# The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591 "2009-02-12T20:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/381 "2009-02-19T00:36:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And your God DOES need a cause. You can’t just handwave it away. It’s a contradiction to say that everything needs a cause except the thing I make up that doesn’t need a cause. From the site I linked to earlier (in post #[334](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10842518&postcount=334)): > [@](#): > > it is sometimes argued (e.g., by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause, but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks “Who made God?” is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/382 "2009-02-19T00:45:02Z")
Premise: Everything which isn’t a unicorn needs a cause Premise: There can be no infinite regress of causes Premise: At least one thing exists Conclusion: Unicorns exist Boy, that was easy… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/383 "2009-02-19T00:45:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Everything in motion needs a cause Not according to Newton’s First Law. > [@](#): > > everything dependent needs a cause This is a tautology. It’s just another way of sying that everything that needs a cause, nees a cause. Prove that everything is "dependent. > [@](#): > > everything imperfect needs a cause. “imperfect” is a scientifically meaningless word. Prove anything is imperfect. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/384 "2009-02-19T00:52:21Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink’s link] It is sometimes argued (e.g., by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause, but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks “Who made God?” is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause. [/QUOTE] I don’t get it. He’s boiling Aquinas’s proof down to “Everything but God needs a cause, therefore God exists”. That’s making a mockery of philosophy. Begs the question and all that. Jesus Christ, that child’s question tears down the whole house of cards, and this guy is ready to call the pile of rubble proof of God! :smack: And thanks for reposting that ingenious proof, Indistinguishable! I almost spit coffee on my keyboard the first time I read it, I was sad to see it edited away. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/385 "2009-02-19T00:52:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not according to Newton’s First Law. > > This is a tautology. It’s just another way of sying that everything that needs a cause, nees a cause. Prove that everything is "dependent. > > “imperfect” is a scientifically meaningless word. Prove anything is imperfect. I have a lego set that is perfect. Hmm, it’s also motionless and ‘independent’\*. …it’s a god! - “Independent” doesn’t mean “causeless”. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/386 "2009-02-19T01:05:50Z")
I love how it’s “The child who asks…” To make the argument childish by association. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/387 "2009-02-19T01:17:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not according to Newton’s First Law. Of course, Aquinas was pre-Newton. Does his argument depend upon an Aristotelian frame of reference? According to Newton’s First Law, nothing starts moving without a cause. A cause is needed to set something in motion. Given something that was always moving, you don’t need a Mover for that something—so we have an Unmoved Mover. > [@](#): > > This is a tautology. It’s just another way of saying that everything that needs a cause, needs a cause. Prove that everything is “dependent.” The argument, as I understand it, is that either everything needs a cause, or there is something that doesn’t need a cause. But if everything needs a cause, it must be caused by something else, so we get an infinite string of causes, which (he claims) is impossible. So there must be an Uncaused Cause. He doesn’t claim to have proved that this is the Christian God, just that this is some sort of entity that is fundamentally different from the caused, acted-upon, changeable things of this universe. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/388 "2009-02-19T01:42:45Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > According to Newton’s First Law, nothing starts moving without a cause. No, according to Newton’s First Law, an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted on by something else. An object in motion does not need to have been _set_ in motion and more than an object at rest needs to have been “stopped.” It is therefore not true that “everything in motion needs a cause.” Not if it’s always been in motion, it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > The argument, as I understand it, is that either everything needs a cause, or there is something that doesn’t need a cause. But if everything needs a cause, it must be caused by something else, so we get an infinite string of causes, which (he claims) is impossible. So there must be an Uncaused Cause. He doesn’t claim to have proved that this is the Christian God, just that this is some sort of entity that is fundamentally different from the caused, acted-upon, changeable things of this universe. Yes, this is the argument, but the fact remains that he has not supported his premise that everything needs a cause, or that an infinite casual chain is impossible. He also contradicts himself by saying that God doesn’t need a cause, and he most certainly does claim it’s the Christian God. He has no other justification for using the word (a “God” who is not God is not God), and he does not try to qualify his use of the word as has been suggested. