Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
General Theistics 101 Guidelines
This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
God and Aristotle
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostDon't confuse Aristotelian final causality with an argument for intelligent design or efficient causality and movement. Intentionality or end-directed purposefulness (not mere movement), yes, but there is no implication of a designer necessarily involved in creation in Aristotle or Thomas' philosophical appropriation of Aristotelian language.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostExample: In the fifth way the presumption is an Intelligent Designer is presumed necessary for and unintelligent physical existence to move.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostWhere in his 'Five Ways' does Aquinas make use of such an a priori assumption?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo, A God or God(s) does not need to be demonstrated to exist based on the physical evidence for God(s) to exist. Actually it is very very unlikely that there will ever be actual physical evidence that may be falsified to demonstrate to exist.
Logical arguments are for the most part circular with at least one priori assumption that God exists. This has always been a weakness of Aristotelian arguments since Thomas Aquinas.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe physical/empirical is not the sole existence.
Without the physical/empirical there is an existence since there cannot be nothingness.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo, A God or God(s) does not need to be demonstrated to exist based on the physical evidence for God(s) to exist. Actually it is very very unlikely that there will ever be actual physical evidence that may be falsified to demonstrate to exist.
Logical arguments are for the most part circular with at least one priori assumption that God exists. This has always been a weakness of Aristotelian arguments since Thomas Aquinas.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Theistic-Student View PostI'm sort of a new-ish philosophy student, and I wanted to know what relation, if any, can we make of God in Christianity with that of Aristotle's God as the final cause of the world?
I realize that there's probably good literature out there on this (maybe lots?), but I'm just looking for the general gist on it for the time being, along with some recommendations for future reading. I'm also aware that Aquinas had a lot to say about Aristotle's philosophy, but I've been busy with other readings, so I haven't gotten to anything by him yet. Unfortunately.
Beyond that if you're interested, you could pick up Garrigou Lagrange, who is one of the greatest neo-scholastic commentators.
I recommend reading those before reading St. Aquinas by yourself, and if you do that start with Summa Contra Gentiles because it focuses mainly on the philosophy approach to God.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostAn existence which does not need a God, but a God who must be shown to exist. The former negates the need for a God.
Logical arguments are for the most part circular with at least one priori assumption that God exists. This has always been a weakness of Aristotelian arguments since Thomas Aquinas.Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-04-2014, 05:42 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostAn existence which does not need a God, but a God who must be shown to exist. The former negates the need for a God.
Leave a comment:
-
The relationship I see between Aristotle and Aquinas is Aristotelian logic, and simply an argument for the existence of God, not which God they were arguing for. I do not consider their argument very convincing in today's world despite the efforts of Craig and others repeated efforts to resurrect them.
Leave a comment:
-
That's a very good question. If you accept final causality (not everyone does) and if you accept the importance (and limitations) of human reason in theology, the Aristotelian tradition can be very helpful. Aquinas is very good but so are other philosophical systems as well as nonsystematic approaches.
Leave a comment:
-
God and Aristotle
I'm sort of a new-ish philosophy student, and I wanted to know what relation, if any, can we make of God in Christianity with that of Aristotle's God as the final cause of the world?
I realize that there's probably good literature out there on this (maybe lots?), but I'm just looking for the general gist on it for the time being, along with some recommendations for future reading. I'm also aware that Aquinas had a lot to say about Aristotle's philosophy, but I've been busy with other readings, so I haven't gotten to anything by him yet. Unfortunately.Tags: None
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Esther, 11-23-2023, 10:29 AM
|
184 responses
843 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-09-2024, 07:07 AM |
Leave a comment: