# Thomas Aquinas: Logical Flaws? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954 "2016-02-12T17:58:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/41 "2016-02-13T01:29:12Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > Well, the laws of the universe had to have a cause in order to exist, otherwise, they could not, and we’d be floating away in space right now. We are floating in space right now. > [@](#): > > They exist because they have a cause. Again, the cause could just be the way the universe works. In no way have you provided the flimsiest evidence that it’s a thinking entity, much less the Bible’s God. > [@](#): > > Remember Newton’s constant? 6.7 times 10^-23? You’re telling me that such a precise number as the universal gravitational constant just popped up outta nowhere? If the constants hadn’t been set for us to form, we wouldn’t be here to marvel at them. The water in a pothole may marvel at how its universe fits it exactly, but it’s missing the point. > [@](#): > > God has always been. God has never been. It’s a myth that ignorant men made up because they didn’t have the tools to explain their world. In any case, if God had always been, you’re saying he didn’t need a cause, which wrecks your premise. > [@](#): > > Remember that Futurama episode where Bender was God to a tiny race of aliens and then ran into the Big Man Himself? Yes. You’re aware, I hope, that Futurama isn’t a science documentary, right? > [@](#): > > Water and wind erodes rock formations because all things obey a natural law of conduct as Aquinas said. I never said there was an intelligence at work there. Good, so the laws of nature don’t need intelligence behind them. > [@](#): > > There still has to be a Prime Mover, otherwise nothing moves and nothing exists. At the very beginning of all existence, there had to be a Creator. Nope. What was the prime mover that caused the Creator to move? The very argument is so worthless, it’s a shame that so many intelligent people have worked themselves into knots trying to justify it so that they can bulwark their faith. The Abrahamic God is a story that grew in the telling. Not an explanation for the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/42 "2016-02-13T01:30:45Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > “Nothing causes itself to exist” is the same statement as “everything that exists must have a cause that made it exist.” It’s just using 11 words as opposed to 5. It’s the same thing. Okay, so please explain what caused God to exist. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/43 "2016-02-13T02:38:40Z")
It’s been a few decades since i read Aquinas but that always bothered me. “Nothing causes itself” - " well i meant nothing except God ! " “Everything must be moved /caused by something else!” - "well i meant everything except God! God is the exception to my devastating logic. " ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/44 "2016-02-13T03:12:39Z")
It’s even a little worse than that: if one of two things has “no cause,” is it easier to accept a big cloud of hot gas, or a highly organized intelligent, omniscient, perfect moral entity? One does not require “design,” but the other is so highly organized – a pocket watch in a desert, so to speak – that it would seem to require intelligent design. So…who designed God? (“I’m not gas. I found that very insulting.”) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/45 "2016-02-13T03:23:27Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > **Little Nemo** , you said this: “And Aquinas never says “anything that exists must have a cause that made it exist.” What he says is that nothing causes itself to exist.” > > There’s no fundamental difference between those two statements whatsoever. > > Just like the movie Grease, at the drive-in, when Danny’s trying to console Sandy: “Sandy, we didn’t go together. We just went together.” > > “Nothing causes itself to exist” is the same statement as “everything that exists must have a cause that made it exist.” It’s just using 11 words as opposed to 5. It’s the same thing. _That’s_ the part you reply to? And at length? It’s almost as if you maybe can’t _see_ the other responses. Like, you’re going to leave this thread thinking folks didn’t even _address_ your points. As in, you’re not disregarding the questions they keep asking you; you’re not even _aware_ of them. It’s jarring. Let me try again: you believe an uncaused cause can exist; does exist. You believe an uncreated creator exists. You believe an unmoved mover exists. So if I tell you I saw a thing that (a) exists, and (b) followed from a cause – itself an effect that followed from a cause, which followed from a cause, and so on – well, you can believe that, too. But if I tell you some things exist with no cause, why wouldn’t you say _oh, yes; I have heard of, and write about, such; did they then cause effects? For I believe in an entity which exists with no cause, but causes effects; how, then, could I be troubled by the idea that other stuff-with-no-cause exists? Is not my very religion predicated on it? Indeed, can there not be many uncaused causes and uncreated creators?_ ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Thomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Charlie\_Thomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Thomas)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/46 "2016-02-13T06:42:40Z")
