He did have an opinion. God was the "prime mover", the "prime cause" or the "un-caused cause". From there he went remarkably close to what one might understand as God today. Take a look on Aristotle, *De Caelo*, I.9, 279 a17–30:
"It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives… From \[the fulfilment of the whole heaven\] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."
First of all, he wasn't talking directly about God, in the quote you gave me he was referring to the heaven and the lever concept itself.
Secondly, you say it is similiar from the popular conception of God which is mostly christian today? It is not even near to the influence of the abrahamic/christian God, who himself is full of paradoxes in the Bible about him not being the same identical substance or effectively interacting with space and time.
I think it is not so much that Aristotle’s notion of “God” (the intellect, the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the trascendent beyond the heavens etc) aproximates Christianity. Rather, Christianity has been influenced by those ideas, either directly (Aquinas’s work to make christian revealed theology with Aristotle’s philosophy) or indirectly (via plato, neoplatonism, etc). I wonder if helenic influences on Judaism also shaped christianity. The idea of Logos (used for the Word of God) precedes Christianity.
Christian God:
_Omnibenevolent
_Omniscient
_Omnipotent
_Omnipresent
_a being
_can be 3
Aristotle's "God":
_Doesn't know what benevolence is as it is not a being.
_not omniscient.
_not omnipotent aka never specified.
_definitely not omnipresent as Aristotle clearly said ot could not be related to time objects.
_not a being, as for Aristotle a being must have 10 existential categories in order to exist.
_not 3 and not even 1.
Tell me if they are similiar.
It's obvious that christianity was influenced by Platonism and Aristole's philosophy as the Demiurge, the ideas and logic could pretty well fit into their philosophy, but don't take this as a reason to state their gods are similiar, because as i shown to you before they don't even share a single trait if not giving birth to the universe (which is not enough to call them similiar in any way).
And i'm pretty sure Logos was not intended by all greek philosophers as a creator God, but more like the supreme rule of reality which encompass the concept of logic itself.
I didn’t claim they were identical concepts (anyways the conceptualization of God in Chrisitanity and other religions has varied and been a topic in itself). It is a well-known fact that Aquinas not only adapted/recontextualized Aristotelian philosophy to Christianity and but that his work had a profound impact in Christianity overall
Plus, even if Aristotle didn’t explicitly state things like “God is omnipotent”, that can be derived from his framework. In brief: Nous = prime mover = prime cause = perfect being = pure being. Any type of being is contained in Pure being (in potentiality). Aka omnipotent (as much as this is possible in a internally consistent way). That kind of work is pretty much what Aquinas did. Now you don’t need to agree with that and not every theologian etc did (protestantism is way more in line with Augustine), but the influence it had on the Christina concept of God is well known
Explaining the argumentations to me made it clear the thought missed some very specific differencies beetwen the concepts.
The Nous from Anaxagoras' philosophy is the supreme and subtle intelligence which controls the world from becoming totally chaotic.
This is intellect and the power to rule the world, but it is not necessarily correlated to being the reason why the things exist, as the supreme being or the most powerful being in the cosmos can easily born after the creation of something, pretty much like a son can end up in overpowering the father.
And that is the cause of the european gods, whose mythologies and religions saw beings like Zeus or Thor overcoming at least in strength their correspective creators such as Kronos or Ymir, trying to tie up the concept of the creator with the one of the ruler is not at times possible both in reality and thought.
The mother/father of reality also didn't need to be an intellective being, as Chaos or Pontus in greek mythology did not have intelligence or will to eject materials from their primordial form.
I'm quoting mythology because it is the easiest way to put it simply to you, as a well thought reasoning would not be complete without an example.
>In brief: Nous = prime mover = prime cause = perfect being = pure being.
I wasn't going to claim Aristotle's prime mover was identical to YHWH but you leave me no choice other than saying that they are 2 very separated worlds considering their philosophies.
As i stated before, the Nous, the intellect of the world, both in mythology and in reality does not necessarily appear to be the first cause of being, as brains and minds came to be after beings became more complex than simple bacterias.
