miércoles, 18 de abril de 2012
La verdad es inteligible por sí misma para cualquier entendimiento atento.
La verdad es inteligible por otras verdades parciales para cualquier entendimiento.
La causa primera es de suyo inteligible, en tanto que no es producida por otras causas.
Las causas segundas son inteligibles por la causa primera.
El fin último es de suyo inteligible, en tanto que no es explicado por otros fines.
Los fines no finales son inteligibles por el fin último.
Sólo hay una verdad, una causa primera y un fin último.
Ninguna verdad puede contradecir a otra, nada puede causarse a sí mismo y nada puede carecer de fin.
La verdad, la causa primera y el fin último son una y la misma cosa.
Si algo es de suyo inteligible, es imposible negarlo; si es imposible negarlo, es necesario; si es necesario, es único, ya que dos o más seres necesarios se excluirían mutuamente. Por tanto, si dos o más cosas son de suyo inteligibles, son una y la misma cosa.
El ser inteligible por sí mismo, causa primera y fin último de todo cuanto existe, es distinto de este y de cualquier universo.
El universo no es de suyo inteligible. Por tanto, el universo no es el ser inteligible por sí mismo, causa primera y fin último de todo cuanto existe (por las Proposiciones 1, 2, 3 y 5).
El ser así definido es Dios.
martes, 17 de abril de 2012
Si el mundo fuera en última instancia azul, nuestras consideraciones sobre el rojo carecerían de valor. Si fuera en última instancia azaroso o sin comienzo, nuestras apreciaciones sobre las causas o los fines resultarían vanas y nuestra investigación inútil.
Todo ateo es un escéptico en lo referente al conocimiento objetivo. Si no es un nihilista perfecto, es un hipócrita. Así, o es hipócrita respecto a su ateísmo, y cree en una causa o fin últimos, o es hipócrita respecto a su afán de saber, y finge buscar lo que supone que no existe.
También hay un teísmo nihilista que estima que no podemos aspirar a conocer nada, ya que intuye que la ciencia se oculta en el seno de Dios mientras que los hombres sólo percibimos de ella algún fatuo destello. Pero es un nihilismo epistemológico, ya que ese teísta cree al menos en una verdad ontológica que el ateo, en cambio, debe necesariamente rechazar.
Pues, si el ateísmo postulara una causa primera o un fin último, éstos deberían ser de suyo inteligibles, es decir, no inteligibles por otras cosas; y si fueran de esta condición, serían a priori; siendo a priori, serían o conceptos relativos a nuestra forma de conocer, o conceptos absolutos y universales. Ahora bien, un concepto absoluto o axioma no puede obrar como causa, salvo que, además, sea un numen, a saber, una entidad viva, eterna e infinitamente superior a todo lo que depende de las causas segundas. Sería muy difícil al ateo que así razonase desestimar congruentemente la noción de Dios.
sábado, 7 de abril de 2012
Nada es suficientemente bello o grande para compensar que todo cuanto existe ha de disolverse sin lograr su fin y que lo óptimo comparte con lo pésimo el mismo destino. Si lo sabes y aun así puedes alegrarte, eres un estúpido o un malvado.
domingo, 1 de abril de 2012
Autorizo su difusión por cualquier medio, siempre que junto al texto se añada un enlace a este blog.
* * *
TRUE RELIGION DEMONSTRATED AFTER THE METHOD OF GEOMETERS
So, have them miserable little men rised against You, Lord? So, has the work of Your hands conspired against Your majesty, in Your presence, while You watch it patiently? So, my God, such despicable and criminal men have stood forth (if only they didn't exist!) and try to set You aside and get rid of You, most powerful creator of everything and most wise preserver of the universe? Not even the soul, that locked up in the dungeon of a body, weakened by passions, made dull by mistakes and sins, still against its will acknowledges You and calls upon You; not even all creatures, the most beautiful among the beautiful, the strongest among the strong, the sweetest among the sweet, that give witness of You, could move them? Don't the donkeys themselves teach them when they are asked, don't the fowls of the air show it to them, doesn't the earth answer them and don't the fish of the sea speak to them? Don't the heavens illustrate Your glory and doesn't the firmament proclaim to be the work of Your hands? Lastly, is such a multitude of species and creatures unable to behold the creator? Certainly, my God, they have become vain in their reasonings, but the judgement of the wicked will arrive and they will fear the avenger; and the light of every truth will ascend so that their foolishness is extinguished and they may see their deformity. Thus, against this plague of men so evil, so horrible, so harmful, I beg You. Lead the smallness of my poor wit, inspire my arguments to the truth of such a formidable proof.
1. By cause I mean that from which something is, bringing it to existence; and that whose origin is brought by it I call it an effect.
2. By being in itself (Ens a se) I understand that which has not and cannot have a beginning.
3. By an absolutely infinite being I mean that which cannot be increased in any sense.
4. Thus, by a being which can be increased I understand that which goes from less to more and, after receiving an addition, is therefore changed.