Hey, I got a lot of responses, a’ight? I can only reply to so many at one time. I’m still figuring out how the multi-quote tool works. Can you at least give me a pass on that? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/47 "2016-02-13T07:01:17Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I think this is Aquinas’s answer (though I’m not sure I understand all the terminology): > > (I’m quoting from the text of the _Summa Theologica_ I found [here](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm).) That looks like the very opposite of an answer - practically “God is God”. Aquinas goes on at length about defining God by what he is not, but proceeds to list a whole lot of things that he is, like “good” and “unity”. None of which answers my question - I’m not asking for a list of God’s predicates, I’m asking for a definition of God. He approaches it with his “something than which nothing greater can be thought”, I think, but that’s pants as far as a definition goes, IMO. And is going to lead us to Anselm and madness 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/48 "2016-02-13T09:47:10Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > It’s been a few decades since i read Aquinas but that always bothered me. “Nothing causes itself” - " well i meant nothing except God ! " > > “Everything must be moved /caused by something else!” - "well i meant everything except God! God is the exception to my devastating logic. " This is exactly what Aquinas is saying. Sure it is wrapped up in flowery theological language and obscurantist verbiage and it may have been daring and cutting edge thinking in the 13th century but it fails on it’s face through a simple argument from parsimony. If you can claim that a god needs no cause then you can also claim that the universe (which has a far simpler starting point than a god) can also need no cause. How is… Nothing \> god \> Universe Simpler than Nothing \> Universe god complicates matters unnecessarily. Why even introduce it unless you already believed in it and needed to find a point at which to invoke it? As for the numbers of the universe? I find that argument entirely unconvincing. We have no idea how many universes have come into being. There could have been trillions of universes prior to this one, all with subtly different “settings”. We wouldn’t have knowledge or experience of those, only this one, with dials all set so that our conscience and existence can exist. (The puddle example has already be mentioned). That is a far simpler explanation than a god twiddling with universal settings. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/49 "2016-02-13T11:36:36Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > Hey, I got a lot of responses, a’ight? I can only reply to so many at one time. I’m still figuring out how the multi-quote tool works. Can you at least give me a pass on that? Well, sure. But you were replying to later responses instead of earlier ones – and when quoting a single post and replying to it, you’d reply to its later question (a) while ignoring its earlier question, and (b) _by_ ignoring its earlier question. You responded to **Lobohan** – who, sensibly, asked why the ‘uncreated creator’ logic leads to _one_ god instead of _multiple_ gods; and who then asked other stuff. You quoted him asking “Why is there only one God?” – and then quoted him asking other stuff. And you replied to the later stuff with a conclusive “there had to be a Creator”. There had to be A creator? That’s the part he’d already asked you about! I’d have been satisfied with a quick sentence to the effect of _“as for how this doesn’t rule out multiple uncreated creators – well, I’m gonna have to think about that; but for now, let me say this…”_ You do that, and a pass comes easy: just a brisk note that multiple posters in multiple posts – including the one you’re replying to! – ask why you grant _one_ uncreated creator/unmoved mover/uncaused cause, but not others. (Not an answer to that question, you understand; just an acknowledgment of it.) ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/50 "2016-02-13T12:31:46Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Well, he’s arguing by _reductio ad absurdum_, and he considers an infinite backwards chain (of causes, or movers) to count as an _absurdum_. Which is like saying, “for every integer there is an integer that is one smaller, therefore there must be a smallest integer”. It’s not just that there is a step in the argument that is logically dubious. _All_ of the steps are logically dubious. [ul] [li]Everything has a cause – dubious[/li][li]An infinite sequence of causes is impossible – dubious[/li][li]Therefore there must be an uncaused cause – dubious and an explicit contradiction of the first premise.[/li][li]That uncaused cause must be unique – dubious[/li][li]That uncaused cause must be a conscious and powerful entity that still exists and takes great interest into which orifices humans insert their penises – dubious[/li][/ul] Thomas Aquinas was in the business of making up reasons to believe in God that sound good enough to people who already believe to prevent doubts from taking hold. The arguments were never meant to hold up to actual logical scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/51 "2016-02-13T14:31:03Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > **Little Nemo** , you said this: “And Aquinas never says “anything that exists must have a cause that made it exist.” What he says is that nothing causes itself to exist.” > > There’s no fundamental difference between those two statements whatsoever. I didn’t say that. Thudlow Boink did. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/52 "2016-02-13T18:04:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Besides, the universe we now inhabit may not have been caused by your proposed “First Cause”. It may very well be an aftereffect of the death of a previous universe, or leakage from an alternate universe. There are gaps in our knowledge, and no real evidence to fill those gaps with your god. Additionally, there is no reason at assume that whatever came before\* this universe was casual. It is possible that shit just happened with no reason as there is no reason to assume that, before the big bang, there were any physics as we know it. Slee - Before the big bang may not make much sense as time started at the big bang, but you have to phrase it somehow. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/53 "2016-02-13T18:47:37Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Additionally, there is no reason at assume that whatever came before\* this universe was casual. I’m 95% sure you meant ‘causal’, but I’m now picturing the previous universe wearing an expensive dinner jacket and an Oxford tie while ordering top-shelf sherry. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Thomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Charlie\_Thomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Thomas)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2016, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/54 "2016-02-13T20:17:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I didn’t say that. Thudlow Boink did. Oh? Sorry. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/55 "2016-02-14T10:56:20Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > Oh? Sorry. ☹ That’s it? That’s your only response? No replies to the actual substantive points made by **TOWP** , **Lobohan** and others? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/56 "2016-02-14T12:43:20Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Additionally, there is no reason at assume that whatever came before\* this universe was casual. It is possible that shit just happened with no reason as there is no reason to assume that, before the big bang, there were any physics as we know it. > > Slee > > - Before the big bang may not make much sense as time started at the big bang, but you have to phrase it somehow. Heck, with quantum mechanics, there is no reason to believe that what came after the big bang is causal, and some reason to believe the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/57 "2016-02-14T15:42:37Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > St. Thomas Aquinas, the guy who wrote the Summa Theologica and reconciled religion and logic (hell, even _combining critical aspects of the two_) he was attempting to prove the existence of God, by logic alone, at a time when logic and religion appeared incompatible. I just read the Summa Theologica. If you ask me, he proved the doubters wrong and then some. > > Are there any particular flaws in his reasoning, i.e. the Five Proofs? Feel free to rip it to shreds and grind it into oblivion and then nuke the oblivion. > > (Don’t limit yourselves to the Five Proofs either.) > > As usual, civil responses, please. Did you have any great doubts _before_ you read the _Summa Theologica_? Did this work change _your_ mind or erase _your_ doubts…or did it just reconfirm beliefs your already had? If you didn’t _already_ believe in the god you believe in, and subscribe to the religious beliefs in the nature of man and the universe that you do, do you honestly think this work would convert you? ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/58 "2016-02-14T18:24:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m 95% sure you meant ‘causal’, but I’m now picturing the previous universe wearing an expensive dinner jacket and an Oxford tie while ordering top-shelf sherry. Damned spell check. Buck, regarding quantum stuff, there are a couple interpretations. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Thomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Charlie\_Thomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Thomas)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/59 "2016-02-14T21:12:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Did you have any great doubts _before_ you read the _Summa Theologica_? Did this work change _your_ mind or erase _your_ doubts…or did it just reconfirm beliefs your already had? If you didn’t _already_ believe in the god you believe in, and subscribe to the religious beliefs in the nature of man and the universe that you do, do you honestly think this work would convert you? I actually was something of an agnostic, but this book changed my mind. It really did. I just kept thinking, “There’s no way the universe just popped into existence. It doesn’t happen that way.” Reading the Summa basically confirmed what I had already figured out for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/60 "2016-02-14T21:17:50Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > I actually was something of an agnostic, but this book changed my mind. It really did. I just kept thinking, “There’s no way the universe just popped into existence. It doesn’t happen that way.” Reading the Summa basically confirmed what I had already figured out for the most part. I’m sorry, but if this book confirmed what you already believed you weren’t much of an agnostic, in my opinion. edited to add: And you had never come across any of the other ways scientists had speculated the universe had come into existence that didn’t involve just “popping into existence” before reading this book? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=4)