (sinc
e we
do
not
know the
d
ivine
esse
nce
). Gi
le
s o
f R
ome
agre
es wi
th the
fi
rst
par
t o
f
Th
om
as’s claim, bu
t h
e par
ts compan
y wi
th
Aq
ui
na
s by m
ain
ta
in
in
g t
h
at
G
od
’s
ex
is
te
n
ce i
s s
elf
-e
vi
d
en
t t
o t
h
e wis
e.
Sin
ce t
h
e wis
e
ca
n
kno
w
t
h
at
Go
d
is
hi
s
exist
enc
e, th
ey ca
nn
ot
t
h
in
k
of him as no
t exi
sting
. This pap
er
re
exa
m
in
es
Thom
as
’s
t
ea
ch
in
g in
t
h
e lig
ht
of
G
iles
’s
c
ri
tic
is
m
s. By e
xam
in
in
g
cl
os
el
y wh
at
i
s in
vo
lved
i
n
t
h
e c
lai
m
t
h
at
G
od
’s
es
se
nc
e
is
hi
s exi
st
en
ce,
a
n
d
h
ow
on
e’
s kn
ow
led
g
e of
t
h
is
c
lai
m
is
r
ela
te
d t
o t
h
e knowl
edge
t
h
at
God
ex
is
ts
,
it
a
rg
u
es
t
h
at
Th
om
as
’s
p
os
iti
on
has the re
sour
ce
s to
w
ith
stand
Gi
le
s’s
obje
ctio
n
s.
Pa
ge 57
T
h
om
as
A
q
ui
na
s is
w
el
l k
n
ow
n f
or hi
s e
ffo
rts
to
d
emo
n
strate
the
e
xis
te
nc
e o
f G
od
.
†1
His
ar
gu
me
n
ts would not be
n
ece
ss
ary
, howe
ver, if th
e e
xiste
n
ce
of
God we
re
se
lf-e
vi
de
n
t (
per se
no
tum
), si
n
ce
a se
lf
-e
vide
n
t pr
op
osi
ti
on is
on
e th
at is known
to
be tru
e as soo
n
as
its te
rm
s
are
un
d
ersto
od
.
†2
Con
seq
uen
tl
y, in
or
der
t
o es
ta
bl
is
h
t
h
e nee
d
(
an
d
t
h
e pos
si
b
ili
ty
) of p
rov
in
g
Go
d
’s e
xiste
nce
, Tho
m
as fre
q
ue
ntly take
s pai
n
s to
show that hi
s e
xiste
nce
is not se
lf
-evi
dent
to us.
Aq
uinas i
s al
so known
fo
r h
is claim that Go
d
’s e
ssence
is his e
xiste
n
ce
, a
vi
ew
t
h
at I
Pa
ge Br
eak
58
sh
al
l c
all t
h
e “i
den
tit
y t
h
es
is
.”
†3
It is be
cause
of his acceptan
ce
of the
i
d
entity the
sis that
T
h
om
as
a
d
d
s a
n
im
p
or
ta
n
t n
u
an
ce
t
o h
is
t
ea
ch
in
g
on
ou
r k
n
ow
led
g
e of
G
od
’s
ex
is
te
n
ce:
t
h
at
God
exis
ts
is
s
el
f-
evid
ent
i
n
itse
lf
, but
not to
us
. O
n
e might
wo
nde
r
whether Thomas
is
just
if
ie
d
in making t
h
is
cl
ai
m. Since
we can
know th
at
G
od’
s e
sse
n
ce
i
s h
is e
xi
stence
, an
d
h
enc
e t
h
at
God
’s
exi
st
en
ce i
s s
elf
-e
vi
den
t in
it
se
lf
, a
re we
n
ot
al
so
a
b
le t
o a
ff
ir
m
t
h
at
God’
s
exi
st
en
ce i
s s
elf
-e
vi
d
en
t eve
n
wi
th
r
es
p
ec
t t
o u
s?
Thi
s lin
e o
f c
rit
ic
is
m
w
as
d
ir
ec
ted
at
Th
om
as
ne
ar
the
end
of his car
ee
r by
Gil
es of
Ro
me. Li
ke T
h
omas,
Gil
es acce
pt
s the
ide
n
tity the
si
s, as
we
ll as the cl
ai
m that
in al
l cre
ature
s the
re
is a real
d
istinc
ti
on betwe
en e
ssence
and
ex
iste
n
ce
.
Howe
ve
r, Gi
le
s parts company
w
ith
Thom
as
b
y hold
in
g t
h
at
God’
s ex
is
te
n
ce
i
s
se
lf-e
vi
d
ent
to
the
le
ar
ne
d
.
†4
Pa
ge 58
In this pape
r I wish to re
examine
Tho
m
as tea
ch
in
g o
n
th
is
issue
in t
h
e li
gh
t o
f Gi
le
s’s
cr
it
ic
is
m
s.
