De veritate EN 22
22
As Augustine says, some, wishing to conceive of the divine intellect in terms of our own intellects, have said that God cannot know infinites, just as we cannot know them; and since they asserted both that God knows singulars and that the world is eternal, it followed that there would be a cycle of numerically the same things in different ages—an opinion which is utterly absurd.
It must accordingly be said that God knows infinites, as can be shown from the reasons given above. For, since He knows not only things which have been, are, or will be, but also all those which could participate in His goodness—and the number of these is infinite since His goodness is infinite—it follows that He knows infinites. How this takes place must now be considered.
Note, therefore, that cognition extends itself to many or to few things according to the force of the means of knowing. For example, a likeness received in the sense of sight has the same determinations as the particular conditions of the thing. Hence, it leads us to the knowledge of only one thing. But a likeness received in the intellect is freed from particular conditions; and since it is more elevated, it leads us to the knowledge of a number of things. Indeed, because one universal form, by its very nature, is such that it can be participated in by an infinite number of singulars, the intellect can in some way be said to know infinites. However, since that intellectual likeness does not lead to knowledge of a singular according to its distinctive features but only under the aspect of a common nature, our intellect, through the species which it has within it, knows infinites only potentially. But the medium by which God knows, namely, His own essence, is a like ness of the infinites capable of imitating that essence. It is a likeness not only of that which is common to them, but also of those features by which they are distinguished from one another, as is clear from what was said earlier. Hence, the divine cognition has the power to know infinites.
The manner in which God knows actual infinites must now be con sidered. There is no reason why something cannot be infinite in one respect and finite in another. For example, a body can be infinite in length but finite in width. The same can be true of forms. For exam ple, let us suppose some infinite body that is white. The extensive quan tity of the whiteness (in so far as whiteness can be said to have quantity accidentally) will be infinite; but its intensive or essential quantity will nevertheless be finite. The same is true of any other form of an infinite body; for every form received in matter is limited according to the nature of the recipient and so does not have infinite intensity. It is possible neither to know nor to traverse an infinite. Both are repugnant to the idea of infinite. Nevertheless, if something were to be moved across an infinite, not in the direction of its infinity, it could be tra versed. For example, what is infinite in length but finite in width could be traversed across its width but not along its length. Similarly, if an infinite were known in the respect in which it is infinite, it could by no means be known perfectly; but, if it were known in a respect which is not that of the infinite, it could be perfectly known. For, since "the character of infinity fits quantity," as the Philosopher says, and quan tity of its very nature has an order of parts, an infinite would be known by way of its infinity if it were known part by part.
If our intellect had to know a white body in this manner, it would never be able to know either it or its whiteness perfectly. If, however, it knew the nature of whiteness or of corporeity which is found in an infinite body, then it would know the infinite perfectly will respect to all its parts not, however, according to its infinity. Thus it is possible for our intellect in some manner to know an infinite continuum perfectly; but it cannot know an infinite number of things taken one by one, since it cannot know many things by means of one species. Hence, if our intellect has to consider a number of things, it has to know them one after another. Consequently, it knows discontinuous quantity only through continuous quantity. Therefore, if it were to know a multitude that is actually infinite, our intellect would be knowing an infinite according to its infinity, but that is impossible.
The divine intellect, however, knows all things through one species. Hence, simultaneously and will one intuition, God has knowledge of all things. Consequently, He does not know a multitude according to the order of its parts, and He can know an infinite multitude, but not according to its infinity; for, if He were to know it according to its infinity so that He would be grasping part after part of the multitude, He would never come to its end and never know it perfectly. I simply concede, therefore, that God actually knows infinites absolutely. These infinites, however, are not equal to His intellect in the way in which He Himself as known equals His intellect; for the essences of created infinites are, as it were, intensively finite as whiteness is in an infinite body. God’s essence, however, is infinite in all respects; and because of this all infinites are finite to Him and can be comprehended by Him.
Answers to Difficulties:
1. A thing is said to be made finite by a knower in the sense that it is known to such an extent that it does not exceed the intellect of the knower; in other words, some part of it does not remain outside the knower’s intellect. In this way, the thing known stands as something finite to the intellect. There is no reason why this cannot happen to an infinite which is known in a way other than according to its infinity.
2. Knowledge of simple intelligence and that of vision imply no difference on the part of the knower but only on the part of the things known. Knowledge of vision is said to be in God because of its re semblance to bodily sight which looks upon things outside of itself. Hence, God is said to know by His knowledge of vision only those things that are outside of Him, whether they are present, past, or future. But, as was proved above, God knows by His knowledge of simple intelligence things that neither are, will be, for ever have been. There is no other way by which God knows these and those things.
Hence, the fact that God does not see infinites is not due to His knowledge of vision but rather to the non-existence of the things that would be the objects of His knowledge of vision. For if it were held that these were infinite, either actually or successively, no doubt God would know them by His knowledge of vision.
3. Properly speaking, sight is a bodily sense. Hence, if the word vision is transferred to immaterial cognition, its use will be merely metaphorical. In metaphors, however, there is a different basis of truth according to the different points of likeness found in things. Hence, nothing prevents our sometimes calling all divine knowledge vision and at other times reserving the name to that which is about things present, past, and future.
4. By His essence God Himself is a likeness of all things and a proper likeness of each one of them. Hence, there cannot be said to be many intelligible characters of things in God except in regard to His various relations to various creatures. These relations, however, are merely rational relations. Moreover, as Avicenna says, there is no reason why rational relations cannot be multiplied to infinity.
5. Passing through implies a motion from one thing to another. Since God knows all the parts of an infinite, continuous or discontinuous, not by a progression of His thought, but in one simple intuition, He therefore knows an infinite perfectly. He does not, however, pass through an infinite in understanding it.
6. See the reply to the first difficulty.
7. This argument is based on what is infinite in a privative sense—a type of infinity peculiar to quantity. Whatever is spoken of privatively is imperfect. The argument does not touch what is infinite in the negative sense in which God is said to be infinite. It is more perfect for a thing not to be limited at all.
8. The argument proves that an infinite cannot be known according to its infinity; for whatever part of its infinity you take, no matter how big it is, something further will always remain to be taken. God, how ever, does not know an infinite by passing from part to part.
9. That which is infinite in quantity has a finite act of existence, as has been said. Accordingly, God’s knowledge can be the measure of an infinite.
10. The nature of measuring consists in this, that from it certainty results about the determinate quantity of a thing. God, however, does not know an infinite in such a way that He knows its determinate quantity, for an infinite does not have determinate quantity. Hence, it is not repugnant to the nature of an infinite that God should know it.
Parallel readings: Summa Theol., I, 25, 2, ad I Sentences 43, I, 3; Contra Gentiles I, 3; De potentia I, 2; Viii Phys., lectura 23, fl. 9; III Phys., lectura 8, n. 9; XII Metaph., lectura 8, 1111. 2549-50; Comp. Theol., I, C. 19.
Difficulties:
It seems that He can, for
1. Natures existing in the divine mind are productive of things, and one does not impede another by its action. Since there are infinite natures in the divine mind, infinite effects could follow from them were the divine power to carry them into execution.
2. The power of the Creator infinitely surpasses that of a creature. But a creature can produce infinites successively. Therefore, God can produce infinites simultaneously.
3. A power is useless if it is not put into act; it is especially useless if it cannot be put into act. But God’s power extends to infinites. Hence, such a power would be useless if He could not actually make infinites.
Difficulties to the Contrary:
1'. Seneca’s opinion is to the contrary: "An idea is an exemplar of things coming into being naturally." But, since there cannot be in finite things naturally, it would seem that they cannot come to be; for what cannot be cannot come to be. Therefore, there will be no idea of infinites in God. But God cannot make anything except through an idea. Therefore, He cannot make infinites.
2’. When God is said to create a thing, nothing new on the part of the Creator is affirmed but only on the part of the creature. Hence, it seems the same to say that God creates things as to say that things come forth into being from God. For the same reason, therefore, to say that God can create things is to say that things are able to come forth from God into being. But infinite things cannot come to be, for no creature has the capacity for infinite act. Hence, even God cannot make actual infinites.