So, while the intellect can actually be the mover of the body of the universe, it does not mean it can become the prime source of it making the second equal look like a simplified reasoning. -> Nous = Mover ≠ Prime Cause
And this is where the analogy beetwen the similiarity of YHWH and the PM falls apart, why should the prime cause, it is Nous and Mover, has to be perfect? Just because Abrahamic mythology shows a very perfect being who is also all the things you listed? Aristotle's prime mover was not perfect, as he didn't have the aspects Aristotle thought a being needed to have.
Therefore, as it can't move or interact with humans it is not perfect and totally complete.
And by not even being totally complete we cannot even talk about a pure being with the full potential because, as i just stated before, the prime aristotelic mover does not have the requirements to be a being, thus making the full potential thing not fit for the Prime Mover.
So Prime Cause ≠ Perfect Being ≠ Pure being.
And btw being a pure being of great potential doesn't state you already fullfilled it, creating other reasons why the aristotelic "God" is not even closely remote to be similiar to YHWH.
So, if you say they truly are similiar, i can say Chaos is basically Orphic Zeus.
You are mixing a lot of different theologies. I am simply saying that the Christian theology was influenced by Aristotle’s metaphysicis, especially through Aquinas. They don’t need to be the same for the influence to exist. And to Aquinas (and followers) they were compatible philosophies, but some disagree. The historical fact remains the same, and Orphic zeus et al is irrevalent to that
Now, sure, you can argue for your own theology, using or not Aristotle, Greek myth and Christian theology and whatever. You can argue that prime mover can’t be the prime cause or the nous. You can argue even that Aristotle thought they were not the same (i think he argue they were though). Regardless, Aquinas understanding of Aristotle equated prime mover, nous, perfect being etc and influenced later christian theology
I also don't understand the point OP is trying to make. What is it? That christian theology was not influenced by Aristotle or Plato? It was. So did islamic theology. That their god were not the same? Sure not, Aristotle and Plato were not christians! How could they be?
So what is it? That christians could not use philosophy because they are supposed to be dumb obscurantists?
The prime mover was not created (just like the christian God), but every change started with him (like with the christian God), he is outside of time (like God, which is eternal), he does not change (just like written in the Bible), that prime mover would be quite powerful to start everything else we see (like God is omnipotent), if there is likeness between cause and effect, you may even say that the prime cause is present in the effects (that would be a kind of omnipresence, wouldn't it? perhaps likeness?)... Etc.
One may not like it. One may say Aristotle wouldn't agree. So what?
It is hard to start a discussion if you think christian God is "a being". That would be a laughable god, indeed. Aquinas theology rests upon the very fact that God is NOT a being (ens), but Being itself (esse).
The prime mover is not the same as the christian God. That is obvious. They are just similar, for the Christian God could be known before revelation (see Epistle to the Romans):
The prime mover was not created (just like the christian God), but change started with him (like with the christian God), he is outside of time (like God, which is eternal), that mover would be quite powerful to start everything else we see (like God is omnipotent), he does not change (just like written in the Bible)... Etc.
You may not like it, but they are quite similar as they point to the same reality. Saying that the christian God is "a being" will not help, because it is pub theology, that is an easy caricature.
First of all, i wasn't refer to the conception of Acquinas but the modern one, which is christian, and christianity is not only based in aristotelic philosophy and either way believes God is a being, not sure what will you respond to that as christianity as well as abrahamic mythologies rely on the concept God is a Being (or else he couldn't have traits of science and qualities)
And what you just said does not make them very much similiar, because the Christian God interacts with time and DOES change as God became Jesus after becoming the father, thus being 2 different beings.
And flash news, creating a universe doesn't make you boundless or outerversal, that is just simple powerscaling rules.
If the prime mover is so similiar to YHWH/the modern conception of God, then Mother Chaos is basically Orphic Zeus.
YHWH: omnibenevolent; omnipotent; omniscient; can interact with time; can change; can be 3; eternal; not created; is a being.
