# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/122 "2016-02-23T01:57:52Z")
As my 200 pesos… It is a fallacy in my view that “faith”, (or more accurately _subjective belief_ as to not inflame atheists), to assume that “proof” be, not simply the Gold Standard but the **only** standard to hold a position. It’s a fools errand as it relates to the question, “Does God exist?” To shut up a detractor, whether a theist or atheist, a simple, “It’s common sense! God does/does not exist” suffices. On one end of that spectrum is “blind faith” (whether theist or atheist); a belief that a person come to with little scrutiny to the evidence. On the other end one can use tremendous “logical scrutiny” to come down on either side of the question. (and both camps have both screeching cretins as well as some thoughtful, well researched positions) But no matter what side a person comes down on, it is a \*\*\*subjective conclusion \*\*\*based on (some, or none) consideration of the evidence. It’s a _belief._ There’s nothing wrong with believing something. (that doesn’t mean there is certainly [potentially] no consequence, for if God exists he may have something to say about it) The evidence—and it’s truths----will not take you to “proof”. It will take you only so far, and to reach which is certainly a _ **subjective belief** _ (i.e. whether God exists) you must trust in something/someone. When you become “devout” (for a lack of a better term) _ **subjectivity** _ looks just like _ **objectivity** _. You reach “moral certainty.” But whether a theist or atheist, anyone claiming “proof” is either ignorant or is very devout; in other words they believe (and let’s be clear they\*\*\* subjectively believe)\*\*\* and found moral cerainty. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/123 "2016-02-23T02:18:28Z")
And so when I see comments like **leahcim** ’s I chuckle to myself because one can _ **easily** _ come to the conclusion that God exists (or doesn’t exist) via “logical scrutiny.” To suggest otherwise is an indication of ignorance-----or more likely the conclusion that the counter position is so non-compelling that it wouldn’t stand up to “logical scrutiny” and that he’s inadvertently witnessing to us in an oblique way. He’s telegraphing his views. His/her _ **subjective belief.** _ In that respect, both the devout theist and atheist have come to _trust some source_; whether that source be themselves, a web or real community, the bible or person. Something. Either way, it’s subjective. It’s a belief. ---
**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 23, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/124 "2016-02-23T02:59:38Z")
And as an atheist, I will continue to point out that that it is indeed easy to fight the strawman of “Atheists say you can’t prove the existence God!” It makes it seem that both sides are equally stubborn…but it is _not_ the question that we continually ask of those who put forth the existence of a particular deity. We usually start with “Where is the _evidence_…”, but what usually happens is that there are loud protests about atheists once more demanding that God be proven to exist, and the actual question asked is once more brushed aside. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/125 "2016-02-23T03:15:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And as an atheist, I will continue to point out that that it is indeed easy to fight the strawman of “Atheists say you can’t prove the existence God!” It makes it seem that both sides are equally stubborn…but it is _not_ the question that we continually ask of those who put forth the existence of a particular deity. We usually start with “Where is the _evidence_…”, but what usually happens is that there are loud protests about atheists once more demanding that God be proven to exist, and the actual question asked is once more brushed aside. I would agree that both sides have an element that is exceptionally stubborn. It’s been my experience that both ignorance and brilliance are equally distributed through society. I think you’d probably agree with that. At my time SDMB I’ve run into zillions of both atheists and theists have come to their _beliefs_ through caprice. It’s a sad commentary on Christianity that atheists generally know the bible [somewhat, but not by a wide margin] better than Christians. I’m hardly a genius but I’ve taken the lunch money of more than a few atheists here who display mis-placed verve. I would submit that one can thoughtfully come up to either position from the evidence. It’s a matter how one interprets the evidence and subsequently places faith in \*something. \*(and often hardens a position) ---
**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 23, 2016, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/126 "2016-02-23T03:31:44Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I would agree that both sides have an element that is exceptionally stubborn. Who the hell are you agreeing with?? I just said that you made a false equivalence with your claim that both sides are asking the equally unanswerable questions. ---
**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 23, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/127 "2016-02-23T03:38:24Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I would submit that one can thoughtfully come up to either position from the evidence. It’s a matter how one interprets the evidence and subsequently places faith in \*something. \*(and often hardens a position) You can submit whatever you want, because atheists are under no