A TREATISE ON GOD AS FIRST PRINCIPLE
3.1 The triple primacy of the First Principle.
4.1 The simplicity, infinity and intellectuality of the First Being.
Appendix Two Questions From Lectures On Bk. I Of The Sentences
[Question Two: Is it self-evident that an infinite being exists?]
[I. Reply to the Second Question]
[II. To the Arguments at the Beginning of the Second Question (par. 8-11)]
[III. Reply to the First Question]
IV. To the Arguments at the Beginning of the First Question (par. 1-6)
8 This poses the further question: Is the existence of something infinite, such as God's existence, a fact that is self-evident? [Pro et Contra] The arguments that it is are these: [Arg. I] Damascene says in the first chapter: "The knowledge that God exists is implanted in everyone." Such knowledge, however, is self-evident, as is clear from Bk. II of the Metaphysics, where first principles, which are like the [proverbial] door, are presented as something self-evident. 9 [Arg. II] Furthermore, the existence of a thing is self-evident if it is impossible to think of anything greater than it. For if one were to grant the opposite of the predicate, it would destroy the subject; because if the thing in question did not exist one could think of something greater, viz. its existence, which is greater than its non-existence. And this seems to be Anselm's argument in chapter two of the Proslogion. 10 [Arg. III] That truth exists is self-evident; therefore etc. Proof of the antecedent: Whatever follows from its own denial is self-evident. But truth is such, because if you affirm that truth exists, then it is true that you affirm this and hence truth exists; if you may deny that truth exists, then it would -be true that truth does not exist. And therefore some truth still exists. 11 [Arg. IV] Furthermore, those propositions are self-evident which derive their necessity from that fact that their terms have at least that qualified existence that comes from being in the mind. All the more then is that proposition self-evident which owes its necessity to the being of the thing and terms in an unqualified sense. But "God exists" is such a proposition. Proof of the antecedent: Suppose that neither a whole nor its part existed. The very fact that these terms in the mind are related the way they are, guarantees "Every whole is greater than its part" to be a necessary truth. In such a case, however, the terms would have only a qualified existence in the mind. 12 To the contrary: No mind can deny what is self-evident: but God's existence can be denied for "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" [Psalms 13,1].