5. Thus, by being changed I understand ceasing to be in one way and beginning to be another.
6. By God I understand the being which is infinite in every sense.
SOME REMARKS TO THE DEFINITIONS
1. Some being exists.
2. That which lacks of any beginning cannot have any end.
These two axioms are so certain and evident that no one, however obstinate, can doubt them. As for the first one, who will deny that some being exists? But let it be that someone dared to doubt or deny it: by doubting or denying it he confesses his existence. Of course, if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to doubt or deny anything.
As for the second true axiom, who ignores that it is a blatant contradiction that which lacks of any beginning can have any end? That's why it is a beginning, since it is the beginning of some end. Beginning and end presuppose necessarily a mutual intercourse and relationship. Thus, as the father and the son refer to each other in such a way, so that if there is a son, then there must be some father for that one to become his son; and if there is not a father, for this very reason there cannot be a son neither; so, also, if there is an end, any beginning is necessary for this end to be, and if there is no beginning, there cannot be any end.
Thus Saint Hilary elegantly:
You will always be because You have always been, You don't need death;
That who lacks of birth doesn't know the end of times.
There is no possible effect without a cause.
If there was an effect without a cause, there would be an effect whose origin would be brought by a cause (by definition I) and wouldn't be brought by a cause.
But this implies a contradiction.
Therefore, there is no possible effect without a cause, which was to be demonstrated.
All that exists is either in itself or by another.
It is impossible to think that something exists but by itself, by another one or by nothing, as it is evident.
But nothing can exist from nothing, since there is no possible effect without a cause, by the previous proposition.
Therefore, all that exists is either in itself or by another, which was to be demonstrated.
There is no possible being existing by another unless there is a being existing by itself.
There is no possible effect without a cause (by proposition I).
However, the set of beings that exist by another (tota collectio Entium ab alio) are effects, by definition I.
Nevertheless, the set of beings that exist by another cannot have as a cause a being existing by another, since this one should be equally included in the set of beings that exist by another.
Thus, it must have a being in itself as a cause, given that there are no more classes of entities but the ones in itself and the ones by another.
Therefore, there is no possible being existing by another unless there is a being existing by itself, which was to be demonstrated.
There is some being in itself.
Some being exists, by axiom I.
However, all that exists is either in itself or by another, by proposition II.
Therefore, it exists some being that it is either in itself or by another.
If it is in itself, then the being in itself exists.
If it is by another, the being in itself exists equally, since there is no possible being existing by another unless there is a being existing by itself, by proposition III.
Therefore, there is some being in itself, which was to be demonstrated.
The being in itself is changeless.
All that is changed has a beginning and an end, by definition V.
However, the being in itself cannot have neither any beginning, by definition II, nor any end, by axiom II.
Therefore, the being in itself cannot change, and thus it is changeless.
The being in itself is absolutely infinite.
The being in itself is changeless, by the previous proposition.
However, what is changeless cannot be increased in any sense, since being increased is being changed, by definition IV.
Therefore, the being in itself cannot be increased in any sense.
However, the being that cannot be increased in any sense is an absolutely infinite being, by definition III.
Thus, the being in itself is absolutely infinite, which was to be demonstrated.
An absolutely infinite being exists, by the previous proposition.
However, an absolutely infinite being is God, by definition VI.
Therefore, God exists, which was to be demonstrated.
God is one, since a a plurality of beings infinite in every sense is repugnant to our reason, whenever none of them would be infinite.
God is eternal, since if He is infinite in every sense, He is also infinite in His permanence, in which eternity consists.
God is immense, since if He is infinite in any sense, He is also infinite in His presence, in which immensity consists.
God is intelligent. Otherwise, He wouldn't be infinite in every sense, since He would lack intelligence.
God acts freely. Since, if He didn't, he would lack the power of acting in the opposite way; and, thus, He wouldn't be infinite in every sense.
God is omnipotent. Otherwise, He wouldn't be infinite in power.
God is infinitely good. Otherwise, He wouldn't be infinite in goodness.
Whatever that exists in God is God.
Whatever that exists in God is infinite, given that, if it is not infinite, then it is finite, and therefore God is not infinite in every sense, which is against proposition VI.
Nonetheless, whatever that is infinite is God, by definition VI.
Thus, whatever that exists in God is God, which was to be demonstrated.
There are no mixtures or passions in God, given that whatever that exists in God is God, by the previous proposition.
The universe is not God.
Whatever that exists in God is God, by proposition VIII.
However, whatever that exists in this universe is not God, as it is evident.
Therefore, the universe is not God.
This universe and everything in it is by God.
This universe is not God, by the previous proposition.
Therefore, it is not a being in itself. Since, if it was a being in itself, it would be changeless, by proposition V, and absolutely infinite, by proposition VI, and thus it would be God, by proposition VII.
If, therefore, it is not a being in itself, it must be by another, since all that exists is either by itself or by another, by proposition II.
However, it doesn't exist by another which in turn is by another, by the sam reason.
Therefore, it exists by another which is in itself, that is, God.
Therefore, the universe and everything in it is by God, which was to be demonstrated.