obligation to come up with _any_ evidence, since they are not the ones making the initial positive statement that a supernatural entity exists. those that make the claims are the only ones that should provide evidence. ---
**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 23, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/128 "2016-02-23T03:54:22Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > And so when I see comments like **leahcim** ’s I chuckle to myself because one can _ **easily** _ come to the conclusion that God exists (or doesn’t exist) via “logical scrutiny.” You have encountered a good argument for the existence of god? Well, shoot…I’m willing to listen. > [@](#): > > To suggest otherwise is an indication of ignorance-----or more likely the conclusion that the counter position is so non-compelling that it wouldn’t stand up to “logical scrutiny” and that he’s inadvertently witnessing to us in an oblique way. He’s telegraphing his views. His/her _ **subjective belief.** _ So if you come to a conclusion about something, that means you must be biased? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/129 "2016-02-23T03:55:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You can submit whatever you want, because atheists are under no obligation to come up with _any_ evidence, since they are not the ones making the initial positive statement that a supernatural entity exists. those that make the claims are the only ones that should provide evidence. \*\* Absolutely 100% not true\*\* and either evidence of your ignorance (and I don’t mean that pejoratively) or your faith. Only a dead center agnostic has no need to “prove a negative.” All too often a theist makes the affirmative, positive statement “There is a God” and hears in response, “There is no god.” They’re qualitatively the same statement and two sides of the same coin. They’re both positive, affirmative statements that share the exact burden. If “proof” is the _ **only** _ standard to answer the question, (as opposed to examining the evidence as “witnessing” to each other) dead center agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position. The only one. It’s disingenuous or ignorant (the blissful ignorance that comes from being devout) to assail the theist for not having proof, and hiding behind the silly argument “no proof needed” when the same statement is posed to the atheist. Don’t want to have to offer proof, and no longer look silly and impotent? Embrace agnosticism. No proof needed. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/130 "2016-02-23T04:08:04Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You have encountered a good argument for the existence of god? Well, shoot…I’m willing to listen. Actually, I don’t find it edifying at all to come here and bash my head against the wall witnessing to anyone. (and be witnessed to) In fact, when I wade into these discussions it never matters whether I’m a theist or not. My position never requires a belief in God. I’ve posted an atheist many times. To the extent I have an interest at all, it’s in the subjectivity/objectivity dichotomy. It doesn’t require a belief in God. > [@](#): > > So if you come to a conclusion about something, that means you must be biased? I don’t really understand the practical application of the word “bias” in this context. I’m not a dead center agnostic and so I do have a _ **subjective belief.** _ Unlike **Czarcasm** I [privately] embrace my faith, rather than run from it. In any event _I can identify it._ (In other words, I identify the subjective nature of my beliefs) ---
**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 23, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/131 "2016-02-23T05:59:47Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Actually, I don’t find it edifying at all to come here and bash my head against the wall witnessing to anyone. (and be witnessed to) Well you just made the claim that it’s easy to come to the conclusion that God exists (or doesn’t exist) via “logical scrutiny.” Either you can support your point or you cannot. > [@](#): > > I don’t really understand the practical application of the word “bias” in this context. I’m not a dead center agnostic and so I do have a _ **subjective belief.** _ My mention of bias was just paraphrasing you; you said that if someone rejects the god hypothesis it must be based on subjective belief. I disagree. Just like I can reject the claim that my friend can jump to the moon, I can reject the god hypothesis without any preexisting bias. > [@](#): > > Unlike **Czarcasm** I [privately] embrace my faith, rather than run from it. In any event _I can identify it._ (In other words, I identify the subjective nature of my beliefs) Well I don’t have “faith” in the traditional sense either. I assume the non-existence of anything until I have a concrete reason to suppose otherwise. Now, ultimately, that principle and others are supported by deductive and inductive logic, and so some will use the argument “Well, what gives you faith in logic (given that you can’t prove the utility of such tools without using said tools)”? But logic is something that we’ve always used and has always been useful…all we’ve done is formalize it. It’s not that religious people don’t use logic, they just don’t want to apply it to one specific area of their life because they just don’t want to debunk their faith. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/132 "2016-02-23T06:23:10Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well you just made the claim that it’s easy to come to the conclusion that God exists (or doesn’t exist) via “logical scrutiny.” > Either you can support your point or you cannot. Whether I _can_ or _cannot_ is immaterial. I choose not to. I have no interest. > [@](#): > > My mention of bias was just paraphrasing you; you said that if someone rejects the god hypothesis it must be based on subjective belief. > I disagree. Just like I can reject the claim that my friend can jump to the moon, I can reject the god hypothesis without any preexisting bias. Did you miss the edit window or did you not realize how bad this statement is? I can objectively prove that your friend cannot jump to the moon. To equate the two are qualitatively _even similar_ is either ignorant or your faith has reached a point you’ve reached moral certainty. You need to work on your analogies. > [@](#): > > Well I don’t have “faith” in the traditional sense either. I assume the non-existence of anything until I have a concrete reason to suppose otherwise. Assuming is quite different than affirmatively stating “God doesn’t exist.” Assuming places no burden on you. Stay with assuming. It doesn’t require you to own up to your faith. > [@](#): > > Now, ultimately, that principle and others are supported by deductive and inductive logic, and so some will use the argument “Well, what gives you faith in logic (given that you can’t prove the utility of such tools without using said tools)”? Other than not making sense, there’s utility in any tool that works for you in some way. But inductive and deductive logic are subjective. They’re not proof. They’re subjective by nature. > [@](#): > > But logic is something that we’ve always used and has always been useful…all we’ve done is formalize it. It’s not that religious people don’t use logic, they just don’t want to apply it to one specific area of their life because they just don’t want to debunk their faith. What is “formalizing logic”? :dubious::dubious::dubious: You know you’re semi witnessing to me, right? ---
**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 23, 2016, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/133 "2016-02-23T07:48:24Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Did you miss the edit window or did you not realize how bad this statement is? I can objectively prove that your friend cannot jump to the moon. To equate the two are qualitatively _even similar_ is either ignorant or your faith has reached a point you’ve reached moral certainty. You need to work on your analogies. Well talking of bad statements, you’ve left an open goal here. Because I’ve been told that Mijin’s friend jumps to the moon when it is in its dark phase, wearing a suit that makes him invisible to all forms of light, and that no-one is allowed to be there when he does it and nor is able to either leave stuff there or being stuff back. So…how exactly are you able to objectively prove that he can’t do it? > [@](#): > > Assuming is quite different than affirmatively stating “God doesn’t exist.” Assuming places no burden on you. Stay with assuming. It doesn’t require you to own up to your faith. I wouldn’t assume that just because some says “there is no god” that they actually consider they are making a claim. It is often just a clumsy, snap response to the theistic assertion that there definitely is. Next time, press an atheist on this and you’ll likely find that they are not claiming non-existence but are merely pushing back against the assumption that god exists. I’m an atheist, I make no claim that god or gods don’t exist. I see no need for them, they solve no problems and answer no questions. I don’t\* have\* a belief which is a world away from claiming a non-existence. Those making the claim have the burden of providing the evidence and that evidence has to credible and rise above the level of mere word play and hearsay. There should really be no need for me to even respond to these threads at all if Aquinas and his ilk were happy to read their holy books, construct their tortured, circular philosophical “reasoning” and then come to the conclusion that they believe it to be so but have no proof in the material world. Fine, absolutely fine. I will not expect nor demand such proof. They may just as easily read Tolkien and Shakespeare and derive moral precepts from the history of the elves or Romeo and Juliet, that would all have equal worth and validity in my eyes. However, the moment that they ground a claim in the natural order of the world or seek to claim moral authority over others, then sorry, I’m going to be harsh and suggest they have to bring forward evidence. ---
**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 23, 2016, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/134 "2016-02-23T08:54:43Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Whether I _can_ or _cannot_ is immaterial. I choose not to. I have no interest. Yes, you want to throw out propositions (indeed, matter-of-factly) without defending them. > [@](#): > > Did you miss the edit window or did you not realize how bad this statement is? I can objectively prove that your friend cannot jump to the moon. > To equate the two are qualitatively _even similar_ is either ignorant or your faith has reached a point you’ve reached moral certainty. You need to work on your analogies. No, you’ve simply missed my point. The point is, until my friend jumps (or until you give some reason to support your propositions…) I have no reason to believe his claim. Likewise with religion and other myths. > [@](#): > > Assuming is quite different than affirmatively