HOME Doctrine Contact Bookstore Biographies Links Events Seminars
HOME Doctrine Contact Bookstore Biographies Links Events Seminars
Scriptural – Separated – Sound
The Reasonableness of God’s Existence
By Allen J. Dunckley, Th.D.
By Allen J. Dunckley, Th.D.
The Objectives: The foci of this discourse center on the following two questions:
Is there a rational basis for belief in GOD?
Is there a rational argument for belief in GOD?
The term G-
His Existence is an A Priori Belief
Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God.” With these words the Author reveals to the reader at the very outset of Scripture that the existence of God is an a priori (knowledge prior to experience) idea residing in the heart. In this opening of God’s Word, we see no argument to prove first the existence of God; instead, we see it stated as a foregone conclusion. Actually, the Scriptures present NO argument anywhere for the existence of God. On this Point Evans States, “It does not seem to have occurred to any of the writers of either the Old or New Testaments to attempt to prove or argue for the existence of God.
Everywhere and at all times it is a fact taken for granted.”[1] The biblical perspective is that the existence of God is already there and a non-issue. This prior knowledge in man is therefore part of man being made in the image of God for God knows Himself. We see this fact in Romans 2:15 were it states that the “work of the law” is “written in their heart.” A belief is a priori [2] if it is necessary as well as universal. Kant states an interesting point in his essay, Critique of Pure Reason, writing, “Necessity and universality are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other.”[3] Both history and the Bible show that the belief in the existence of God is both universal and necessary and thereby connected.
Everywhere and at all times it is a fact taken for granted.”[1] The biblical perspective is that the existence of God is already there and a non-
God’s Existence is a Universal Belief
Through out time, the human race has recognized the existence of a spiritual being or beings upon whom they considered themselves to be dependent. The ancient Vedas declare: “There is but one Being – no second.” Strong states, “Even the fetish-worshipper, who calls the stone or the tree a god, shows that he has already the idea of a God.” [4] The African missionary, Livingstone writes, “The existence of God and of a future life is everywhere recognized in Africa.”[5] Of the ancient Greeks, Solon spoke of O qeoV and to qeion, and Sophocles of o magaV qeoV. Even in the Indo-European languages, the term for God is identical showing the primitive history of the god-concept among the descended peoples. [6] From these various groups separated in time and space, the universal testimony to the belief in God’s existence stands out showing that it is a natural expression of the human heart. This natural expression can only be satisfactorily explained as Strong notes, “by supposing that it has its ground, not in accidental circumstances, but in the nature of man as man”[7] [emphasis mine] This universality of belief in the existence or reality of God as an innate or a priori expression of the human heart is further strengthened in the natural necessity of God in the life of man.
God’s Existence is a Necessary Belief
By the “necessity” of God’s existence we mean that under specific circumstances, it is a natural response to call out to God, that is, to find “God” necessary. It is said that there are no atheists in fox holes, an expression which underlies this necessity factor. “In time of sudden shock and danger . . . men become more conscious of God’s existence than of the existence of their fellow-men and they instinctively cry out to God for help.” [8] We see this in the following two examples: First, in Virgil’s AEneid, we are told, the character, Mezentius is an atheist, trusting only in his spear and in the power of his right arm; but, when the corpse of his son is brought to him, his first act is to raise his hands to heaven. The second is Voltaire, the philosopher-atheist, who prayed to God for safety when he was caught in a severe thunderstorm in the Alps. These illustrations show that the natural instinct of a man necessarily turns to God when confronted with an experience that is threatening or beyond his control—even when one denies this existence intellectually. Therefore, we see the certainty of God’s existence embedded in the nature of man; especially when in a crisis, he instinctively calls out to this God for help and deliverance.