23
The infinite can be distinguished in two ways. In one way, it is distinguished by means of potency and act. A potential infinite is that which consists in an endless succession. For example, we find potential infinity in generation, in time, and in the division of a continuum; for, when one member is given, another always follows. An example of an actual infinite, however, would be a line which we would assume to have no termini.
In the second way, an essential infinite is distinguished from an accidental infinite. This distinction is explained as follows: "The character of the infinite," as mentioned above, "belongs to quantity." Now, quantity is predicated first of all of discrete quantity rather than of continuous quantity. Hence, in order to see what is infinite essentially and what is infinite accidentally, we must consider that a multitude is sometimes required essentially and sometimes merely accident ally. Essentially a multitude is required in ordered causes and effects where one has an essential dependence upon another. For example, the soul sets in motion the natural heat by which nerves and muscles are moved, which, in turn, move the hands, which move a stick by which a stone is moved. In this series, each of the later members essentially depends upon every one that precedes. But an accidental multitude is tound when all the members of the multitude are posited, as it were, in place of one; and their mutual relation is such that it is a matter of indifference whether they be one or many, or more or fewer. For example, if a builder makes a house in whose construction he wears out many saws successively, a multitude of saws is required for the erection of the house only accidentally, that is, because one saw cannot last forever. It does not matter to the house how many saws are used; hence, one saw does not have that dependence upon another which we find when a multitude is required essentially.
There are many different opinions about the infinite. Some ancient philosophers posited actual infinites, both essential and accidental, thinking that an infinite would necessarily be a result of what they posited as a beginning. For this reason, they also posited an infinite process of causes. The Philosopher refutes this position, however.
Others, following Aristotle, conceded that an essential infinite can not be found either in act or in potency, because it is impossible for a thing to depend essentially upon an infinite number of things; for, if this were true, then its own act of existence would never be formally constituted. But they posited an accidental infinite, both in potency and in act. Algazel holds: "There are an infinite number of human souls separated from bodies" which he thought followed from his view that the world is eternal. He saw no difficulty since they have no mutual dependence, and so in their multiplicity they constituted merely an accidental infinity.
Others asserted that there cannot be an actual infinite, either essential or accidental. They admitted a potential infinite, which, as is taught in the Physics, consists in succession; and this is the position of the Commentator. But for either of two reasons it can happen that an actual infinite cannot exist: either because to be in act is contradictory to the infinite by the very fact that it is infinite; or because of some extrinsic reason—as being lifted up is repugnant to a lead triangle, not because it is a triangle, but because it is lead.
But if an actual infinite is not contradictory to the infinite as such and can exist, as I hold, or if it cannot exist merely because of some impediment extrinsic to the notion of an infinite, then I say that God can make an actual infinite. If, however, actual existence is repugnant to the very notion of an infinite, then God cannot make one, just as, for example, He cannot make a man be an irrational animal. This would mean that two contradictories would coincide in one act of existence. However, whether or not it is intrinsically repugnant for an actual infinite w exist must be discussed elsewhere, since this question arose only incidentally. Answers, however, must be given to the difficulties on both sides.
Answers to Difficulties:
1. Natures in the divine mind are not reproduced in a creature the way in which they are in God, but in the way which the nature of a creature allows. Hence, although they themselves are immaterial, from them are brought forth things will a material act of existence. If, therefore, as the Philosopher says, it is of the essence of an infinite to exist, not actually and simultaneously, but merely successively, then the infinite natures in the divine mind cannot all be produced in creatures simultaneously but only successively. So, it does not follow that there are actual infinites.
2. The power of a creature is said to be wanting in two ways. First, it can be wanting because of a Jack of strength. In this respect, it is correct to argue that what a creature cannot do God can do. Second, it can be wanting because that which is said to be impossible for creature to do contains in itself some intrinsic repugnance. In this respect, it is possible neither for a creature nor for God—as, for instance, that contradictories should exist simultaneously, and that an infinite actually exist falls into this class, if to exist actually is repugnant to the nature of an infinite.
