Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theism and atheism compare and contrast
Atheism vs theism essay
Atheism vs theism essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theism and atheism compare and contrast
The Views of Aristotle’s Idea of the Prime Mover Vs. the Judaeo Christian's Idea of God
The traditional theist Judaeo Christian belief of God is in many ways
very similar to Aristotle’s ideas and explanations of the Prime Mover.
However, although very similar in many situations, the beliefs about
God and the Prime Mover can also be very different and varied. Yet,
both ideologies of theists God and Aristotle’s Prime Mover follow the
same foundations - they are both eternal and responsible for change in
the world.
In Aristotle’s view, the Prime Mover is the common source of all
substance; it is the cause or purpose of change, but it itself remains
unchanged. Aristotle’s argument was that, because everything physical
was subject to change, there must be an immaterial, immutable mover,
causing movement without being changed itself during the process. This
is the Prime Mover. In a similar was, Judaeo Christians believe that
God is invariable and eternal. These traditional theists think God is
the creator of the world, and creates ex-nihilo, but is unaffected by
these creations. He is purely a sustainer of the world and all things.
By stating this, Judaeo Christians are saying that it is logically
impossible for the creatures to be or become the creator - God. They
believe that God is transcendent, and is completely distinct from all
people and creatures in everyway.
Resembling this idea is Aristotle’s belief that the Prime Mover is
totally set apart from creatures or any substance with physical matter
subject to change. This is because, although the Prime Mover is the
purpose and cause of all processes of change; like God in theist
...
... middle of paper ...
...thing else for his existence.
Even though Aristotle’s and Judaeo Christian beliefs vary about the
necessity of the world, the idea that God is eternal is equal to
Aristotle’s teachings of the eternal Prime Mover. Because the Prime
Mover is eternal, like God, it must be very good as there can be no
defects in anything that exists eternally and necessarily. God is
eternal so he is said to be complete perfection. He is also said to be
omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This suggests that he is not
limited by space or time. Similarly, the Prime Mover is not limited by
space or time either, as it is immaterial and unaltered by things with
the potential to change. Like God’s total knowledge, the Prime Mover
knows itself, and therefore knows all things, as the Prime Mover is
The Final Cause, and nothing pre-existed it.
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
Logos plays a relatively minute role in this paper due to logos being about rational or logical appeal and because this essay is about Thomas’s religious beliefs and the belief in God is not based rational or logical facts, it is based on faith and faith does not fall under logos. Also logos is hard to have in this case because everyone has different religious beliefs causing a religious statement to be true fact for some and ghastly lie to other. This makes religion views seen as that of opinion which ...
from Motion, tries to prove the existence of God as the first mover which is unmoved.
Aristotle on Function and Virtue. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3 (3), p. 259-279. Nagel, T., (1972). Aristotle on Eudaimonia. Phronesis, Vol.
The. His existence is seen as simply another property of his being. Just like omnipotence and omnipresent are the properties of the. One example that has been used to explain this is a triangle. The sand is a triangle.
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
...e ultimate cause of everything? While its minor problems are resolved quite easily, Aristotle’s argument for the unmoved mover is predicated on a premise of unknown stability: philosophy. At the heart of the issue is the very nature of philosophy itself and its ability to tackle questions of any magnitude. If everything is knowable, and philosophy is the path to knowledge, then everything must be knowable through philosophy, yet the ad infinitum paradox Aristotle faces is one that shows that the weakest part of his argument is the fact it relies on the abovementioned characteristics of philosophy. If any one of those is wrong, his proof crumbles and the timeless God in which he believes goes along with it, but if they are all right, then there is one God, immovable and actuality, for as Aristotle says, “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler” (1076a).
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
Aristotle believes that before the concept of time there were three kinds of substances, two of them being physical and one being the unmovable. The three substances can be described as one being the “sensible eternal”, the second being the “sensible perishable” and the third substance being the immovable. To further this theory the sensible perishable can be seen as matter, the sensible eternal as potential, and the immovable can be seen as that which is Metaphysical and belongs to another science. According to Aristotle, the immovable is God. It is the immovable that sets the sensible perishable into motion and therefore turns the potential into the actual.
I find Aristotle’s arguments to lack the evidence necessary to actually persuade me into seeing the world through his lens. Aristotle, criticizes Plato for having no concrete evidence to back up his theories yet he has no concrete evidence that the material world is the source of knowledge. Isn’t it possible that things don’t exist for a reason, some things happen by chance? If the Prime Mover cannot interact with the world, then it is very different from the Judeao-Christian understanding of God that I have grown up being taught to understand. Therefore I am quite biased in the sense that my morals lean toward the Christian view more so than that of Aristotle, his ideas are second nature right now and therefore not as appealing to my mind. I would want Aristotle to believe that God has the ability to know that evil is
Metaphysics comes from the Greek terms μετά, or metá, meaning above beyond or after, and φυσικά, or physiká, meaning physics. So at its roots, Metaphysics is the study of everything that lies above physical reality, and of what relationship those things have with it. However, one question arose repeatedly with almost every major metaphysical thinker, which narrowed the scope of metaphysics' targets. In contemplating that which lies after the corporeal, metaphysical minds began to wonder why things existed at all. After all, if things did not have existence, then there would nothing to consider. So, being and existence, which were before just two metaphysical concepts, became the highest powers presiding over the rest of reality, and the first philosopher to completely delineate these concepts would become equally important. This is how the quest for the cause for being began.
Jesus was perfect he did not even yield to the temptations of his nature unlike the people around him. It says in John 14:30 that “but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. Jesus did not even yield to temptations in his actions.
Aquinas’ first proof says anything currently in motion was put in motion by another thing. This “mover,” as he calls it, cannot also be the “moved.” The mover transfers its own actuality of motion into the moved, which until then only has the potentiality of motion. Since nothing can have both actuality and potentiality at the same time, the mover and moved cannot be the same thing. Since the universe is motion, it could not have been something from the universe which put it into motion. Therefore, there is a God who first put the universe into motion.
Aristotle’s discussions on free will came from his theory of the prime mover. In his book Physics, Aristotle theorized that everything is always in a constant state of change, or movement. When a pen falls of a table, it is changed because it is in a different location than it was previously and also possibly scuffed up from falling to the floor. If something is moved, or changed in its composition, there has to be an ultimate higher power, or mover, responsible. This is what Aristotle called the Prime Mover, referring to God. Aristotle believed the Prime Mover to be unchanging and infinite. He exists because in order for something to be changed, there must also be a master, unchangeable thing. There needs to be a start to the chain of events that is caused by the primary, unmoved mover, or God. Therefore, God is necessary for ...