The universality and necessity as we looked at them underscore the truth that God’s existence is an innate reality within the human heart; that is, it is intuitive. It is depravity that perverts or puts to sleep this idea within the individual; however, since man is a rational creature, this truth can be stimulated by the presentation of reasonable arguments. Is there a reasonable argument that can be used to awaken this God-consciousness within an individual? There is; let’s consider this argument in the following way:
The universality and necessity as we looked at them underscore the truth that God’s existence is an innate reality within the human heart; that is, it is intuitive. It is depravity that perverts or puts to sleep this idea within the individual; however, since man is a rational creature, this truth can be stimulated by the presentation of reasonable arguments. Is there a reasonable argument that can be used to awaken this God-
God’s Existence Is an Arguable Belief
At the outset, we must underscore the fact that the arguments for the existence of God are used not to prove His existence, but to awaken within the individual the innate truth of God’s existence that we have just discussed. Also, these are not stand alone arguments but are to be seen as one bearing and strengthening the next; as a wall is not of one brick, but is made up of several so that the strength of the wall as a whole is greater than the strength of any individual brick. As Strong notes,
These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences (sic) which is cumulative in its nature. Though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely decisive, (sic) they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive conviction of God’s existence.[9]
On this premise, we will consider the arguments in ascending order, which will be from the less effective to the most effective. Then we will determine how these arguments can be combined.
The Ontological Argument
The Argument defined: The “idea” of God stands as the proof that He exists. Or as Anselm (1033-1109) expresses it, “We have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being. But existence is an attribute of perfection. An absolutely perfect Being must therefore exist.” This is also known as the a priori argument. This argument is an expression of the universal idea God’s existence as we discussed in the opening paragraph of this writing. Yet this argument is met in philosophical circles with a wide range of tolerance. Berkhof points out that among the philosophers, Kant, felt that the argument was weak while Hegel “hailed it as the one great argument for the existence of God” [10] Neither of whom would be considered strong supporters for the Biblical God.
The Argument’s Weakness: This argument is weak in that Human ideas are an imperfect measure of external reality i.e. the absurdity that since one can imagine a purple horse with eight legs, therefore a purple horse with eight legs must exist! From this we can see that it is not fool proof to draw real conclusions from abstract ideas formed by the human mind.
The Argument better stated: Strong notes that a theologian named Dorner, has a better form of the argument. Syllogistically stated; the argument is thus:
Reason thinks of God as existing.
Reason would not be reason, if it did not think of God as existing.
[Therefore], reason only is, upon the assumption that God is[11]
As such, the strength of this argument is this: our own ability to reason rests in the idea that an Absolute Reason – God – exists. Therefore, we can conclude with Strong, “All that we can reason about infinity and perfection, ideas which lie at the foundation of the Ontological argument, we can ascribe to our idea about God, not because we can demonstrate them, but because our mental constitution will not allow us to think otherwise. Thus, clothing him with all perfections which the human mind can conceive and these in illimitable fullness, we have one whom we may justly call God.”[12]
The Arguments Scriptural Basis: There are no Scriptural references which directly support this argument. Inference can be seen in the following verses: Romans 2:14-15, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. From this we move to the next stronger argument.
The Argument’s Weakness: This argument is weak in that Human ideas are an imperfect measure of external reality i.e. the absurdity that since one can imagine a purple horse with eight legs, therefore a purple horse with eight legs must exist! From this we can see that it is not fool proof to draw real conclusions from abstract ideas formed by the human mind.
The Argument better stated: Strong notes that a theologian named Dorner, has a better form of the argument. Syllogistically stated; the argument is thus:
Reason thinks of God as existing.
Reason would not be reason, if it did not think of God as existing.
[Therefore], reason only is, upon the assumption that God is[11]
As such, the strength of this argument is this: our own ability to reason rests in the idea that an Absolute Reason – God – exists. Therefore, we can conclude with Strong, “All that we can reason about infinity and perfection, ideas which lie at the foundation of the Ontological argument, we can ascribe to our idea about God, not because we can demonstrate them, but because our mental constitution will not allow us to think otherwise. Thus, clothing him with all perfections which the human mind can conceive and these in illimitable fullness, we have one whom we may justly call God.”[12]
The Arguments Scriptural Basis: There are no Scriptural references which directly support this argument. Inference can be seen in the following verses: Romans 2:14-
The Anthropological Argument
The Argument is Defined in Four parts: (1) Man is a living being; therefore man must ultimately be the product of a Being, which can impart life. (2) Man is an intellectual being; therefore a Being with intellect must be man’s Originator. (3) Man has a moral nature; a moral nature produces moral conduct; moral conduct requires accountability; therefore there must be a holy, moral Lawgiver and a Judge to Whom account will be rendered. (4) Man has an emotional and volitional nature; therefore an emotional and volitional Being had to impart these traits.