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/389 "2009-02-19T02:38:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, according to Newton’s First Law, an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted on by something else. An object in motion does not need to have been _set_ in motion and more than an object at rest needs to have been “stopped.” It is therefore not true that “everything in motion needs a cause.” Not if it’s always been in motion, it doesn’t. That’s what I said (I thought)! "Nothing _starts_ moving without a cause. > [@](#): > > Yes, this is the argument, but the fact remains that he has not supported his premise that everything needs a cause, or that an infinite casual chain is impossible. I agree, basically. That everything has a cause, and that chains of causes have to have started somewhere, agree with our common, everyday experience, so I can see why the premises seem reasonable to some people. But I’m pretty sure I agree that they’re not necessary or undeniable, and thus the argument doesn’t really work except on someone who’s already inclined to accept them. > [@](#): > > He also contradicts himself by saying that God doesn’t need a cause, and he most certainly does claim it’s the Christian God. He has no other justification for using the word (a “God” who is not God is not God), and he does not try to qualify his use of the word as has been suggested. In order to intelligently address this, I would have to study up on what Aquinas says about God, not just here in this argument but elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/390 "2009-02-19T02:57:43Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > That’s what I said (I thought)! "Nothing _starts_ moving without a cause. It’s perhaps subtle, but I think there is merit in invoking Newton’s first law here: the prime mover argument essentially assumes that the state of rest is somehow more fundamental than that of motion, and thus, an action is needed to get things moving; however, according to the law of inertia, there’s really no fundamental difference between rest and inertial motion (both indeed being only different because of the choice of reference frame) – action is merely needed for a change in motion, i.e. acceleration. One might then argue for a first accelerator, but, if not all things happen to be in parallel inertial motion of identical speed (i.e. at rest relative to each other), and there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason to assume this, acceleration can arise from inertial motion whenever two things interact – in a collision, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/391 "2009-02-19T06:40:55Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > And with the first cause thing, I’ll make you a deal. You show me how atheism can be true if you accept both Aquinas’ premises, then I will show you how to connect the prime mover to God. Stating that Aquinas doesn’t connect the prime mover to God invalidates his argument is only true if you can show that it is possible for God to not exist while his premises are true. > > Calculon. When I’ve asked this question over the past 20 years, I have always let the theist assume the first cause / prime mover argument is correct, and then asked them to connect the dots. No one ever has. Please, be the first. Cecil mentions the question of whether the Resurrection will occur at night. I am so going to write **The Resurrection Will Not be Televised.** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/392 "2009-02-19T12:34:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > None of the people you mentioned were atheists, by the way. They all believed in sky gods. [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] Possibly, the best athiest ever was Genghis Khan. (doesn’t even matter whether he believed in a diety, belief is irrelevant to being a good athiest.) [/QUOTE] You could have read what I said in the first place. Belief is irrelevant. Action is what matters. > [@](#): > > Not believing in gods does not mean you think you have to reproduce, or that life has to keep going, or that anything HAS to exist at all. > … > Just because somebody is not convinced of thje exsitence of sky gods does not mean they think they have a “purpose” to spread their own DNA, or that they think they have any “purpose” in life at all, or that they are mandated to be self-intersted. Are you saying that life does not exist to survive? Life has given itself a purpose. You can pick any purpose you want, or not, for yourself; but everything else is random. To survive is the only natural purpose of life. You don’t have to go along with it, but it still seems to me rational to do so. I am seeing merit in your assertion, though. we can discuss further. However: > [@](#): > > All the placebo effect is good for is pain. It can’t actually cure anything. absolutely untrue. They test all medicines against placeboes, not just pain medicine, because tumors can get smaller and disappear, heart disease can reverse, etc. The medicine has to do a better job than placebo, not just a better job than giving them nothing, because placebo does a better job than giving them nothing. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t make the medication “real,” and it doesn’t work if you know it’s fake. I already said it was an IRRATIONAL effect. It’s belief in something that isn’t true having a real effect. It doesn’t make the medication real, but it makes real medical results. > [@](#): > > Why do religionists hate science so much? I couldn’t tell you. I LOVE science. I am a science NUT. But if you’re making it an absolute statement, it must be wrong, because I love science. > [@](#): > > Tell me. What exactly ARE the “limits of science?” What do atheists think it can do that it can’t do? [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] And a logical, scientific theory of the universe can never be complete. [/QUOTE] That was just one example. I didn’t explain why or how. I’ve done that elsewhere. It has to do with Godel’s proof. And some athiests that I’ve seen on this board seem to think it should be able to tell you about the existence of god. Science is a system to tell you about things inside the observable universe. If there is a being who created the universe, he obviously existed without it and is not dependent on it. I completely understand and agree with the position: you haven’t seen any evidence of god, you have no reason to believe. But telling me that I haven’t seen anything that could lead me to that belief because you haven’t seen it is arrogance. What is so special about you that god would HAVE to reveal himself to you before he could reveal himself to me? And why