Part, Question
1 1, 2 | inquiry:~(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?~(
2 1, 2 | actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident. ~
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 self-evident because ~
6 1, 2 | subject be known to all, the proposition ~will be self-evident to
7 1, 2 | subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident 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 self-evident 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 ~self-evident proposition. Wherefore by such acts
100 2, 51 | principle: thus one self-evident 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 self-evident
119 2, 94 | it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For ~
120 2, 94 | self-evident. For ~instance, this proposition, "Man is a rational being,"
121 2, 94 | not what a man is, this proposition is not ~self-evident. 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
|