The Views of Aristotle’s Idea of the Prime Mover Vs. the Judaeo Christian's Idea of God

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a Philosopher used the logic of both Aristotle and Saint Augustine to establish his teachings. He taught that believing in God was not simply for the ignorant. He used both Greek Philosophy and Christian Doctrine in his teachings. He taught an abundant of things including that the goal of Theology is is use reason to grasp the truth about God and to experience salvation through that truth. In addition to that, he shaped the catholic understanding of mortal sin and venial sin.

In this essay, I will be arguing against Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument that every motion can only be traced back to the creator of all motions and ultimately, the universe. First I will present Aquinas’ Cosmological argument regarding motion which directly concludes that a higher being, who is not dependent on the motion of any other thing or being, must exist to have caused the existence of the universe. I will also present opponents of this argument such as David Hume who argues that a “First Mover” might not even be needed to exist but rather that an infinite regress could be the explanation of the universe and that no explanation for what initiated this infinite chain of motions is required. Finally, I will disclose my personal opinion on the issue of how all of existence began. My standpoint will be much more inclined toward Hume’s argument against Aquinas but I will be presenting a new idea with a lot of scientific backup that neither of them could have possibly taken into account at the time.

According to Aristotle, the virtues are an instrumental part of achieving eudaimonia (or happiness/human fulfillment), however, they must be practiced in moderation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also discusses virtues as being an instrumental component "in leading a morally good life" ("The Virtues") but differentiates itself from Aristotle because there is no limit to how virtuous a life a person of the church can live. The Catechism states that "The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God," ("The Virtues") and although that is an impossible task, it is encouraging people to reach for their full potential stating that no person can live too virtuously. Aristotle disagrees with this argument.

There is a close relationship between Christianity and Judaism both from a theological and historical perspective. The similarities between these two religious platforms emanates from the notion that Christianity arose and protested from Judaism. However, it is worth noting that Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism as some people perceive. Both Jesus and most of his disciples, who pioneered the earliest Christian churches, were Jews. Particularly, Jesus’ family practiced and followed Jewish beliefs, and He frequently referenced the Hebrew bible. On the contrary, the disciples believed that Jesus was the one and only Messiah, which is predicted in the Jewish Bible. While the creation narrative is still mysterious to many people, most individuals are still obsessed with the attempt to discover how everything came to existence. The primary purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the basic ideologies of Christianity and Judaism (Neusner, 76).

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

The traditional God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is known to be as an “Omni-God” possessing particular divine attributes such as omniscient, which means he knows everything he is also omnipotent, or all powerful. God has also been said to be also he is omnipresence which means he exists in all places and present everywhere, however there are many philosophical arguments on whether if any of that is actually true or if there is a God at all. This paper argues that it is not possible to know whether the traditional God exists or not. While there have been philosophers such as Aquinas, Anselm, Paley and Kierkegaard who are for god and present strong argument, likewise philosopher like Nietzsche and arguments like the problem of evil both make valid point on why God isn’t real.

By the time of the third century theologian, Origen, the concept of God as espoused by Greek philosophers’ prevailed in the then current Christian theology.

These questions rouse the idea of a divine and perfect punishment by the ultimate judge God, and implications of possible imperfections of God’s judgment. Also the way in which the question is answered poses another question, why is Aristotle, a human, and a Pre-Christian is thinker is used to explain God’s divine and perfect judgment?

Ancient philosopher Plato’s affiliation with religion is evident across multiple dialogues and referenced during his discussion of both metaphysical and ontological questions. Plato did not believe in one singular god, but many [2]. In his work Timaeus, he proposed that the universe

This question defines the nature of Aristotle’s inquiries, at least for a large part of the Metaphysics, and it thus offers a fourth account of the study or science of metaphysics.“The science of first principles, the study of being qua being, theology, the investigation into substance – four compatible descriptions of the same discipline? Perhaps there is no one discipline which can be identified as Aristotelian Metaphysics? And perhaps this thought should not disturb us: we need only recall that the metaphysics was composed by Andronicus rather than by Aristotle. But the four descriptions do have at least one thing in common: they are dark and obscure” (Ross, 1996, p174).

Medieval philosophers developed very precise notions of God and the attributes that he has, many of which are even now well-known among believers. For example, God is all-powerful all-knowing and all-good Other commonly discussed attributes of God are that he is eternal, that he is present everywhere and that he has foreknowledge of future events. While these traditional attributes of God offer a clear picture of the kind of being that he is, many of them present special conceptual problems, particularly when we try to make them compatible them with potentially conflicting facts about the world.

Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.

We continue our study of the history of God by looking at His attributes from a number of different viewpoints. We will first examine the view of Classical Theism, then the view of Freewill Theism, and finally that of Open Theism. We begin by defining Classical Theism, also called traditional theism or Augustinian theism.

If you were to ask Jesus Christ whether he has friends, he would most likely say of course I do, I am certainly friends with all of God’s children. However, after reading Aristotle, the question becomes, ‘If Jesus has friends, of which sort are they?’. Aristotle defines friendship as, “Any association of people who spend time and do things together, share in pains and pleasure, and wish for each other’s good,” (Nicomachean Ethics 1166a 1-10). Addressing each aspect of this definition, with the twelve disciples in mind, the reader concludes that they certainly spend time together, share in pains and pleasure, but the sticking point is whether they wish for each other’s good. The answer to that question determines if in fact Jesus has friends what sort they are.

Aristotle’s own term to describe the Aristotelian god as alive very well makes sense. In his sense, God is alive, and the entire world is alive through the oneness of God. The idea of being alive or not alive applies in everyday human life; however, this does not apply to God as God is not bounded and is beyond by these ideas. In the Metaphysics Book 7, Aristotle wrote “If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal,