# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/61 "2016-02-14T21:21:16Z")
> [@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. How many books on, ya know, physics did you read before the _Summa_ basically confirmed what you had already figured out about the origins of the Universe? CMC fnord! ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/62 "2016-02-14T21:22:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m sorry, but if this book confirmed what you already believed you weren’t much of an agnostic, in my opinion. I figured there had to be something to create the Universe, I just couldn’t figure out what until my Philosophy professor recommended Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. He said that the book would answer my questions. It did. It didn’t confirm any of my pre-existing beliefs. It just answered questions that were bugging me. (I probably should have worded my last post better) ---
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/63 "2016-02-14T21:25:02Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > How many books on, ya know, physics did you read before the _Summa_ basically confirmed what you had already figured out about the origins of the Universe? > > CMC fnord! Well, Sir Isaac Newton’s works are actually required reading in my Physics class. Newton was a devout believer in God: > **[Religious views of Isaac Newton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton)** > > Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his Protestant contemporaries. He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies, and he wrote religious tracts that dealt with the literal interpretation of the Bible. > He kept his heretical beliefs private. > Newton's conception of the physical world provided a model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic G... ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/64 "2016-02-14T21:32:44Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > I figured there had to be something to create the Universe, I just couldn’t figure out what until my Philosophy professor recommended Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. He said that the book would answer my questions. It did. It didn’t confirm any of my pre-existing beliefs. It just answered questions that were bugging me. (I probably should have worded my last post better) Your _Philosophy_ professor recommended an ancient _religious_ text that he said would answer your _science_ questions about the beginning of the universe? ---
**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 14, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/65 "2016-02-14T21:36:22Z")
> [@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. You figured there was no way the universe just popped into existence, because it just doesn’t happen that way – and instead settled on _“well, there’s an entity that just exists; it just happens that way, y’know?”_ Actually, let me get a touch of clarification: do you believe that a god (but not the universe) just popped into existence? Or do you believe that a god (but not the universe) has always existed? ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/66 "2016-02-14T21:43:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You figured there was no way the universe just popped into existence, because it just doesn’t happen that way – and instead settled on _“well, there’s an entity that just exists; it just happens that way, y’know?”_ > > Actually, let me get a touch of clarification: do you believe that a god (but not the universe) just popped into existence? Or do you believe that a god (but not the universe) has always existed? God has always been. The universe (and, by extension, the hot dense mass that was the universe prior to the Big Bang) could not just pop into existence. It doesn’t work that way. That hot, dense mass had to come form somewhere. It had to have a cause, yeah? ---
**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 14, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/67 "2016-02-14T21:45:11Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > God has always been. The universe (and, by extension, the hot dense mass that was the universe prior to the Big Bang) could not just pop into existence. It doesn’t work that way. Why couldn’t _it_ have always been? You grant that one entity – which of course didn’t just pop into existence – has always been; why not figure the universe has always been? Why not figure ten or twenty entities have always been? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/68 "2016-02-14T21:48:40Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > {…} The universe (and, by extension, the hot dense mass that was the universe prior to the Big Bang) could not just pop into existence. It doesn’t work that way. {…} How do you know it doesn’t work that way? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/69 "2016-02-14T22:15:23Z")
What’s next, OP? Do you see yourself converting to Catholicism, now that Aquinas has convinced you? Or do you think you’ll settle for some kind of personal theism, without signing up for any one specific religion? ---
**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, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/70 "2016-02-14T22:38:18Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > What’s next, OP? > > Do you see yourself converting to Catholicism, now that Aquinas has convinced you? > > Or do you think you’ll settle for some kind of personal theism, without signing up for any one specific religion? The latter, actually. Already done that. Frankly, the way organized religion is going, especially with these televangelist morons, I find it disgusting that these guys claim to be buying jet airplanes in the name of God. It’s nauseating. They are the problem, not religion itself. Once religion has truly eliminated the corrupt from their ranks, I’ll take them up on the offer of joining. Until then, I’ll surf on the beaches of Big Island. It’ll bring me a lot closer to God than those yokels. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/71 "2016-02-14T22:41:32Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > God has always been. The universe (and, by extension, the hot dense mass that was the universe prior to the Big Bang) could not just pop into existence. It doesn’t work that way. That hot, dense mass had to come form somewhere. It had to have a cause, yeah? Why? Why is the universe obligated to obey your dictates? ---
**Author:** ![Subterraneanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Subterraneanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterraneanus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/72 "2016-02-14T22:42:49Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I wonder whether – if we can invoke a cause outside of the chain to accommodate the concept of an uncaused cause or an unmoved mover – we can invoke a cause outside of the chain to accommodate the concept of nine uncaused causes, or ten unmoved movers. If we can so accommodate _one,_ can we thusly accommodate _sixty?