Article 2 — Whether God can make a creature able of itself to keep itself in existence independently of God

The second point of inquiry is whether God can make a creature able of itself to keep itself in existence independently of God. (Parallel texts: ST I.104.1, ad 2; I.104.2, ad 2; SCG II.25; On Truth, q. 5, a. 8, ad 8; In I Sent. 37.1.1; 44.4.)

Obj. 1: And it seems that he can. For creating is greater than keeping oneself in existence. Now, creating could be communicated to a creature, as the Master says in Sentences IV. (Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 4, d. 5, ch. 3 (PL 192:852).) Therefore, it could have received the power to keep itself in existence.

Obj. 2: There is more in the power of things and God than in the power of our intellect. Now, our intellect can understand a creature apart from God. Much more, therefore, can God make a creature able of itself to keep itself in existence.

Obj. 3: There is a creature made to God’s image (Gen 1:26). Now, according to Hilary, an image is the undivided and united likeness of one thing adequately representing another, (Hilary of Poitiers, On Synods 1.13 (PL 10:490).) so that an image can be adequate to the thing of which it is the image. Seeing, then, that God needs no other to keep him in existence, it would seem that he could communicate this to a creature.

Obj. 4: The more perfect the agent, the more perfect an effect can it produce. Now, natural agents can produce effects that are able to remain in existence without their causes. Therefore, much more so can God do this.

On the contrary, God can do nothing that is prejudicial to his own authority. But it would be prejudicial to his dominion if anything could exist without his upholding it. Therefore, God cannot do this.

I answer that God’s omnipotence does not imply that he can make two contradictories true at the same time. Now, the statement that God can produce a thing that does not need to be upheld by him, involves a contradiction. For we have already proved that every effect depends on its cause insofar as it is its cause. Accordingly, the statement that a thing does not need God to uphold its existence implies that it is not created by God, while the statement that such a thing is made by God implies that it is created by him.

Therefore, just as it would involve a contradiction to say that God made something that was not created by him, so too were one to say that God made something that did not need to be kept in existence by him. Therefore, God is equally unable to do either.

Reply Obj. 1: Since to create is to cause something, and only that which has no cause does not need to be kept in existence by another, it is clear that not to need to be kept in existence by another is greater than to create, just as to have no cause is more than to be a cause. Moreover, it is not altogether true that the power of creating is communicable to a creature, seeing that it is the act of the first agent, as we have shown above. (Q. 3, a. 4.)

Reply Obj. 2: Although the intellect is able to understand a creature without understanding God, it cannot understand a creature not being kept in existence by God; for this involves a contradiction, just as even to say a creature is not created by God, as stated above. (Q. 3, a. 5.)

Reply Obj. 3: Equality is of the account of an image not absolutely speaking, but of a perfect image; such an image of God is not a creature but the Son; therefore, the argument proves nothing.

Reply Obj. 4: The reply may be gathered from what has been already said in the preceding answer.