Part, Question
1 1, 2  inquiry:~(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is selfevident?~(
2 1, 2  actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is selfevident. ~
3 1, 2  does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is ~
4 1, 2  But the opposite of the ~proposition "God is" can be mentally
5 1, 2  in itself, and to us. A proposition is selfevident because ~
6 1, 2  subject be known to all, the proposition ~will be selfevident to
7 1, 2  subject is unknown, the proposition will be selfevident in
8 1, 2  predicate and subject ~of the proposition. Therefore, it happens,
9 1, 2  Therefore I say that this proposition, "God ~exists," of itself
10 1, 2  the essence of God, the ~proposition is not selfevident to us;
11 1, 3  mean the composition of a proposition effected by ~the mind in
12 1, 3  sense. We know that this proposition which we form about God ~
13 1, 12  thus when any demonstrable proposition is known by probable ~reason
14 1, 12  probable opinion that a proposition is demonstrable, although
15 1, 13  about which an ~affirmative proposition is made is taken as a subject.
16 1, 13  Therefore an ~affirmative proposition cannot be formed about God.~
17 1, 13  that a true affirmative ~proposition about God cannot be made.~
18 1, 13  in every true affirmative proposition the ~predicate and the subject
19 1, 13  Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: This proposition, "The intellect understanding
20 1, 13  the thing understood, the proposition is true, and ~the meaning
21 1, 13  intellect, when forming a proposition about God, does ~not affirm
22 1, 13  one who understands, the proposition is false. For the ~mode
23 1, 14  instance, a demonstrable proposition is comprehended ~when known
24 1, 14  Further, every conditional proposition of which the antecedent
25 1, 14  this is a true conditional proposition, "If ~God knew that this
26 1, 14  as the chief part of the ~proposition. Hence its contingency or
27 1, 14  necessity or contingency of the proposition, or to its being true or ~
28 1, 14  causes. Hence also this proposition, "Everything known by God
29 1, 14  for the sense is, ~"This proposition, 'that which is known by
30 1, 14  He knows; because such a proposition implies that ~first of all
31 1, 14  because it would follow that a proposition which is ~true once would
32 1, 14  must be conceded that this proposition is not true, "Whatever God
33 1, 14  God knows an enunciable proposition is ~sometime true, and sometime
34 1, 16  dividing: for in every ~proposition it either applies to, or
35 1, 16  future. But as the truth of a proposition regarding the ~present is
36 1, 16  created truth, so is that of a proposition regarding the ~future. Therefore
37 1, 16  concerning ~it. But this proposition that "Socrates sits", receives
38 1, 16  Therefore the truth of the ~proposition in no way changes.~Aquin.:
39 1, 16  Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 3: A proposition not only has truth, as other
40 1, 16  consequently the truth ~of the proposition. So therefore this proposition, "
41 1, 16  proposition. So therefore this proposition, "Socrates sits," is ~true,
42 1, 16  cause of the truth of ~the proposition, "Socrates sits," has not
43 1, 25  reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though
44 1, 25  taken substantively, this proposition is true. ~For He can always
45 1, 31  essential ~term. For this proposition, "God alone is Father,"
46 1, 31  1~On the contrary, This proposition "The Father alone is God"
47 1, 31  is God. But this second proposition is false, for the Son is ~
48 1, 31  Father alone is God," such a ~proposition can be taken in several
49 1, 31  predicate. And thus the proposition is false if it excludes ~
50 1, 36  anything, the converse ~proposition is not always true. For
51 1, 36  OBJ 2: Further, in this proposition "the Father and the Son
52 1, 36  is false. Therefore this ~proposition also is false, that the
53 1, 36  however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: "The Father ~
54 1, 36  1/1~Reply OBJ 2: In the proposition "the Father and the Son
55 1, 36  Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 5: This proposition is also true:  The one
56 1, 37  1/1~OBJ 2: Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son
57 1, 37  Therefore in no way is this ~proposition true: "'The Father and the
58 1, 37  begotten." Others say that ~the proposition is inaccurate and ought
