# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/82 "2016-02-15T13:33:49Z")
See Lawrence Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing. I’m going to butcher this, but if we posit that particles and anti-particles can come into existence that balance one another (as supported by experimental evidence) without ‘cause’ then the whole argument falls apart. Everything in the universe is balanced, but we can exist in that bubble of reality. Now beyond a logical argument that God simply must exist because Aquinas can’t conceive of a situation (such as Krauss’ hypothesis) where he didn’t, is there any real evidence that he does exist? What does the “God theory” predict? How can we test it to confirm/refute it? ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/83 "2016-02-15T18:57:22Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. In a way it does and it doesn’t. Even through evolution doesn’t strictly include abiogenesis, the fact that it allows life to “start simple” makes abiogenesis seem like a lot less of a gap in our knowledge than if we had to have sheep ex nihilo. It certainly transforms the problem form, “gotta be a god” to “I could imagine some sensible natural ways it could have happened”. ---
**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 15, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/84 "2016-02-15T19:35:19Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > Which is like saying, “for every integer there is an integer that is one smaller, therefore there must be a smallest integer”. This reminds me of the method of [infinite descent](http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsInfiniteDescent.shtml), which is a perfectly legitimate way of proving facts about the _positive_ integers; but it works because we do know there is a smallest _positive_ integer. (Which is probably irrelevant to a discussion of Thomas Aquinas, but oh well…) > [@](#): > > 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] I must have missed the part about the penises. In fact, I must have missed the part where he says “everything has a cause.” Assuming you’re talking about his proofs for the existence of God, and specifically the second (the First Cause proof), I still don’t see him saying, as such, “everything has a cause.” What he does say sounds similar, but it doesn’t leave itself open to the charge of “explicit contradiction” you make. And overall I think the proof works better than you think it does, though I agree it’s far from airtight. As for your #4, well, this is an existence proof, not a uniqueness proof. That’s not one of the steps of this particular argument. (He addresses the uniqueness of God, and other attributes, elsewhere.) > [@](#): > > 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. Yeah, pretty much. If his sole purpose in writing these arguments had been to give airtight logical proof that would force belief, and he thought they achieved this goal, he wouldn’t have had any reason to give more than one “proof,” whereas he actually gives five. QED. On the other hand, any mathematician can appreciate the desire to come up with a proof—or, better yet, several alternative proofs—of something that one already believes to be true. ---
**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 15, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/85 "2016-02-15T20:01:35Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > On the other hand, any mathematician can appreciate the desire to come up with a proof—or, better yet, several alternative proofs—of something that one already believes to be true. Yes, but in mathematics, five “almost-proofs” do not add up to one “real-proof”. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/86 "2016-02-15T21:51:56Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > . . . What does the “God theory” predict? How can we test it to confirm/refute it? If God is a “person” with emotions similar to ours, you’d expect him to converse with us. Openly and often. Not to inspire the random prophet, but to talk to anyone who’s interested. In fact, there are Christian denominations that claim this happens, and that their members do have personal intimate relationships with God. This claim is nearly always weakened, because God never actually tells them anything they didn’t already know. If there were a God, and he talked to us, God-conversing people would win a lot of lotteries. This has forced the God hypothesis to be severely modified, to describe an absentia God, one who is remote from humanity (except for occasional south Texas high school football touchdowns.) ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/87 "2016-02-17T15:57:04Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > As for your #4, well, this is an existence proof, not a uniqueness proof. That’s not one of the steps of this particular argument. (He addresses the uniqueness of God, and other attributes, elsewhere.) But if it’s not a uniqueness proof, is it even an existence proof? If it’s not a uniqueness proof, then he’s basically saying _there must be at least one uncaused cause; maybe there are hundreds of those uncaused causes, I don’t know; maybe some effects were caused by God, and other effects by another uncaused cause, and yet other effects came from a hundred other uncaused causes._ If he can’t say, of any given effect, whether it traces back to (a) God or (b) any one of who-knows-how-many other uncaused causes, then does that prove God exists? For the sake of argument, assume movement implies an unmoved mover – but not a _unique_ unmoved mover; there may be dozens of unmoved movers. I don’t see how he gets from _“maybe this movement can be traced back to one unmoved mover, while another movement can be traced to another unmoved mover, and a third and fourth movement traced to a third and fourth unmoved mover; I can’t disprove any of that”_ to _“and one of those is God, even if the others aren’t.”_ If, as you say, it’s not a uniqueness proof, then it looks like a step is missing. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/88 "2016-02-17T20:48:06Z")
One bit of refutation that I may have missed as I skimmed this thread. The majority of people get hung up on the big bang/moment of creation. As if to say "Something must have caused it, therefore that something was god/gods/whatever. The reality is that we have no idea what predates the big bang, we don’t even know if it makes sense to say something predates the big bang because we have no effing clue what might or might not have taken place prior to the event that was also the starting point of our universes clock. So yeah sure everything has a cause, (maybe) and yeah sure the big bang was the start of the universe we live in, THIS does not lead us to a single conclusion about what that cause may or may not have been. There isn’t a single shred of evidence for anything beyond that boundary. It is 100% speculative masturbation to even have the conversation. The Puddle argument really does sum this up nicely. [Under 2 minutes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs) You are guilty of leading the evidence where you want it to go. ---
**Author:** ![Subterraneanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Subterraneanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterraneanus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2016, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/89 "2016-02-18T22:19:36Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. > > The dictionary lists one as a perfectly acceptable synonym of the other. It set up the thusly/sixty rhythm. Seems cromulent. Oy. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2016, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/90 "2016-02-18T22:44:31Z")
One might argue that there is a distinction between temporal and eternal entities, and that temporal entities require some cause which precedes them, but that eternal entities do not require a cause which precedes them, and for whom in fact the very notion of “precede” might not be applicable. In that case, one might argue that God, as an eternal entity, can validly exist without some other cause, but that the Universe, a temporal entity, cannot so exist. Mind you, I don’t know if Aquinas actually does so argue. The distinction between the eternal and the temporal was really more Augustine’s territory. Though one would have expected that Aquinas would have been well-read in Augustine. ---
**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 18, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/91 "2016-02-18T22:50:29Z")
Yes, and one may argue that unless there are other examples of “eternal entities” to bring up, then “eternal entity” is just another way of saying “God”. ---
**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 18, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/92 "2016-02-18T22:58:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > One might argue that there is a distinction between temporal and eternal entities, and that temporal entities require some cause which precedes them, but that eternal entities do not require a cause which precedes them, and for whom in fact the very notion of “precede” might not be applicable. In that case, one might argue that God, as an eternal entity, can validly exist without some other cause, but that the Universe, a temporal entity, cannot so exist. I don’t follow you; how can we prove that temporal entities do not require a cause which precedes them, and how can we prove the universe isn’t an eternal entity? (I mean, yeah, one can _argue_ it; one can say it, claim it, whatever. But _prove?_) ---
**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 18, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/93 "2016-02-18T23:20:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > One might argue that there is a distinction between temporal and eternal entities, and that temporal entities require some cause which precedes them, but that eternal entities do not require a cause which precedes them, and for whom in fact the very notion of “precede” might not be applicable. In that case, one might argue that God, as an eternal entity, can validly exist without some other cause, but that the Universe, a temporal entity, cannot so exist. > > Mind you, I don’t know if Aquinas actually does so argue. The distinction between the eternal and the temporal was really more Augustine’s territory. Though one would have expected that Aquinas would have been well-read in Augustine. One might argue that. One would be asserting nonsense, of course. ---
**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 18, 2016, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/94 "2016-02-18T23:43:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > One might argue that there is a distinction between temporal and eternal entities, and that temporal entities require some cause which precedes them, but that eternal entities do not require a cause which precedes them, and for whom in fact the very notion of “precede” might not be applicable. In that case, one might argue that God, as an eternal entity, can validly exist without some other cause, but that the Universe, a temporal entity, cannot so exist. > > Mind you, I don’t know if Aquinas actually does so argue. The distinction between the eternal and the temporal was really more Augustine’s territory. Though one would have expected that Aquinas would have been well-read in Augustine. That helps the argument not one jot though. You are still offering up a very complicated “something coming from nothing” as a solution to the supposed problem of a universe coming from nothing. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/95 "2016-02-19T00:03:55Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You are still offering up a very complicated “something coming from nothing” as a solution to the supposed problem of a universe coming from nothing. I’ve never seen a ‘nothing’ from which a universe was not created. Is there any example of such a thing, or any evidence that such a thing could even exist? ---
**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, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/96 "2016-02-19T03:01:46Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > I’ve never seen a ‘nothing’ from which a universe was not created. One of the most baffling statements I’ve encountered on the Dope. ---
**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 19, 2016, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/97 "2016-02-19T07:23:59Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > One of the most baffling statements I’ve encountered on the Dope. I’m pleased it wasn’t just me. I really have no idea what **SmartAlecCat** means. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2016, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/98 "2016-02-19T08:29:42Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > I’ve never seen a ‘nothing’ from which a universe was not created. Is there any example of such a thing, or any evidence that such a thing could even exist? > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m pleased it wasn’t just me. I really have no idea what **SmartAlecCat** means. I read it as a smart ass response to “a universe can’t be created from nothing” as a claim. Do you know of any nothings that haven’t spawned a universe? No? Then how can you claim universes can’t be created from nothings? ---
**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, 2016, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/99 "2016-02-19T08:42:26Z")
> [@naita](#): > > I read it as a smart ass response to “a universe can’t be created from nothing” as a claim. Do you know of any nothings that haven’t spawned a universe? No? Then how can you claim universes can’t be created from nothings? Yeah but it’s a statement containing two negations and a concept that itself is usually taken to mean not-anything. Trying my best to parse it into a concrete point, I’d respond that I’ve never _seen_ a nothing, but arguably there are infinite not-a-things within any arbitrary space. So yeah, a “nothing” doesn’t necessarily become a universe. But even if I supported the notion that there are no “nothings” in our current universe…unless we already knew / believed our universe came from nothing it would prove…well, nothing. It would be equivalent to saying “I believe a leprechaun created the universe, because have you ever seen a leprechaun that _didn’t_ create a universe?” ---
**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 19, 2016, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/100 "2016-02-19T10:36:14Z")
> [@naita](#): > > I read it as a smart ass response to “a universe can’t be created from nothing” as a claim. Do you know of any nothings that haven’t spawned a universe? No? Then how can you claim universes can’t be created from nothings? But I wasn’t offering the opinion that “universes can’t be created from nothing” in the first place. I don’t know whether they can, but at least a universe from nothing is simpler, and _less_ of a leap than a _god_ from nothing who _then_ creates a universe. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2016, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/101 "2016-02-19T11:04:04Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > But I wasn’t offering the opinion that “universes can’t be created from nothing” in the first place. > > I don’t know whether they can, but at least a universe from nothing is simpler, and _less_ of a leap than a _god_ from nothing who _then_ creates a universe. I didn’t read it as a rebuttal or answer to your post, just an alternate argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=6)