3. As is said in the Physics, a being is useless if it does not attain the end for which it exists. Hence, a power is not said to be had in vain simply because it is not put into act, but only because its effect or the very act, being distinct from the power itself, is the end for which the power exists. However, no effect of the divine power is its end, nor is its act distinct from it. Hence, the argument does not follow.
Answers to Contrary Difficulties:
1'. Although the members of infinites may not naturally be able w exist simultaneously, they may, however, come into being. For the essence of an infinite does not consist in simultaneous existence; but it is like things which are in a state of becoming, such as a day or a con- test, as is said in the Physics. Nor does it follow that God is able to make only things which come into being naturally. It is true that ac cording to the meaning given previously an idea was taken as applying to practical knowledge, which is an idea for this reason that it is determined by the divine will to an act. However, by His will God is able to make many things other than those which He has determined to exist now, in the past, or in the future.
2'. Although in creation there is nothing new except in reference to the creature, the word creation implies not only this newness but also something on the part of God; for it signifies a divine action, which is His essence, and connotes an effect in a creature, which is the reception of being from God. So, it does not follow that it is the same to say that God can create something as to say that something can be created by Him. Otherwise, before there was a creature, nothing could be created unless the potency of a creature first existed. This would be positing eternal matter. Therefore, although the potency of a creature does not extend to the existence of actual infinites, this does not exclude ability on the part of God to make actual infinites.
Parallel readings: Summa Theol., I, 13,5; 14, 1; I Sentences prol., a. 2, ad 2; 1,2,3; 19, 5,2, ad I; 35, I, nn. I, 4; Contra Gentiles I, CC. 32-34, «; X Metaph., lectura 8, n. 2541 seq.; De div. nom., 1,lectura (P. 15:27 De I 7,7; Comp. Theol., I, cc. 27—28.
Difficulties:
It seems that it is, for
1. Wherever there exists a common ground for univocal or analogical statement, there exists a certain likeness. But there can be no like ness between a creature and God. Therefore, there cannot be anything common to both either univocally or analogically. Consequently, if knowledge is predicated of God and of us, it will be merely an equivocal predication. Proof of the minor: In Isaias (40:18) we read: "To whom then have you likened God?"—as if to say: "He can resemble no one."
2. Wherever a likeness exists, some comparison is possible. But no comparison between God and creature is possible, since a creature is finite and God is infinite. Therefore, no likeness can exist between them, and the original difficulty stands.
3. Whenever a comparison is possible, there must be some form possessed to a greater and a lesser degree or equally by several things. But this cannot be said of God and a creature, for then something would be more simple than God. Therefore, no comparison between God and a creature is possible, nor is any likeness or community possible apart from that of equivocation.
4. There is a greater distance between things which bear no resemblance than between those which do resemble each other. But there is an infinite distance between God and a creature; indeed, no greater distance is possible. Therefore, there is no likeness between them; thus, the original difficulty returns.
5. A greater distance lies between a creature and God than lies between a created being and non-being; for a created being surpasses non-being only by reason of the amount of its entity, which is not infinite. But, as is said in the Metaphysics: "There is nothing common to being and non-being except by equivocation, which happens, for example, when that which we call man is called non-man by others." Hence, there cannot be anything common to God and a creature except by a pure equivocation.
6. All analogates are such that either one is placed in the definition of another—as substance is placed in the definition of accident, and act, in the definition of potency or the same thing is placed in the definition of both—as the health of an animal is placed in the definition of healthy, which is predicated of urine and food since one is the sign of this health and the other conserves it. But God and creatures are not related in this manner: one is not placed in the definition of the other, nor is something identical placed in the definition of each, even on the supposition that God could be defined. Therefore, it seems that nothing can be predicated analogously of God and creatures. As a consequence, any term predicated of both of them is used only equivocally.
7. Substance and accident differ more than do two species of sub stances. But when the same word is used to signify two species of sub stances according to formal character proper to each, the predication is merely equivocal. This happens, for example, when the word dog is applied to the dog-star, a barking dog, and the dog-fish. It would be a far more equivocal predication if one word were applied to a sub stance and an accident. Now, our knowledge is an accident and that of God, a substance. Therefore, the word knowledge is predicated equivocally of God’s and of ours.