This line of reasoning is very close to a cause and effect type of argument; however, the focus is on the fact that man’s unique vitality along with his moral, emotional, volitional, and intellectual characteristics are not manifested anywhere else in the cosmos. Since, they reflect a standard that is unique in the universe, that standard must derive from a unique, Original Source; that Source we call God.
Weakness of the Argument: (1) It does not address the creation of the material universe; (2) Since man is finite it can not account for God’s infinity. However, against these weaknesses, we can see its effectiveness in the following:
The value of the argument: It directs us to an answer which lies in the existence of Personal Being, Who can account for man’s unique vitality along with his intellect, will, and emotions, while at the same time, provide a resolve for man’s ultimate moral accountability without which makes his moral nature nonsensical.
The Scriptural support of the argument: (1) That man is a product of a living being: In Genesis chapter 2 we are told that “God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (2) That man is the product of a Being with intellect: In Isaiah 55:8 and 9, we see the intellect of God expressed the following way: For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (3) That man is the product of a Moral Being: In Genesis chapter 3 and Exodus 20, we can see man’s accountability to God’s Word and Law and that the Law Giver expects man to act and live in a moral way. And in Romans 2, we see that God has inscribed this law on the heart of man. In John chapter 1, we see that God through Jesus is the “True Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (4) That man is the product of an emotional, volitional, and willful Being: In Genesis chapter 1, we see the declaration that man was made in the “image of God,” verse 28. That image bears the basis of this argument in that as the Creator possesses Will, Intellect, and Emotion, therefore, He created man with the capacity to have will, intellect, and emotion, therefore when so expressed, it reflects the Divine Image.
In the scope of the arguments for the existence of God, we see this as setting the path for the next two stronger arguments and the developing cohesiveness of the arguments which together form a strong wall under girding or providing a preface for the biblical revelation of the Supreme Being – Our Creator God, Who has revealed Himself as the Giver of life and the One mankind is ultimately accountable to morally through His Law.
This line of reasoning is very close to a cause and effect type of argument; however, the focus is on the fact that man’s unique vitality along with his moral, emotional, volitional, and intellectual characteristics are not manifested anywhere else in the cosmos. Since, they reflect a standard that is unique in the universe, that standard must derive from a unique, Original Source; that Source we call God.
Weakness of the Argument: (1) It does not address the creation of the material universe; (2) Since man is finite it can not account for God’s infinity. However, against these weaknesses, we can see its effectiveness in the following:
The value of the argument: It directs us to an answer which lies in the existence of Personal Being, Who can account for man’s unique vitality along with his intellect, will, and emotions, while at the same time, provide a resolve for man’s ultimate moral accountability without which makes his moral nature nonsensical.
The Scriptural support of the argument: (1) That man is a product of a living being: In Genesis chapter 2 we are told that “God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (2) That man is the product of a Being with intellect: In Isaiah 55:8 and 9, we see the intellect of God expressed the following way: For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (3) That man is the product of a Moral Being: In Genesis chapter 3 and Exodus 20, we can see man’s accountability to God’s Word and Law and that the Law Giver expects man to act and live in a moral way. And in Romans 2, we see that God has inscribed this law on the heart of man. In John chapter 1, we see that God through Jesus is the “True Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (4) That man is the product of an emotional, volitional, and willful Being: In Genesis chapter 1, we see the declaration that man was made in the “image of God,” verse 28. That image bears the basis of this argument in that as the Creator possesses Will, Intellect, and Emotion, therefore, He created man with the capacity to have will, intellect, and emotion, therefore when so expressed, it reflects the Divine Image.
