the outcome of the whole universal ...

"Therefore, the outcome of the whole universal ... is taken into account, it is impossible that everything must be set in this expression. Well, nothing is identical to be no. ... So the establishment, which by all is being provided, not his that is anything?

If we accept Bonaventura and Thomas of the concept of creation of the world that the creation of the will, that "his" can be justified by all matters. In other words, the "thing" matters, including matters that are not really exist, the people. For example, Einkorn does not exist, but they are always there, they are capable of existing things. Bonaventura and Thomas consider this idea, from Aristotle, which states that the fact to be what it contains "reality" or "potentially”. It is the sentence, what is or can be. Non-be, which in turn must do everything, what does not and can not, where, Thomas refers to the non-authoritarian, in the above as "unacceptable" or "nothing".

But the distinction between what can and what should be no sense, except in the light of the laws of thinking - Thomas, in a discussion of the Auto-evidentially, calls the first principles of demonstration ":

"A proposal is clear because the predicate is in the nature of the object: for example, is the man an animal of animals is the essence of man. So when the 'gasoline and the most important issue is known to all, the proposals of itself to all, as it is clear in relation to the first principles of demonstration, the conditions are some of the terms that no one