In
pa
rt
ic
ul
ar
, I
sh
all c
on
sider
Th
omas’
s vi
ews o
n
the
re
latio
n
shi
p
betwe
en
o
u
r
kno
w
le
dg
e o
f the
i
d
en
ti
ty
th
es
is
and our
knowl
edge
of
God’s
exi
st
ence. To
e
st
abli
sh a bette
r
cont
ex
t fo
r this e
xami
n
at
io
n, it wi
ll be
use
ful
to be
gin with a
re
vi
ew
of T
h
oma
s’
s te
xt
s o
n
the
se
lf-e
vi
d
ent
ia
l ch
aracter o
f Go
d
’s e
xiste
n
ce
.
I.
Pa
ge 58
Th
om
as
Aqu
in
as
: God’
s E
xis
te
n
ce is
Sel
f-
E
vi
den
t in
it
se
lf
, t
h
ou
g
h
not
t
o us
. T
h
om
as
’s
f
irs
t
discu
ssi
on of
th
is theme
i
s foun
d i
n
his
S
cr
ipt
um
s
u
pe
r
Pa
ge Br
eak
59
Sen
ten
ti
is
, bk.
I,
d.
3,
q.
1
(125
2–
54),
w
h
ere
he
i
s con
cern
ed to
sh
ow
h
ow
on
e arriv
es at a
kn
ow
le
dg
e o
f Go
d
b
y me
ans of
h
is
ve
stige
s i
n
cre
atu
re
s.
†5
In a
.
1 he a
ffi
rm
s that Go
d
ca
n be
kno
w
n
by a
cre
ate
d
int
el
le
ct,
t
h
oug
h
no
t
in su
ch
a way th
at h
is e
ss
ence mi
gh
t be
co
m
p
re
hen
d
ed
. I
n
a
. 2 h
e as
ks
whe
th
er
G
od
’s
exi
st
en
ce is
s
elf
-e
vi
d
en
t.
Th
e op
en
in
g
ob
je
cti
on
s try
to
e
stab
lish an affi
rmat
iv
e an
sw
er
. On
e ar
g
u
m
ent
, d
ra
w
n
f
rom
J
ohn
Dam
asce
n
e, asse
rt
s th
at God’s e
xi
stence
is se
lf
-evi
dent b
ecau
se
th
e kn
ow
le
dg
e o
f h
is
ex
iste
nce
is n
atura
lly
impl
ante
d in
al
l me
n.
A
n
ot
h
er
a
rgu
men
t r
ea
sons
th
at hi
s e
xiste
nce
i
s
se
lf-e
vi
d
ent
be
cause
h
e cann
ot
be
tho
u
ght not to be
. Two ar
gu
me
nt
s ar
e ci
ted to
su
pport
t
h
is
claim. The
fi
rs
t come
s from Anse
lm: Go
d is that
th
an
wh
ich
a gr
ea
te
r ca
nn
ot be
th
ou
gh
t; bu
t
th
at
which ca
n
n
ot be
th
ough
t n
ot
t
o be
is gre
ate
r than
th
at whi
ch can be
thought no
t
to
be
;
the
ref
ore, G
od canno
t be
tho
u
gh
t not to be
. A se
co
nd ar
gum
ent
is at
tribut
ed
by Tho
m
as to
Avi
cen
na
: no thi
n
g
can
be th
ou
gh
t without i
ts q
u
iddi
ty
(fo
r e
xa
m
p
le
, we ca
nnot thi
n
k “
m
an”
wi
th
ou
t t
h
in
kin
g
“m
or
ta
l,” “r
at
io
n
al
,” “an
im
al”); b
u
t God’
s qu
id
dit
y is
h
is
e
sse
; th
u
s he ca
nn
ot
b
e
th
ou
gh
t no
t t
o b
e.
T
h
e tw
o c
on
tr
ar
y a
rg
u
m
ent
s,
w
h
ic
h a
tte
m
p
t
to
s
h
ow
th
at
G
od
’s
ex
iste
nce
is not se
lf
-evi
dent,
bo
th
make
ap
pe
al
s to Ari
sto
tl
e.
Accord
in
g to
th
e first, what i
s
se
lf-
ev
ide
n
t ma
y be
d
eni
ed
wi
th o
n
e’
s
mo
uth
, b
u
t n
eve
r i
n
o
n
e’
s
he
art;
ho
we
ve
r, a
s o
n
e
reads in Ps. 1
4
:1, th
e f
ool
has sai
d
in h
is h
ear
t th
at th
er
e i
s n
o Go
d
. Acco
rd
in
g to th
e se
cond
argume
nt, the
conclusio
n
o
f a
d
emonstr
at
io
n i
s not se
lf
-e
vi
de
nt. Ye
t the
p
h
iloso
p
he
rs
have
demo
nstrate
d
the
exi
st
enc
e o
f Go
d.