would that revelation have to be observable to you? Science can only remark on objective and reproducable circumstances. These sorts of things are neither objective or reproducable. They aren’t testable. But back to the limits of science. String theory is where the majority of interest lies in a theory of everything. There are many versions, but they generally postulate multiple extra dimensions smaller than the planck length, which makes them untestable. String theory has not postulated anything testable that isn’t already postulated by the Standard Model. There is serious debate about whether it is science or philosophy. It involves things outside what can be observed or tested. Seems more like philosophy. And yet, the implications of Godel’s proof are that to have a theory that can explain every interaction in this universe, you have to start with a system that involves things outside the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/393 "2009-02-19T12:48:36Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > And some athiests that I’ve seen on this board seem to think it should be able to tell you about the existence of god. If it can’t, then you have no rational reason to believe in God. > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > I completely understand and agree with the position: you haven’t seen any evidence of god, you have no reason to believe. But telling me that I haven’t seen anything that could lead me to that belief because you haven’t seen it is arrogance. What is so special about you that god would HAVE to reveal himself to you before he could reveal himself to me? And why would that revelation have to be observable to you? Because so far everyone who has made such claims has come up empty. And the people making such claims wildly contradict each other. The people showing arrogance here aren’t the ones asking for evidence; they are the ones who claim they have special personal visions from a being they can’t prove the existence of and who by all known laws is impossible. Why should anyone take your claims any more seriously than some ranting guy on the street corner, when you have no evidence ? When no one has EVER come up with any evidence ? When, in fact, claims of knowledge gained by religious revelations turns out to be wrong whenever anyone actually bothers to check it ? Why should anyone believe you are the one person out of so many millions throughout history who is actually right ? > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > And yet, the implications of Godel’s proof are that to have a theory that can explain every interaction in this universe, you have to start with a system that involves things outside the universe. IIRC, Godel was speaking about formal systems, not the universe. You’d have to show that the universe is a formal system before it would apply. And why God ISN’T one, if you intend to use Godel as a variation on the First Cause argument. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/394 "2009-02-19T12:56:13Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > Science is a system to tell you about things inside the observable universe. That’s one of them things that get repeated again and again with little to no justification – what exactly limits science to the observable universe? Seems to me that anything that has any effect on the observable universe ought to be subject to scientific study just as well, and anything that has _no_ effect on the observable universe doesn’t really matter anyway. So if you want to hide your god in the dark nooks and crannies supposedly beyond science’s grasp, it seems to me that you’re simultaneously making him completely and utterly inconsequential. Or, to look at this from a top-down perspective, an universe where there is no evidence for the existence of god is indistinguishable from an universe where there in fact is no god, since any difference between the two could be pointed at as evidence for the existence of god; thus, an universe where god exists and influences it by necessity has scientific evidence for god’s existence and workings – so we can treat god like any other scientific hypothesis and not ascribe him any credence until evidence is forthcoming. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/395 "2009-02-19T14:30:45Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > absolutely untrue. They test all medicines against placeboes, not just pain medicine, because tumors can get smaller and disappear, heart disease can reverse, etc. The medicine has to do a better job than placebo, not just a better job than giving them nothing, because placebo does a better job than giving them nothing. That’s not right. Placebo doesn’t do a better job than nothing, but sometimes people who have gone through the rigmarole of having something administered, will selectively recall that they have reduced symptoms. Real medicines are tested against placebos because that way it eliminates these psychological factors of recall bias. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > So if you want to hide your god in the dark nooks and crannies supposedly beyond science’s grasp, it seems to me that you’re simultaneously making him completely and utterly inconsequential. Not only that, but by that conception of God, there is no way that the theists _themselves_ can know anything about God. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/396 "2009-02-19T16:07:35Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > You could have read what I said in the first place. Belief is irrelevant. Action is what matters. No, when it comes to defining “atheism” and “theism,” those are defined purely by belief or lack thereof. Neither definition has any “action” as part of the definition. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that life does not exist to survive? There is no evidence that life exists “for” any reason at all. That’s correct. Reproduiction and evolution are incidental, not purpose driven. > [@](#): > > Life has given itself a purpose. Cite? > [@](#): > > You can pick any purpose you want, or not, for yourself; but everything else is random. To survive is the only natural purpose of life. What is youir evidence that there is any “purpose” to life? This is a religious belief on your part and nothing else. > [@](#): > > You don’t have to go along with it, but it still seems to me rational to do so. I am seeing merit in your assertion, though. we can discuss further. You’re the one making the assertion. You’re asserting a religious belief that life must exist for a purpose. Prove it. > [@](#): > > absolutely untrue. They test all medicines against placeboes, not just pain medicine, because tumors can get smaller and disappear, heart disease can reverse, etc. The medicine has to do a better job than placebo, not just a better job than giving them nothing, because placebo does a better job than giving them nothing. They’re used to control against psychological effects, not physiological ones. Placebos don’t shrink tumors, and this is a retarded line of argument anyway. If you want to say that believing in magic fairies makes people feel better, fine, but that doesn’t mean fairies actually exist so it’s an irrelevant point. > [@](#): > > I already said it was an IRRATIONAL effect. It’s belief in something that isn’t true having a real effect. It doesn’t make the medication real, but it makes real medical results. It’s not irrational to believe that a medication given to you by a doctor will have a medical effect. It might be _mistaken_, but it’s not irrational. And again, if you know it’s a placebo it doesn’t work. > [@](#): > > That was just one example. I didn’t explain why or how. I’ve done that elsewhere. It has to do with Godel’s proof. I don’t think you understand Goedels theorem. > [@](#): > > And some athiests that I’ve seen on this board seem to think it should be able to tell you about the existence of god. Like who? > [@](#): > > Science is a system to tell you about things inside the observable universe. If there is a being who created the universe, he obviously existed without it and is not dependent on it. Sure, but atheists don’t say that kind of entity can be tested for. What gets put through the wringer here is claims by theists that God _can_ be proven scientifically. Aquinas’ 5 proofs are an attempt to infer the necessary existence of God from observable evidence. While the God hypothesis can’t be falsified, speficic claims and arguments certainly can be. > [@](#): > > I completely understand and agree with the position: you haven’t seen any evidence of god, you have no reason to believe. But telling me that I haven’t seen anything that could lead me to that belief because you haven’t seen it is arrogance. I don’t think I said that, but what I will say is that the argument from personal revelation has no evidentiary value to anyone else. > [@](#): > > What is so special about you that god would HAVE to reveal himself to you before he could reveal himself to me? I don’t know where you’re getting this? I haven’t said anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > And why would that revelation have to be observable to you Why should I personally be persuaded by anything that isn’t? Should I just take your word for it? There are people who have personal revelations of all kinds of gods. Personal revelations of Hindu deities are commonplace in India.Should I give your claim of revelation any more weight than theirs? > [@](#): > > Science can only remark on objective and reproducable circumstances. These sorts of things are neither objective or reproducable. They aren’t testable. Then they aren’t evidence. > [@](#): > > But back to the limits of science. String theory is where the majority of interest lies in a theory of everything. There are many versions, but they generally postulate multiple extra dimensions smaller than the planck length, which makes them untestable. String theory has not postulated anything testable that isn’t already postulated by the Standard Model. There is serious debate about whether it is science or philosophy. It involves things outside what can be observed or tested. Seems more like philosophy. It’s hypothesis, not philosphy, and while. yes, it is only hypothetical, it’s still more plausible than a sorceror and has yet to be falsified. In order for a prof of God to work, you have to be able to falsify all alternative paradigms – not just say they’re not proven, you actually have to prove them false. > [@](#): > > And yet, the implications of Godel’s proof are that to have a theory that can explain every interaction in this universe, you have to start with a system that involves things outside the universe. Goedel’s Theorem (not proof) is about formal logical systems, not about empirical observation. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/397 "2009-02-19T20:18:52Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > And yet, the implications of Godel’s proof are that to have a theory that can explain every interaction in this universe, you have to start with a system that involves things outside the universe. This doesn’t sound like an appropriate invocation of Goedel’s proof… I made this point in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=506449) recently, but I’ll make it again, and forevermore till people stop ascribing Goedel’s theorem all this undeserved mystique: tell me, what are the implications for the universe of the fact that you cannot give a correct yes/no answer to the question “Will **ch4rl3s** answer ‘No’ to the question at the end of the second paragraph of post #397 in the thread ‘The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas’ on the Straight Dope Message Board?”?. Because that’s all Goedel’s theorem basically uses. It’s a little language trick like that. If you think there are strong consequences for the nature of the universe, you’ll have to show how they follow from the existence of the above question. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/398 "2009-02-24T00:05:22Z")