8. Our knowledge is merely an image of the divine knowledge. But the name of a thing cannot be applied to its image except by equivocation. Hence, animal, according to the Philosopher, is predicated equivocally of a real animal and of one in a picture. Therefore, the word knowledge is likewise predicated only equivocally of God’s knowledge and ours.
To the Contrary:
1'. The Philosopher says that that is perfect, absolutely speaking, in which the perfections of all genera are found. As the Commentator remarks on this passage, such a being is God. But the perfections of other genera could not be said to be found in Him unless there were some resemblance between His perfection and the perfections of other genera. Hence, a creature resembles God in some way. Knowledge, therefore, and whatever else is predicated of God and creatures is not a pure equivocation.
2’. Genesis (1:26) says: "Let us make man to our image and like ness." Therefore, some likeness exists between God and creature. We conclude as before.
24
It is impossible to say that something is predicated univocally of a creature and God because in all univocal predication the nature signified by the name is common to those of whom the univocal predication is made. Hence, from the point of view of the nature signified by the predicate, the subjects of the univocal predication are equal, even though from the point of view of its real existence one may take precedence over another. For example, all numbers are equal from the point of view of the nature of number, even though, by the nature of things, one number is naturally prior to another. No matter how much a creature imitates God, however, a point cannot be reached where something would belong to it for the same reason it belongs to God. For things which have the same formal characters but are in separate subjects are common to the same subjects in regard to substance or quiddity but distinct in regard to the act of being. But whatever is in God is His own act of being; and just as His essence is the same as His act of being, so is His knowledge the same as His act of being a knower. Hence, since the act of existence proper to one thing cannot be communicated to another, it is impossible that a creature ever attain to the possession of something in the same manner in which God has it, just as it is impossible for it to attain the same act of being as that which God has. The same is true of us. If man and to exist as man did not differ in Socrates, man could not be predicated univocally of him and Plato, whose acts of existing are distinct.
Nevertheless, it cannot be said that whatever is predicated of God and creatures is an equivocal predication; for, unless there were at least some real agreement between creatures and God, His essence would not be the likeness of creatures, and so He could not know them by knowing His essence. Similarly, we would not be able to attain any knowledge of God from creatures, nor from among the names devised for creatures could we apply one to Him more than another; for in equivocal predication it makes no difference what name is used, since the word does not signify any real agreement.
Consequently, it must be said that knowledge is predicated neither entirely univocally nor yet purely equivocally of God’s knowledge and ours. Instead, it is predicated analogously, or, in other words, ac cording to a proportion. Since an agreement according to proportion can happen in two ways, two kinds of community can be noted in analogy. There is a certain agreement between things having a pro portion to each other from the fact that they have a determinate distance between each other or some other relation to each other, like the proportion which the number two has to unity in as far as it is the double of unity. Again, the agreement is occasionally noted not between two things which have a proportion between them, but rather between two related proportions for example, six has something in common will four because six is two times three, just as four is two times two. The first type of agreement is one of proportion; the second, of proportionality.
We find something predicated analogously of two realities according to the first type of agreement when one of them has a relation to the other, as when being is predicated of substance and accident be cause of the relation which accident has to substance, or as when healthy is predicated of urine and animal because urine has some relation to the health of an animal. Sometimes, however, a thing is predicated analogously according to the second type of agreement, as when sight is predicated of bodily sight and of the intellect because under standing is in the mind as sight is in the eye.
In those terms predicated according to the first type of analogy, there must be some definite relation between the things having some thing in common analogously. Consequently, nothing can be predicated analogously of God and creature according to this type of analogy; for no creature has such a relation to God that it could determine the divine perfection. But in the other type of analogy, no definite relation is involved between the things which have something in common analogously, so there is no reason why some name cannot be predicated analogously of God and creature in this manner.
But this can happen in two ways. Sometimes the name implies some thing belonging to the thing primarily designated which cannot be common to God and creature even in the manner described above. This would be true, for example, of anything predicated of God metaphorically, as when God is called lion, sun, and the like, because their definition includes matter which cannot be attributed to God. At other times, however, a term predicated of God and creature implies nothing in its principal meaning which would prevent our finding between a creature and God an agreement of the type described above. To this kind belong all attributes which include no defect nor depend on matter for their act of existence, for example, being, the good, and similar things.
