God

²¹ Our lifetime alone is enough to demonstrate the existence of God.

The truth of this demonstration will clearly appear, provided we consider the nature of time, or the duration of things.

The parts of timespan are not mutually dependent and never co-existent. Accordingly, our ’now’ is different from the next moment. This is unless some cause, i.e. our Creator, shall continually reproduce us by conserving us.

For we easily understand that there is no power in us by which we can conserve ourselves, and that the being who has so much power as to conserve us out of himself, must also by so much the greater reason conserve himself, or rather stand in need of being conserved by no one whatever, and, in fine, be God.

²² In knowing the existence of God, we likewise know all his attributes, as far as they can be known by the natural light alone.

There is the great advantage in proving God’s existence in this way i.e. by his idea. This lets us know what he is.

We have born with us the idea that God:

• is eternal
• is omniscient
• is omnipotent
• is the source of all goodness and truth
• is the creator of all things
• has in himself all infinite perfection or good

²³ God is not corporeal.

He does not perceive by means of senses, or will the evil of sin.

There are many things in the world that are imperfect or limited, though possessing also some perfection.

Accordingly, it is impossible that any such error can be in God.

Divisibility is included in local extension. This indicates imperfection. Therefore, God is not body.

[Footnote: In the French, “since extension constitutes the nature of body.”]

Although in men it is to some degree a perfection to be capable of perceiving by means of the senses, nevertheless since in every sense there is passivity

[Footnote: In the French, “because our perceptions arise from impressions made upon us from another source,” i.e., than ourselves.]

which indicates dependency, then God cannot be perceived by the senses.

He only understands and wills. But not in the way that we do by distinct acts. Instead, he always does so by an act that is one, identical, and the simplest possible.

He understands, wills, and operates all things that exist in reality.

He does not will the evil of sin, seeing this is but the negation of being.

²⁴ Our understanding is finite. The power of God infinite.

God alone is the true cause of all that is or that can be. The best way of philosophizing, from our knowledge of God, is to pass to the explanation of the things which he has created and then essay to deduce it from our natural notions of God.

In this way, we will thus obtain the most perfect science – the knowledge of effects through their causes.

To make this secure from error, we must remember that God, the author of things, is infinite, while we are finite.

²⁵ We must believe all that God has revealed, although it may surpass the reach of our faculties.

God might reveal his properties to us or others. Those properties surpass the natural powers of our mind, such as the mysteries of the incarnation and of the trinity.

We will not refuse to believe them even if we do not clearly understand them.

The immensity of his nature and his creations exceed our comprehension.

²⁶ We do not need to enter into disputes regarding the infinite.

We merely hold all that in which we can find no limits are indefinite, such as:

• the size of the universe
• the divisibility of matter
• the number of the stars, etc.

We will thus never enter disputes about the infinite. This is because we are finite. It would be absurd for us to try to determine the infinite.

We will accordingly not care to reply to those who demand whether:

• the half of an infinite line is also infinite
• an infinite number is even or odd, and the like

This is because only those who imagine their minds to be infinite entertain questions of this sort.

When we see things that have no limits, we will not affirm that they are infinite. Instead, we call them as indefinite*.

*Superphysics note: In Superphysics, we call it arbitrary instead of indefinite.

We cannot imagine a space so great that we cannot think of a larger space. We will say that the magnitude of possible things is indefinite.

A body cannot be divided into parts so small that we cannot think of each of these to again be divided into smaller parts. Thus, let us regard quantity as divisible into an indefinite number of parts.

We cannot imagine so many stars that it would seem impossible for God to create more, we say that their number is indefinite.

²⁷ What is the difference between the indefinite and the infinite?

Instead of calling infinite things as ‘infinite’, we call them ‘indefinite’. Only God can call things infinite because:

• we discover in him alone no limits on any side and we positively conceive that he admits of none
• we do not in the same way positively conceive that other things are in every part unlimited, but merely negatively admit that their limits, if they have any, cannot be discovered by us.

²⁸ We look for the efficient causes of created things, not the final causes.

We will not seek reasons of natural things from the end which God or nature proposed to himself in their creation (i. e., final causes),

we should not think that we are sharers in the counsels of Deity. Instead, we consider him as the efficient cause of all things.

With this in mind, let us try to discover by the natural light which he has planted in us. Let us apply it to his attributes which we already know, so that we can have some conclusion on those effects we perceive by our senses.

bearing in mind, however, what has been already said, that we must only confide in this natural ight so long as nothing contrary to its dictates is revealed by God himself.

[Footnote: The last clause, beginning “bearing in mind.” is omitted in the French.]

[Footnote: “We will not stop to consider the ends which God proposed to himself in the creation of the world. We entirely reject from our philosophy the search of final causes!”]

[Footnote: “Faculty of reasoning."—FRENCH.]

²⁹ God is not the cause of our errors.

The first attribute of God is that he is absolutely veracious and the source of all light.

It is plainly repugnant for him:

• to deceive us, or
• to be properly and positively the cause of the errors to which we are consciously subject

“To deceive” has some mark of subtlety. But it comes from malice, or from fear and weakness. Consequently, it cannot be attributed to God.

³⁰ Consequently, all which we clearly perceive is true.

This delivers us from the above doubts.

It follows that the light of nature, or faculty of knowledge given us by God, can never compass any false object, as long as we can clearly and distinctly apprehend that object.

God would be a deceiver if he had given us this faculty perverted, that it led us to take falsity for truth.

The same principle should also be of avail against all the other grounds of doubting that have been already enumerated. For mathematical truths ought now to be above suspicion, since these are of the clearest.

If we perceive anything by our senses, whether while awake or asleep, we will easily discover the truth provided we separate what there is of clear and distinct in the knowledge from what is obscure and confused.

This is explained further in my work metaphysical Meditations.

³¹ Our errors regarding God are merely negations. Our errors regarding ourselves are merely privations.

God is no deceiver, yet we frequently fall into error.

Our errors depend more on our will, than on our understanding.

Our errors They have no need of the actual concourse of God, in order to their production.

When considered in reference to God, they are merely negations, but in reference to ourselves, privations.

³² There are only two modes of thinking in us, viz., the perception of the understanding and the action of the will.

For all the modes of thinking of which we are conscious may be referred to two general classes, the one of which is the perception or operation of the understanding, and the other the volition or operation of the will.

Thus, to perceive by the senses (SENTIRE), to imagine, and to conceive things purely intelligible, are only different modes of perceiving (PERCIP IENDI); but to desire, to be averse from, to affirm, to deny, to doubt, are different modes of willing.

³³ We never err unless when we judge of something which we do not sufficiently apprehend.

When we apprehend anything we are in no danger of error if we refrain from judging of it in any way.

Even when we have formed a judgment regarding it, we would never fall into error, provided we gave our assent only to what we clearly and distinctly perceived.

We are usually deceived because we judge without having an exact knowledge of what we judge.