In the scope of the arguments for the existence of God, we see this as setting the path for the next two stronger arguments and the developing cohesiveness of the arguments which together form a strong wall under girding or providing a preface for the biblical revelation of the Supreme Being – Our Creator God, Who has revealed Himself as the Giver of life and the One mankind is ultimately accountable to morally through His Law.
The Teleological Argument
The argument defined as: Order, arrangement, and purpose in any system imply intelligence and purpose in the originating cause; the universe is characterized by order, purpose and useful arrangement; therefore the universe has an Intelligent Cause behind it.(Thiessen). Or as Berkhof states it, “The world everywhere reveals intelligence, order, harmony, and purpose, and thus implies the existence of an intelligent and purposeful being, adequate to the production of such a world.”[13] Dr. Strong amplifies this argument in the following way, “Order and useful collocation pervading a system respectively imply intelligence and purpose as the cause of that order and collocation. Since collocation (things ordered together) pervades the universe, intelligence must exist adequate to the production of this order, and a will adequate to direct this collocation to useful ends.”[14] The argument is usually abbreviated to “the argument from order, purpose, and design in nature.”
The root of this word is “tele” which comes from the Greek word teleios meaning complete, perfect, and mature and therefore gives us the argument to ends, or final causes. Some theologians object to having intellect as part of this argument (Hicks, et al) arguing that when speaking of the “end” of something it “assumes the very intelligence it seeks to prove.”[15] However orderliness and perfection imply intelligence to bring about. For example, a pile of bricks do not assemble themselves into a functional building. It takes intelligence to order and perfect them into that building. Therefore, when one sees a building, the idea of Intelligence is prima facie to the orderliness and function of that building.
Key objections to the argument: In some form the following objections are raised: (1) that order and useful arrangement can exist without being purposed. We reply; our mental make up compels us to deny this objection when purposeful order and arrangement saturate a system. (2) that order and purposeful arrangement can result from the mere operations of the physical forces operating in the system. We reply; these very laws imply not exclude an originating and overseeing intelligence and Lawgiver. Or as Thiessen states, “These laws are neither self originating nor self-sustaining; they presuppose a lawgiver and a law-sustainer.” [16]
The value of the argument: We see the value in this argument as it brings into view that the universe is the result of a purposeful, orderly, and great intelligence that is in total measure, expressing control of the universal processes, at least to the point to account for the amount of order and purpose we see in it. Even he infidel philosopher, Hegel, noted the strength of this argument even though he kept it in a subordinate role in his thoughts. With the other arguments, this supports the existence of some intelligence that is greater than the purpose and order which exists in the universe – that greater Purpose, Order and Intelligence we call God.
The Scriptural support of this argument: We can see this argument in Psalms: 8:3; 19:1; 94:9. Also, the Apostle Paul uses a form of this argument dealing with the guilt of the infidel in Romans 1:18-23.
The root of this word is “tele” which comes from the Greek word teleios meaning complete, perfect, and mature and therefore gives us the argument to ends, or final causes. Some theologians object to having intellect as part of this argument (Hicks, et al) arguing that when speaking of the “end” of something it “assumes the very intelligence it seeks to prove.”[15] However orderliness and perfection imply intelligence to bring about. For example, a pile of bricks do not assemble themselves into a functional building. It takes intelligence to order and perfect them into that building. Therefore, when one sees a building, the idea of Intelligence is prima facie to the orderliness and function of that building.
Key objections to the argument: In some form the following objections are raised: (1) that order and useful arrangement can exist without being purposed. We reply; our mental make up compels us to deny this objection when purposeful order and arrangement saturate a system. (2) that order and purposeful arrangement can result from the mere operations of the physical forces operating in the system. We reply; these very laws imply not exclude an originating and overseeing intelligence and Lawgiver. Or as Thiessen states, “These laws are neither self originating nor self-
The value of the argument: We see the value in this argument as it brings into view that the universe is the result of a purposeful, orderly, and great intelligence that is in total measure, expressing control of the universal processes, at least to the point to account for the amount of order and purpose we see in it. Even he infidel philosopher, Hegel, noted the strength of this argument even though he kept it in a subordinate role in his thoughts. With the other arguments, this supports the existence of some intelligence that is greater than the purpose and order which exists in the universe – that greater Purpose, Order and Intelligence we call God.