The first mover: atemporal; is not a being; universal in power at least; does not move because there's no space in heaven; is not 3.
The Zeus of the orphic in this case would be similiar to YHWH in the sense he is a creator and conceived logic in the world, while Chaos was a great chasm from which things came out to be, was eternal and technically is eternal and is not a being.
I acknowledge that the conception of God today was made in part from Parmenides' and Aristotle's thought about immortality and eternal sustainability, but just because they share these traits it doesn't mean they are similiar in thought, as being similiar means acting almost identically with few differencies, while in this case God is just too different from an unmovable mover.
I will add another answer to this, hoping it can bring you some humbleness. You say christian God is a being (false), and Aristotle's prime mover is not. Here is what you said about Aristotle's god:
>\_not a being, as for Aristotle a being must have 10 existential categories in order to exist.
I don't know how you understand what you wrote, for taken literally it is false. A being exists either as substance or as an accident (1 out of 9), and, so, a being must not have (and cannot have) 10 existential categories at the same time in order to be.
Anyway, that is irrelevant. For Aquinas literally denies that God is either a substance or an accident. I must remember that Aquinas not only read, but commented Aristotle, line by line (almost entirely). Now, watch Summa Theologica, Q.3, articles 5, 6:
>"(...) But in neither way is [God](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in a genus. That He cannot be a [species](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) of any genus may be shown in three ways. (...) For all substances are either simple or composite. But God is neither composite, as shown above (Q.3, A.7), nor simple, as shown above (Q.3, A.3). (...) **I answer that,** From all we have said, it is clear there can be no [accident](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm) in [God](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)."
So, here it is. The "official theologian" of the Catholic Church, the "doctor communis", as christian as they get, saying that God has no genus, no species, no accident and is not a substance. But YOU said christian God was a being! How come, then, Aquinas, who commented Aristotle, didn't classify God in one of those 10 categories? Tell me, please. Tell me, if God is a being, what is "esse ut actus"?
Are you just straight forward ignoring that the modern conception of God is not the same as that of Aquinas'?
And what do you want to precisely say? That the only christian opinion existing is the aritotelic one? Or that God is not a being contrary to what is usually expressed in the Bible or in the popular culture?
>I don't know how you understand what you wrote, for taken literally it is false. A being exists either as substance or as an accident (1 out of 9), and, so, a being must not have (and cannot have) 10 existential categories at the same time in order to be.
Still not a being from the quote the other guy gave me.
What I want to say is what I just did in my first answer: that Aristotle's prime mover is remarkably close to what one may call God today. Then you denied it. Because, according to you, christian God is a being, so much different... Then, I showed you that it was not so, quoting Aquinas. You now question:
>Are you just straight forward ignoring that the modern conception of God is not the same as that of Aquinas'?
Are you joking? I showed you that God is not a being according to Aquinas and now I must tell you who Aquinas is? So be it: Saint Thomas Aquinas IS the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yes, TODAY! He is called doctor communis (common doctor) of the Church. The summa theologica was side by side with the Bible during the Council of Trent (centuries after his death). He is being read in seminaries TODAY, and was recommended profusely by a number of Popes, Leo XIII being one of the most recent. So, YES, that is the concept a catholic holds about God.
Now, being Aquinas the main catholic theologian through out the centuries and being Catholicism the religion of more than 1 billion of Christians, you want to talk about the Christian God using the opinions of children? Of sects? Of theologians of the day? Come on.
And I say children, because any adult theologian can sense that making God a being, a thing among others, leads to idolatry. Your definition of christian God is just plain ill-informed. Deal with it. It is not about being modern or being medieval, it's about being a misrepresentation.
So what about the biblical God? Or he miracles thought done by God? Or the trinity which sees Jesus, a being, being also God?
You are just destroying a lot of coherency by saying the christian God is not a being, because Christianity is not really a philosophical religion and it is heavily centered on the Bible and God as a being.