Here’s an interesting essay on [what happened before the big bang](http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html). ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/399 "2009-02-24T12:02:47Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] _posted by ch4rl3s: And some athiests that I’ve seen on this board seem to think it should be able to tell you about the existence of god._ Like who? [/QUOTE] Like Der Trihs, whose response to the same question was: [QUOTE=Der Trihs] If it can’t, then you have no rational reason to believe in God. [/QUOTE] And Half Man Half Wit, and CurtC who posted similar comments hours before you asked the question [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] \*ch4rl3s:Science is a system to tell you about things inside the observable universe. If there is a being who created the universe, he obviously existed without it and is not dependent on it. \* Sure, but atheists don’t say that kind of entity can be tested for. [/QUOTE] See, you got my point. Der Trihs didn’t. Why should science tell us about something outside the system when the being in question can simply say, “I’m not going to sit still for your experiment, I know what my abilities are, and I have better things to do.”? [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Why should anyone take your claims any more seriously than some ranting guy on the street corner, when you have no evidence ? [/QUOTE] They shouldn’t. I’m not claiming they should. I have consistently stated (and apparently need to continue stating what you could have already read from my post) > [@](#): > > I completely understand and agree with the position: you haven’t seen any evidence of god, you have no reason to believe. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I don’t think I said that, but what I will say is that the argument from personal revelation has no evidentiary value to anyone else. [/QUOTE] I completely agree. (well, almost. will discuss evidentiary value later.) Which is why I said (and have to keep saying over and over,) you haven’t seen the evidence, you shouldn’t believe. That doesn’t mean there is no evidence. But this comment wasn’t exactly based on your comments, it was based on the predicted, (and predictable,) comments of other athiests, like Der Trihs. I predicted their comments, had already provided a response to them, and still got the comments. As if I never said: > [@](#): > > I completely understand and agree with the position: you haven’t seen any evidence of god, you have no reason to believe… And why would that revelation have to be observable to you? Science can only remark on objective and reproducable circumstances. These sorts of things are neither objective or reproducable. They aren’t testable. And yet, they still think I’m asking them to believe and that I’m claiming the evidence should be objective and reproducable. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Then they aren’t evidence. [/QUOTE] Yes, they are. They just aren’t objective. We take people’s unprovable statements as evidence in court all the time. They aren’t scientific. You can’t reproduce the situation where the defendant confessed to some aquaintance. So, it can’t be proven. But we can weigh it with all the other evidence, and it can influence our _completely rational_ conclusion about guilt or innocence. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] IIRC, Godel was speaking about formal systems, not the universe. You’d have to show that the universe is a formal system before it would apply. [/QUOTE] I know Godel was talking about formal systems. And, uh, no. I don’t have to show the universe is a formal system, because, as you can tell from reading my post, I said that the _theories_ we use to model the universe are formal systems to explain empirical observations. The logical, mathematically consistant, scientific theories are subject to Godel’s Theorem. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s hypothesis, not philosphy, and while. yes, it is only hypothetical, it’s still more plausible than a sorceror and has yet to be falsified. In order for a prof of God to work, you have to be able to falsify all alternative paradigms – not just say they’re not proven, you actually have to prove them false. [/QUOTE] String Theory appears to be in the same boat. It hasn’t been falsified, but that’s the same argument some thiests use, that God can’t be falsified. But, just like God, string theory appears to be unfalsifiable; which would make it _not_ science. [QUOTE=Indistinguishable] tell me, what are the implications for the universe of the fact that you cannot give a correct yes/no answer to the question “Will ch4rl3s answer ‘No’ to the question at the end of the second paragraph of post #397 in the thread ‘The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas’ on the Straight Dope Message Board?”?. [/QUOTE] There are two questions here. The first one: what are the implications for the universe? None. As much as I would like to think I’m incredibly important, our current theories of the universe don’t mention me at all. If they did mention me, this might have an implication. Second question: Will Charles answer ‘No’… I \*personally \*can’t give a correct yes/no answer… _the first time around_. (I’m going to answer, ‘No.’) But, now that I’ve answered, the question takes on a definitive, and unambiguous truth value. (in this case, it’s true.) And from now on, everyone can give a correct yes/no answer. (The answer is, “Yes, I answered ‘No.’”)And it is a really poor attempt to formulate a ‘Godel’ type question. No where near on the order of 'This statement is false," which is the classic layman’s version. (edit: and has no discernable truth value, ever.) ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/400 "2009-02-24T12:17:19Z")
Well, what is it that you think Goedel’s Theorem says? At its core, all it says is “No question-answering system S can correctly answer the question ‘Does S answer ‘No’ to this question?’.” For the obvious reason that any answer S gives to such a question is automatically incorrect. Whether or not system S is **ch4rl3s** (or, more specifically, the idealized **ch4rl3s** of some particular moment of time) or anything else, what kinds of implications could a little language trick like that possibly have for the physical nature of the universe? (I say: Very few substantive ones, though perhaps there are some very meager claims in this direction which could be made which would stand up to rigorous scrutiny) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=21)