Answers to Difficulties:
1. As Dionysius says, God can in no way be said to be similar to creatures, but creatures can be said to be similar to Him in some sense. For what is made in imitation of something, if it imitates it perfectly, can be said to be like it absolutely. The opposite, however, is not true; for a man is not said to be similar to his image but vice versa. How ever, if the imitation is imperfect, then it is said to be both like and unlike that which it imitates: like, in so far as it resembles it; unlike, in so far as it falls short of a perfect representation. It is for this reason that Holy Scripture denies that creatures are similar to God in every respect. It does, however, sometimes grant that creatures are similar to God, and sometimes deny this. It grants the similarity when it says that man is made in the likeness of God, but denies it when it says: "O God, who is like to thee?" (Ps 70,19).
2. The Philosopher distinguishes two kinds of likenesses. One is found between things in different genera, and is taken according to proportion or proportionality; that is, one thing is related to another as a third thing is related to a fourth, as Aristotle himself says in the same place. The second kind of likeness is found existing between things in the same genus, as when the same thing is found in distinct subjects. Now, likeness of the first kind does not demand a comparison based on a definite relationship as does that of the second kind. Consequently, the possibility of the first type of likeness existing between God and creature should not be excluded.
3. That difficulty arises from the second type of likeness; and we grant that this type does not exist between creature and God.
4. A likeness that is found because two things share something in common or because one has such a determinate relation to the other that from one the other can be grasped by the intellect—such a likeness diminishes distance. A likeness according to an agreement of proportion does not; for such a likeness is also found between things far or little distant. Indeed, there is no greater likeness of proportionality between two to one and six to three than there is between two to one and one hundred to fifty. Consequently, the infinite distance between a creature and God does not take away the likeness mentioned above.
5. There is some agreement between being and non-being according to analogy, for non-being itself is called being analogously, as is made clear in the Metaphysics. Consequently, the distance lying between a creature and God cannot prevent a common ground for analogical statement.
6. That argument is valid in regard to community of analogy taken according to a definite relation of one thing to another. In that case, one thing must be put in the definition of the other as substance is put in the definition of accident or as one thing is put into the definition of two other things because both are predicated will reference to it, as substance is put into the definition of quantity and quality.
7. Although two species of substance have more in common than accident and substance have, it is possible that the same word is not applied to the two different species by reason of any consideration of something common between them. In that case, the word will be merely equivocal. But it is possible for a word common to substance and accident to be used because of a consideration of what they have in common. In such a case the word will not be equivocal but analogous.
8. The word animal is used not to signify the external form which a picture imitates when it depicts a real animal, but to signify its internal nature, in which it is not imitated. Hence, animal is used equivocally of the real animal and of the one painted. But the word knowledge is suitable to both creature and Creator in the respect in which the creature imitates the Creator. Consequently, knowledge is not predicated of the two altogether equivocally.
Parallel readings: Summa Theol., I, 14, I 3; 86,4; I Sentences 38, 1,5; Contra Gentiles I, 67; De rationibus fidei, c. io (P. 16:96a); Quodibet XI,, 3; De malo, 16, 7; 1 Perihermen., lectura 14 n. 16 seq., Comp. Theol., I, CC. 132-33.
Difficulties:
It seems that He does not, for
1. Nothing but the true can be known, as is said in the Posterior Analytics. But, as said in Interpretation, there is no definite truth in singular future contingents. Hence, God does not have knowledge of individual and contingent futures.
2. That from which the impossible would follow is impossible. But if God knew a singular future contingent, the impossible would follow, namely, that God’s knowledge would be wrong. Hence, it is impossible for Him to know a singular future contingent. Proof of the minor follows. Let us suppose that God knows some singular future contingent event, such as that Socrates is sitting. Now, either it is possible that Socrates is not sitting or it is not possible. If it is not possible, then it is impossible for Socrates not to sit. Hence, for Socrates to sit is necessary, although what was granted was contingent. On the other hand, if it be possible not to sit, and granted he does not, nothing inconsistent follows from this. It would follow, however, that the knowledge of God is erroneous, and hence it would not be impossible for His knowledge to be false.