59 1, 39  person of the Son, this ~proposition, for instance, "God begotten
60 1, 39  distinction of Godhead. Yet this proposition "He begot another God" ~
61 1, 39  Wherefore the negative of ~the proposition is true, "He begot God Who
62 1, 39  contrary, the affirmative proposition ~is true, and the negative
63 1, 39  simply that the affirmative ~proposition is false, and the negative
64 1, 39  Who" in the affirmative proposition can be referred to the "
65 1, 39  the ~person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets
66 1, 39  man. In the ~same way this proposition, "God is the Trinity," cannot
67 1, 39  singular. Hence, ~as this proposition, "The Father is God" is
68 1, 39  of itself true, so this ~proposition "God is the Father" is true
69 1, 44  not. For this conditional proposition is true, ~whether the antecedent
70 1, 45  1/1~Reply OBJ 1: In the proposition "the first of created things
71 1, 48  conveys the truth of a ~proposition which unites together subject
72 1, 58  as forming parts of one proposition; and also two things ~compared
73 1, 37  1/1~OBJ 2: Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son
74 1, 37  Therefore in no way is this ~proposition true: "'The Father and the
75 1, 37  begotten." Others say that ~the proposition is inaccurate and ought
76 1, 39  person of the Son, this ~proposition, for instance, "God begotten
77 1, 39  distinction of Godhead. Yet this proposition "He begot another God" ~
78 1, 39  Wherefore the negative of ~the proposition is true, "He begot God Who
79 1, 39  contrary, the affirmative proposition ~is true, and the negative
80 1, 39  simply that the affirmative ~proposition is false, and the negative
81 1, 39  Who" in the affirmative proposition can be referred to the "
82 1, 39  the ~person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets
83 1, 39  man. In the ~same way this proposition, "God is the Trinity," cannot
84 1, 39  singular. Hence, ~as this proposition, "The Father is God" is
85 1, 39  of itself true, so this ~proposition "God is the Father" is true
86 1, 45  not. For this conditional proposition is true, ~whether the antecedent
87 1, 46  1/1~Reply OBJ 1: In the proposition "the first of created things
88 1, 49  conveys the truth of a ~proposition which unites together subject
89 1, 59  as forming parts of one proposition; and also two things ~compared
90 1, 84  is its definition; and a proposition conveys the ~intellect's
91 1, 85  the ~intellect to form a proposition. Therefore our intellect
92 1, 85  And thus it ~forms the proposition "Socrates is a man." Wherefore
93 1, 85  vii, 3. But a singular proposition cannot be directly concluded ~
94 1, 85  concluded ~from a universal proposition, except through the medium
95 1, 85  the medium of a singular ~proposition. Therefore the universal
96 1, 86  De Anima iii) that the proposition quoted is ~true only of
97 1, 103  being by God. The middle proposition is ~proved thus. That which
98 1, 115  intellect ~could not form this proposition: "The digger of a grave
99 2, 51  principle in a ~selfevident proposition. Wherefore by such acts
100 2, 51  principle: thus one selfevident proposition convinces the intellect,
101 2, 51  conclusion, but a probable proposition ~cannot do this. Wherefore
102 2, 74  final ~sentence touching any proposition is delivered by referring
103 2, 76  syllogism is a ~singular proposition. But a singular proposition
104 2, 76  proposition. But a singular proposition does not follow from a ~
105 2, 76  follow from a ~universal proposition, except through the medium
106 2, 76  medium of a particular ~proposition: thus a man is restrained
107 2, 77  universal and a particular ~proposition be opposed, they are opposed
108 2, 77  lawful," knows this general proposition to contain, for example,
109 2, 77  example, the ~particular proposition, "This is an act of fornication."
110 2, 77  a universal affirmative proposition, and at the same ~time a
111 2, 77  about a particular negative proposition, or vice ~versa: but it
112 2, 77  a universal affirmative proposition, and actually a false opinion ~
113 2, 77  about another universal proposition ~suggested by the inclination
114 2, 77  concluding ~under the first proposition; so that while the passions
115 2, 90  definition; secondly, ~the proposition; thirdly, the syllogism
116 2, 90  speculative intellect, the proposition holds in regard to ~conclusions.