The Scriptural support of this argument: We can see this argument in Psalms: 8:3; 19:1; 94:9. Also, the Apostle Paul uses a form of this argument dealing with the guilt of the infidel in Romans 1:18-
The Cosmological Argument
The argument defined as: Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. The logical basis upon which this argument can be built is seen by the following three part syllogism:
Sub-argument 1:
If something has a beginning, then it has a starting point.
If something has a starting point; then it is not eternal.
Therefore, that which is eternal has no beginning.
God was before all things that have a beginning;
Therefore He, Himself has no beginning.
Since God has no beginning; God is Eternal.
Sub-argument 2:
Creation is the beginning of things.
Things that evidence a beginning are created.
The universe evidences a beginning;[17]
Therefore, the universe is created.
Sub-argument 3:
All events have a cause greater than themselves.[18]
The universe is a great event; therefore its Cause is Greater than it is.
The Cause greater than the event of the universe can be called God;
Therefore, God is its Cause.
Strong expresses it this way, “Everything begun, whether substance or phenomenon, owes its existence to some producing cause.”[19]
The Argument’s Objections: The first is based on the faulty presentation of the argument which follows something like this, “If everything existing has an adequate cause, this applies to God, and that we are thus led to an endless chain.”[20] Such as the question, “if God caused the universe, then what caused God, and so on?” This was how Kant saw the argument and concluded that it as invalid. We reply, God is before the universe which is what has a beginning, therefore He has no beginning as shown in the syllogism of sub-
The second objection is the thought that the argument implies neither finiteness nor infiniteness and therefore impossible to show that the cause of the universe is not finite like the universe itself. We reply, finiteness only applies to that which has a cause. As sub-
The Argument’s Value: This argument proves that the universe was brought into being by an infinite adequate Cause greater than the universe itself. This Cause is infinite and outside the finite universe of time, space, and matter and therefore is eternal. This Cause is adequate in that what ever qualities, order, purpose, personality etc we see expressed in the finite universe, was able to be expressed by the initiating Cause – That infinite adequate Cause we call God.
The Argument’s Scriptural Support: The Scriptural support for this argument stands in one verse found in Hebrews 3:4 “For every house is builded by some [man]; but he that built all things [is] God.” That there is only this verse to support this argument does not dim its value. Any Scriptural support for this or the other arguments are for the believer’s purposes only. These arguments are to show the reasonableness of our Scriptural belief in the God of the Bible; not to prove it.
Summary
Under the consideration of the certainty of God’s existence, we see the reasonableness of maintaining such a belief. Through the a belief in a God-concept being developed and maintained among all cultures ancient to modern we see the natural universality to such a belief as a natural expression. Then in the innate tendency of the human heart in a crisis to call upon God for help or deliverance we see the necessity expressed towards a higher entity. This God-concept is further enforced by the key arguments considered pertaining to the verity and plausibility of God’s existence apart from special revelation. Nevertheless, these arguments are far from perfect. Each argument simply shows that what we are able to observe and experience requires a prior “something” as its proto-type. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that the prior cause be greater than its result. As one philosopher/theologian noted, “Nothing can be its own efficient cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.” [21] Therefore, the Greater Originator of all things is a Being we call God in Whom we find the ultimate in reason and intellect, in personality and morality, in design and purpose, in order and beauty, and in power and cause.
Application
As we consider the scope of what we have studied, we can make application in that it sweeps the path by helping to clear the dust of depraved human reasoning away allowing the revealing work of the Holy Spirit to open the door to God’s revelation of the Word – both Inscripturated and Incarnate. However again, we must understand that these arguments and considerations are used not to prove His existence, but to awaken within the hearer the innate truth of God’s existence that resides suppressed or dormant in his heart and that of every human being. We can have confidence that when we preach His Word it will stir that truth that lay suppressed with in that individual and will bring a response.