3. It was said, however, that the contingent, as it is in God, is necessary.—On the contrary, what is in itself contingent is not necessary will respect to God, except in the way in which it is in God. But inasmuch as it is in Him, it is not distinct from Him. If, therefore, it is known by God only as necessary, He will not know it in the way it exists distinct from Himself.
4. According to the Philosopher, when the major of a syllogism expresses necessity and the minor expresses inherence, a conclusion expressing necessity follows. But the following is true: Whatever is known by God must necessarily be. For, if what God knew as existing did not exist, His knowledge would be false. Therefore, if something is known by God to exist, it necessarily exists. But no contingent must necessarily be. Therefore, no contingent is known by God.
5. It was said, however, that when it is said that whatever is known by God must necessarily be, the necessity implied is not will reference to the creature but to God alone.—On the contrary, when it is said that whatever is known by God must necessarily be, the necessity is attributed to the thing for which the subject of the statement stands. Now, the subject of the statement is that which is known by God, not God Himself as knowing. Therefore, the necessity implied in this statement refers only to the thing known.
6. The more certain our knowledge is, the less it has to do will contingents; for science is only about necessary truths, since it is more certain than opinion, which may be about contingent things. Now, God’s knowledge is most certain; hence, it can be about necessary matters only.
7. If the antecedent of any true conditional proposition is absolutely necessary, the consequent will be absolutely necessary. But the following conditional is true. If something is known by God, it will exist. Since this antecedent, "This is known by God," is absolutely necessary, the consequent will be absolutely necessary. Hence, whatever is known by God must necessarily exist. That this, namely, "This is known by God," is absolutely necessary was proved as follows. This is something said about the past. But whatever is said about the past, if true, is necessary; for, since it has been, it cannot not have been. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary.
8. Whatever is eternal is necessary. Now, all that God has known He has known from eternity. Therefore, that He has known is absolutely necessary.
9. Everything is related to the true as it is related to the act of existence. But future contingents do not have any act of existence; therefore, neither do they have truth. Hence, there can be no certain knowledge of them.
10. According to the Philosopher, whoever does not understand one determined thing understands nothing. But if a future contingent is open to its being or not being, it is by no means determined either in itself or in its cause. Therefore, there can, by no means, be any knowledge of it at all.
11. Hugh of St. Victor says: "God, who has all things in Himself, knows nothing outside Himself." Now, whatever is contingent is out side of Him, for in Him there is no potentiality. Hence, He does not know future contingents at all.
12. Something contingent cannot be known through a medium that is necessary; for, if the medium is necessary, the conclusion will be necessary. Now, God knows all things through a medium, His own essence. Hence, since this medium is necessary, it seems that He can not know anything contingent.
To the Contrary:
1'. The Psalms (32: 15) speak as follows: "He who hath made the hearts of every one of them; who understandeth all their works." But the works of men are contingent since they depend on free choice. Therefore, God knows future contingents.
2’. Whatever is necessary is known by God. Now, every contingent is necessary inasmuch as it is related to divine cognition, as Boethius says. Therefore, every contingent is known by God.
3’. Augustine says: "God knows changeable things in an unchangeable manner." But if a thing is contingent, it is changeable; for a contingent is said to be that which can either be or not be. Hence, God knows contingents in an unchangeable manner.
4’. God knows things in so far as He is their cause. But God is the cause not only of necessary but also of contingent things. Therefore, He knows both necessary and contingent things.
5’. God knows all things to the extent that the model of all things is in Him. But the divine model for the contingent and the necessary can be immutable, just as it is an immaterial model for the material and a simple model for the composite. Hence, it seems that just as God knows what is composite and material, although He Himself is immaterial and simple, so also He can know contingents, although contingency has no place in Him.
6’. To know is to understand the cause of a thing. Now, God knows the causes of all contingents; for He knows Himself, the cause of all things. Hence, He knows contingents.
De veritate EN 22