Pa
ge 59
In
his re
ply Thomas
t
el
ls us th
at o
n
e can speak of
th
e knowl
ed
g
e of
some
th
ing in tw
o
ways: e
ither i
n
i
tsel
f, o
r wi
th re
g
ar
d
to
us. The
e
xi
ste
nce
o
f Go
d
is se
lf
-evi
dent in itse
lf
;
h
oweve
r,
w
ith
re
gard
t
o u
s a fur
th
er disti
n
ctio
n
i
s n
ee
d
ed. O
n
e can
spe
ak of
God accord
in
g to
h
is
li
ken
es
s a
n
d p
ar
tic
ip
at
ion, t
h
at
is
t
o s
ay
, accord
in
g to
h
is li
ke
n
ess an
d par
ti
cipati
on in
creatures, and the
n
on
e m
ay
s
ay t
h
at
hi
s exis
te
n
ce is
s
el
f-
evid
ent
. F
or
a
t
h
in
g is
kn
ow
n by
i
ts
tr
ut
h
, wh
ic
h
ha
s it
s exem
p
la
r in
G
od, a
n
d
t
h
e e
xis
te
nc
e
of
t
ru
th
is
s
el
f-
evid
ent
. But
w
e c
an
al
so
s
p
ea
k of
G
od
a
s he
s
u
b
sis
ts
a
s s
om
et
h
in
g
in
co
rp
or
ea
l,
a
n
d
t
h
en
t
h
e exi
st
en
ce of
G
od
is
no
t s
el
f-
ev
id
ent.
T
h
e re
as
on
fo
r th
is
, T
h
om
as
expl
ai
ns, is that th
os
e th
in
gs w
h
ich
are
se
lf
-e
vid
ent
t
o u
s ar
e kn
own
im
m
ed
ia
tel
y b
y m
ea
n
s
of
t
h
e s
ens
es
. Thu
s wh
en
o
n
e s
ees
a
wh
ol
e an
d
a
p
ar
t,
on
e i
m
m
ed
iat
el
y kn
ow
s t
h
at
ev
er
y wh
ol
e is
g
rea
te
r t
h
an
it
s p
ar
t.
Ho
wever
,
from the
pe
rceptio
n
o
f se
nsi
b
le
thi
n
gs we
Pa
ge Br
eak
60
arriv
e a
t G
od on
ly
by
a
pro
ce
ss o
f rea
son
in
g.
C
on
se
q
u
en
tly
, hi
s e
xiste
nce
is
not se
lf
-e
vi
den
t
to us.
†6
Pa
ge 60
Since
God is a
n
immat
eria
l b
ein
g, we
d
o n
ot posse
ss
a
n
imme
d
iat
e kn
ow
le
dge o
f his
ex
iste
nce
.
Re
plyi
ng to the
obje
ctio
ns, Tho
m
as de
ni
es
t
h
at the
kno
w
le
dge
of Go
d as he
exi
sts
in
h
is
ow
n n
at
u
re
i
s na
tu
ra
lly
im
pl
an
te
d
i
n
u
s.
†7
Nor i
s i
t the
ca
se
t
h
at we
canno
t think
th
at
Go
d
do
es
n
ot e
xist. According
t
o Th
om
as, o
n
e mu
st const
ru
e Anse
lm as
asse
rt
in
g th
at
afte
r
on
e a
cq
u
ir
es
a
k
n
ow
led
g
e of
G
od
, on
e c
an
n
ot
u
n
d
erst
and that
he
e
xi
sts and
be
ab
le
to thi
n
k
hi
m no
t t
o be
.
Tho
m
as poi
n
ts out
, howe
ver, that
it doe
s not fol
lo
w from this tha
t one co
ul
d
no
t t
h
ink that the
re
is
no G
od. For o
n
e could th
in
k that the
re i
s no such thi
n
g as that than
wh
ich
noth
in
g greater ca
n be
con
ce
ived. An
se
lm’
s ar
gum
ent
is in
effe
ctive
as
a
proo
f for Go
d’
s
exi
st
en
ce,
s
inc
e it
a
ss
u
m
es
at
t
h
e o
u
ts
et
t
h
at
t
h
er
e exi
st
s a
b
ein
g
t
h
an
wh
ic
h
a g
reat
er
ca
n
n
ot
b
e t
h
ou
g
h
t.
†8
Pa
ge 60
In
D
e ve
ri
tate
q.
1
0
, a
.
12 (1
25
7–5
8),
T
h
omas
agai
n a
sks
wh
et
h
er G
od’
s e
xi
ste
nce
i
s
se
lf
-e
vid
ent
. His
a
n
al
ys
is
in
t
h
is
t
ex
t is
c
ons
id
er
ab
ly
more
sophisticat
ed than i
n
the
Sent
en
ces
co
mme
ntary
. H
e b
eg
ins
hi
s re
pl
y b
y
de
lin
eatin
g
t
h
re
e possi
ble
posi
tio
n
s. Th
e fi
rst
, which
h
e
attribute
s to Maimo
n
id
es, as
se
rts t
h
at Go
d’
s e
xiste
nce
i
s ne
it
her se
lf
-e
vi
dent no
r
de
m
on
st
ra
b
le
, bu
t is
h
eld
on
fa
it
h a
lone.
Th
e s
ec
on
d
pos
it
ion
, as
cr
ibe
d
t
o
Av
ic
en
n
a, m
ain
ta
in
s