Also when we have confidence in the certainty of God’s existence we make Him the center of our worldview not as a Deist or Theist but as a believer. A worldview is nothing more than a bias through which we live, move and have our being. It is the way in which we understand our world. When we make God and His Word the basis by which we understand the world around us, the answers we formulate and provide to those who cross our paths will direct them more clearly to the Light of God’s Word.
References:
[1] William Evans The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Assoc. 1912) p.13.
[2] This word means “relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions”
[3] Henry C. Theissen, Lectures in Systematic theology, (Grand Rapids: W.B Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1949) p. 55. The statements Kant makse are not to be taken that he is a believer for he at best would be called a “Theist.” There is a distinction to be made between a true believer and one who simply calls himself a theist.
[4] Agustus H. Strong. Systematic Theology (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Co. 1967) p. 56.
[5] IBID.
[6] IBID.
[7] IBID.
[8] IBID. p. 58.
[9] IBID, p71.
[10] L. Berkhof. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1939.) p.26. The bracketed “Therefore” is mine to clarify the conclusional statement of the argument.
[11] Strong, p87.
[12] IBID.
[13] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p26.
[14] Strong, p75. Collocation means, “the act or result of placing or arranging together” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
[15] IBID
[16] Thiessen, Lectures, p 29.
[17] The evidence for a “beginning” is such that it has caused secular cosmologists to formulate the “Big Bang Theory” to try to explain it.
[18] The Law of Entropy shows that the resultant (event) energy is less than the initiating (cause) energy. This is why perpetual motion machines cannot be made to work, i.e. an electric generator cannot produce enough energy (cause energy) to drive an electric motor to power itself (resultant energy) to continue to turn the generator.
[19] Strong, Systematic, p73.
[20] Berkhof, Systematic, p26.
[21] Thomas Aquinas, Suma Theologica, I,q.2,a.3, translated Manuel Velasquez. C 1978 by Manuel Velasquez. As quoted in Philosophy: A Text with Readings, (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., C. 1991) p.174. by Manuel Velasquez.
Also when we have confidence in the certainty of God’s existence we make Him the center of our worldview not as a Deist or Theist but as a believer. A worldview is nothing more than a bias through which we live, move and have our being. It is the way in which we understand our world. When we make God and His Word the basis by which we understand the world around us, the answers we formulate and provide to those who cross our paths will direct them more clearly to the Light of God’s Word.
References:
[1] William Evans The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Assoc. 1912) p.13.
[2] This word means “relating to or derived by reasoning from self-
[4] Agustus H. Strong. Systematic Theology (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Co. 1967) p. 56.
[5] IBID.
[6] IBID.
[7] IBID.
[8] IBID. p. 58.
[9] IBID, p71.
[10] L. Berkhof. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1939.) p.26. The bracketed “Therefore” is mine to clarify the conclusional statement of the argument.
[11] Strong, p87.
[12] IBID.
[13] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p26.
[14] Strong, p75. Collocation means, “the act or result of placing or arranging together” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
[15] IBID
[16] Thiessen, Lectures, p 29.
[17] The evidence for a “beginning” is such that it has caused secular cosmologists to formulate the “Big Bang Theory” to try to explain it.
[18] The Law of Entropy shows that the resultant (event) energy is less than the initiating (cause) energy. This is why perpetual motion machines cannot be made to work, i.e. an electric generator cannot produce enough energy (cause energy) to drive an electric motor to power itself (resultant energy) to continue to turn the generator.
[19] Strong, Systematic, p73.
[20] Berkhof, Systematic, p26.
[21] Thomas Aquinas, Suma Theologica, I,q.2,a.3, translated Manuel Velasquez. C 1978 by Manuel Velasquez. As quoted in Philosophy: A Text with Readings, (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., C. 1991) p.174. by Manuel Velasquez.