_ You first have to establish that you can invoke such a thing even once. Why jump to a plurality of problematic concepts when you can’t even make sense of one? And please use _thus_, not _thusly_. C+ ---
**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 14, 2016, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/73 "2016-02-14T23:19:41Z")
> [@Subterraneanus](#): > > You first have to establish that you can invoke such a thing even once. Why jump to a plurality of problematic concepts when you can’t even make sense of one? I have no interest in establishing that it can be invoked even once. I merely note that, (a) if someone _else_ feels like establishing that it can be invoked once, I see no reason why it can’t be invoked multiple times; and (b) if no one else feels like establishing it, I see no reason to bother invoking it multiple times. I’m happy with either. > [@](#): > > And please use _thus_, not _thusly_. The dictionary lists one as a perfectly acceptable synonym of the other. It set up the thusly/sixty rhythm. Seems cromulent. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/74 "2016-02-14T23:23:41Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Why? Why is the universe obligated to obey your dictates? Because I am the Supreme Lord and Master of all Reality! The laws of the Universe are my creation! You puny humans cannot comprehend the power that I possess! (Please note the sarcasm.) 😃 😃 😃 😃 ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/75 "2016-02-15T05:36:14Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > God has always been. The hell he has. > [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > The universe (and, by extension, the hot dense mass that was the universe prior to the Big Bang) could not just pop into existence. The hell it couldn’t. > [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > It doesn’t work that way. The hell it doesn’t. > [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > That hot, dense mass had to come form somewhere. It had to have a cause, yeah? The hell it had to. Every one of your “arguments” is based on totally unwarranted, unsupported assumptions. Why couldn’t your god just “pop into existence”? No answer. Why couldn’t the universe always have existed? No answer. If your god doesn’t have a cause, why does the universe need one? No answer. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/76 "2016-02-15T05:40:56Z")
> [@Charlie\_Thomas](#): > > Because I am the Supreme Lord and Master of all Reality! The laws of the Universe are my creation! You puny humans cannot comprehend the power that I possess! (Please note the sarcasm.) 😃 😃 😃 😃 > [@panache45](#): > > Every one of your “arguments” is based on totally unwarranted, unsupported assumptions. Why couldn’t your god just “pop into existence”? No answer. Why couldn’t the universe always have existed? No answer. If your god doesn’t have a cause, why does the universe need one? No answer. [post shortened] Well, it has to be noted that he ignored the power the mods have over puny posters like him :), he got banned, so no answer indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/77 "2016-02-15T06:05:36Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > . . . Every one of your “arguments” is based on totally unwarranted, unsupported assumptions. Why couldn’t your god just “pop into existence”? No answer. Why couldn’t the universe always have existed? No answer. If your god doesn’t have a cause, why does the universe need one? No answer. Some of us are old enough to remember when a “Steady State” universe was still a possible model. Such a universe didn’t actually have to have a “beginning.” The “uncaused cause” argument is solely based on a human preference for a certain kind of order. In nature, most everything we see comes from some previous cause. But to extend that, either to infinity or to a miracle, is a personal preference, not a deduced law or observed fact. Religion can either partake of mysticism and miracles and mystery, or it can accept logic and observation. It suffers terribly when it tries to do both at once. ---
**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 15, 2016, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/78 "2016-02-15T08:02:06Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > 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. Excellent post, **leahcim**. The logic is _so_ faulty (with, as you say, a flaw in every step), the interesting question is why anyone ever found it convincing. The obvious first answer is because they _wanted_ to believe. But I think on top of that it must represent a logical blind spot humans have. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/79 "2016-02-15T08:27:46Z")
There is a minimal kind of validity in arguing that, since every observed event has a cause, and that event has a cause, and so on, as far back as we can see, therefor, if there is a “first cause” it must be extraordinary in some way. We know a great deal about how evolution works; we can see animals giving rise to other animals, and species splitting off into other species. But we aren’t quite sure about the origin of life. Clearly, that origin is different from evolution as we know it. Something extraordinary happened. The “chain of events” has a major kink in it. It’s folly to conclude that such events must be miraculous, but it’s valid enough to conclude that they must be fundamentally different from what we observe today. The Big Bang fills that bill very well indeed, and, in time, when we figure out how life originated, that will also probably be seen as remarkable and profound. ---
**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 15, 2016, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/80 "2016-02-15T08:34:49Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There is a minimal kind of validity in arguing that, since every observed event has a cause, and that event has a cause, and so on, as far back as we can see, therefor, if there is a “first cause” it must be extraordinary in some way. Well it must be extraordinary in one way: not having a past cause. Beyond that, we have no grounds to assume anything. (and this is of course assuming a (singular) first cause) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=5)