117 2, 94  appointed by reason, just as a proposition is a work of reason. ~Now
118 2, 94  in relation to us. Any proposition is ~said to be selfevident
119 2, 94  it happens that such a proposition is not selfevident. For ~
120 2, 94  selfevident. For ~instance, this proposition, "Man is a rational being,"
121 2, 94  not what a man is, this proposition is not ~selfevident. Hence
122 2, 96  in human acts no general proposition can be so ~certain as not
123 2, 102  the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves
124 2, 102  with the twelve loaves of ~proposition on it, which stood on the
125 2, 102  eating of the loaves of proposition and ~of other things that
126 2, 1  whether it is a thing or a proposition?~(3) Whether anything false
127 2, 1  something complex, by way of a proposition?~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[1] A[2]
128 2, 1  something complex ~by way of a proposition. For the object of faith
129 2, 1  object of faith is not a proposition but a thing.~Aquin.: SMT
130 2, 1  something complex by way of a proposition.~Aquin.: SMT SS Q[1] A[2]
131 2, 1  does not ~terminate in a proposition, but in a thing. For as
132 2, 1  will not be by way of a proposition but by way of a ~simple
133 2, 8  considered in itself of the ~proposition understood. In this way,
134 2, 8  thing or the truth of a proposition is not known as to its quiddity
135 2, 19  conclusion from an universal proposition, except ~through the holding
136 2, 19  holding of a particular proposition. Hence it is that a man, ~
137 2, 31  wrongdoer. But the latter proposition is unreasonable: therefore
138 2, 47  universal and a singular ~proposition. Wherefore the reasoning
139 2, 169  Further, in a conditional proposition, whenever the antecedent
140 2, 169  consequent of a conditional proposition stands in the same relation
141 2, 169  the following conditional proposition must ~needs be true: "If
142 2, 169  antecedent of this conditional proposition is absolutely necessary,
143 2, 169  stated above, the conditional proposition: ~"If this was prophesied,
144 2, 169  in the same way as the ~proposition: "If this was foreknown,
145 3, 16  For every ~affirmative proposition of remote matter is false.
146 3, 16  matter is false. Now this proposition, ~"God is man," is on remote
147 3, 16  Therefore, since the ~aforesaid proposition is affirmative, it would
148 3, 16  1/3~I answer that, This proposition "God is man," is admitted
149 3, 16  all. For some admit the ~proposition, but not in the proper acceptation
150 3, 16  11). But some admit this proposition, together with the reality
151 3, 16  hypostasis; we say that this proposition is true and ~proper, "God
152 3, 16  in one ~suppositum, the proposition is necessarily in remote
153 3, 16  essentially. Hence this proposition is ~neither in remote nor
154 3, 16  borne in mind that in a proposition in which ~something is predicated
155 3, 16  1/2~I answer that, This proposition, Man was made God, may be
156 3, 16  shown (Q[2], AA[2],3), this proposition ~is false, because, when
157 3, 16  reason. First, for this proposition is simply false, in the
158 3, 16  Secondly, because even if this ~proposition were true, it ought not
159 3, 16  than of the subject of the proposition; as when I ~say: "A body
160 3, 16  to the suppositum, this proposition is to be ~denied rather
161 3, 16  Man, is God, ~is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God."~
162 3, 17  suppositum, it would be a true proposition  for instance, ~"Christ
163 3, 24  His human nature; for this proposition is false  "The human ~nature
164 3, 24  human nature; for ~this proposition is false: "The human nature
165 3, 24  of God; ~therefore this proposition  "Christ was predestinated
166 3, 24  Para. 1/1~Whether this proposition is false: "Christ as man
167 3, 24  It would seem that this proposition is false: "Christ as man
168 3, 24  place at some time. But this proposition, "The Son of God was made
169 3, 24  of God." Therefore this ~proposition, "Christ, as the Son of
170 3, 35  is born twice. But this ~proposition is false; "Christ was born
171 3, 43  reasons about any particular proposition proves him to be a ~man.
172 3, 75  must be true. But this ~proposition is false: "After the consecration
173 3, 75  wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. ~
174 3, 75  after the consecration this proposition is false: ~"The substance
175 3, 75  Para. 1/1~Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ
176 3, 75  OBJ 1: It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of Christ
177 3, 75  that is "made." But this proposition is never true: "The bread ~
178 3, 75  is made from it. But this proposition seems to be false: ~"The
179 3, 75  Therefore it ~seems that this proposition likewise is false: "The
180 3, 75  be that thing. ~But this proposition is false: "Bread can be
181 3, 80  works): "If the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by ~them
182 Suppl, 75 been changed. The ~first proposition is made evident on the authority
183 Suppl, 80 appears from the first proposition of De Causis, therefore
184 Suppl, 81 Some have demurred to this proposition of the ~Philosopher's, as