stating “God doesn’t exist.” Assuming places no burden on you. Stay with assuming. It doesn’t require you to own up to your faith. I feel the same way about god as I do about vampires (and the same way I would guess _you_ feel about vampires). I don’t rule out the existence of either. But I also don’t bother to keep garlic with me “just in case”. > [@](#): > > Other than not making sense, there’s utility in any tool that works for you in some way. But inductive and deductive logic are subjective. They’re not proof. They’re subjective by nature. Again, you didn’t really follow my point there. But since I was just trying to head off an argument I thought you were about to use, never mind, let’s put that to one side. ---
**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 23, 2016, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/135 "2016-02-23T12:46:09Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Unlike **Czarcasm** I [privately] embrace my faith, rather than run from it. In any event _I can identify it._ (In other words, I identify the subjective nature of my beliefs) What “faith” am I supposed to be embracing? It doesn’t take faith to ask for evidence when someone makes a claim that god(s) exist, and it certainly doesn’t take faith to put aside any belief in said god(s) until such evidence is forthcoming. Now, let’s see if you can respond just this once without using the word “proof”. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/136 "2016-02-23T19:04:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What “faith” am I supposed to be embracing? It doesn’t take faith to ask for evidence when someone makes a claim that god(s) exist, and it certainly doesn’t take faith to put aside any belief in said god(s) until such evidence is forthcoming. Now, let’s see if you can respond just this once without using the word “proof”. Ok, challenge accepted. “Faith” is an incendiary word for those afflicted with the rabies that devout atheism produces, but it really means you’re putting your trust in _something_, or _someone_; even if that trust is _yourself_. When it comes to something you can’t prove, (damnit!) you’re left with a _subjective belief._ You can’t claim to be an atheist and make the affirmative statement “God doesn’t exist” (an affirmative statement that is the qualitatively the same as “God exists”, and shares the same burden) and hide behind agnosticism when it suits you. I didn’t like “who’s on first?” the first time I saw it, you know? ---
**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 23, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/137 "2016-02-23T19:20:08Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > You can’t claim to be an atheist and make the affirmative statement “God doesn’t exist” (an affirmative statement that is the qualitatively the same as “God exists”, and shares the same burden) An atheist can, though, quite easily say he lacks a belief in God; and, being an atheist, he can of course add that he lacks a belief in _any_ gods, having seen no evidence for them; and he can, if he so pleases, add that he’s not often in the business of proving negatives. I lack a belief in the existence of leprechauns; do you figure that makes me like unto an atheist, or like unto an agnostic? ---
**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 23, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/138 "2016-02-23T19:21:06Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Ok, challenge accepted. > > “Faith” is an incendiary word for those afflicted with the rabies that devout atheism produces, but it really means you’re putting your trust in _something_, or _someone_; even if that trust is _yourself_. > > When it comes to something you can’t prove, (damnit!) you’re left with a _subjective belief._ > > You can’t claim to be an atheist and make the affirmative statement “God doesn’t exist” (an affirmative statement that is the qualitatively the same as “God exists”, and shares the same burden) and hide behind agnosticism when it suits you. > > I didn’t like “who’s on first?” the first time I saw it, you know? Why don’t you let atheists make their own statements instead of putting words in their mouths? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/139 "2016-02-23T19:24:09Z")
Theist = Believes in a diety. A-theist = Not a theist = Doesn’t believe in a diety. An atheist may claim ‘God doesn’t exist’, but you don’t have to claim that to be an atheist (clearly this is true, because so many self-identified atheists don’t assert that.) Even many that claim “God doesn’t exist” typically mean it in the same sense that they might colloquially claim that there aren’t leprechauns or fairies, not that they believe there is actual proof such things don’t exist, just that there isn’t evidence that they do exist. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/140 "2016-02-23T19:27:04Z")
I also think Russell’s teapot isn’t there, but I can’t prove it. ---
**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 23, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954/141 "2016-02-23T19:30:42Z")
I’ll start thinking about the possibility of gods when someone gives solid evidence to do so. Meanwhile, there are many things out there with actual evidence behind them to be considered, and I only have so much time. This has nothing to do with an atheist faith, or atheist belief system, or any other nonsense you want to make up to create some sort of false equivalence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thomas-aquinas-logical-flaws/745954.md?page=8)