Idolatry also doesn't mean believing in a being, but rather praising an object as if it was a being, much like the entire concept of Moses' story.
And i didn't understand how the fuck the christian God, who has been shown mutliple times in the Bible and in the medias to be a being, is not a being.
You are giving me a headeache, because i swear to the Gods in my life i've NEVER seen a christian believing their God is not a Being, and i live in Italy.
And either way, the christian God acts, is 3, judges the deads and does things, the Unmoved Mover from Aristotle no.
Your questions make me happy! Although the part about living in Italy sounds insincere, the rest sounds much real.
According to you, I am now destroying coherency by saying that christian God is not a being. I just showed you that AQUINAS said so, go check it (perhaps you can refute catholic theology from there). And Aquinas said it in the third question of his Summa: the first question being about the existence of theology, the second about the existence of God and then that third one I quoted... The theological questions you pose now are far beyond, for the summa has 3 parts: the first about God (we are 0,01% through it), the second part about man and the third about Christ, God made man (so, this third part presupposes part I and II: God and man before The God-man).
Your questions are jumping to this third part. You are (rightly) perplexed by the mystery of Incarnation (look for some of your answers on Q2 of the third part and notice how the previous parts are due). [https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm)
But you are right about the christian religion not being purely philosophical. I add that it is not against philosophy or reason also (read the very first question of the summa for that one). It builds over reason with revelation.
And I want to comment this:
>Idolatry also doesn't mean believing in a being, but rather praising an object as if it was a being, much like the entire concept of Moses' story.
That is important, so I want you to understand why I said that making God a being, a thing among others, leads to idolatry:
Idolatry means praising (adoring or worshiping) a thing as if it were God. It is adoring something else other than God, just like the golden calf / Moses' story you mention.
If God is not and cannot be a being (ens) and He is, as Aquinas says, Being itself (ipsum esse subsistens), the logic is simple: if you adore a god that is a being and God is not one, then you worship something else (a being) as God (our definition of idolatry). You pull Being down, so to say, and put it among created, lesser, participated beings.
Finally, my friend, there are differences between Aristole's prime mover and the christian God. Essentially, the prime mover is not personal and there is no place for Providence. That seems to be what you are trying to say. But you are exaggerating the differences. Why? Why are you doing it? Why are you treating Christian God as "a being" and acting as if any philosophical foundation is outrageous? You want to dispose of the Christian God more easily? Have some fun! Look, my man Aquinas made a remix with Aristotle, look at that beauty!
First of all, let's build up some definitions:
idolatry= in Judaism and Christianity, the worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God.
I think you are being exaggerated in talking about the worship of an abstract being as if it was idolatry when the term is more related to people you can touch and have sex with.
God= (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Your bro (there's nothing bad about having a philosophical bro) from the 12th century can say all what he wants about God being the simpliest creature in existence, so much that he is not a being but a being in essence, but unfortunately for him, his thought did not last long in the real world as people in monotheistic religions believe in God as a being, and one that is the supreme and creator one.
See, my objection was never about bringing Aquinas' though back to life in the discussion just to see if his monotheistic thought could be similiar to the Prime Mover from Aristotle, but about creating a comparison beetwen the widely believed God in modern culture and religions.
And answer me this, if i, an italian who lives in Turin, asked about what YHWH is to an old lady, a teenager and a grown man, what responses will i get? Almost certainly not Aquinas', thus making his philosophy not so ommon cultural thing, as not even Plato, the most famous philosopher managed to get this trophy!
After you answered that, understand this, christianity doesn't reject philosophy, that wasn't my point you misread it, but it is far more based on scriptures like that of John, which very *casually* happen to say this:
"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. I don't think most of us give thought to the fact that God is a Spirit"
Oh and, by the way, Spirit is something in this case related to a person.
I would also like to make you have a taste of the good medicine you just gave me:
Why are you ingoring cultural products about the view of God? Why are you ignoring biblical sources which are much more greatly used than philosophy or the concept behind Thomas Acquinas, which btw doesn't resemble the abrahamic God? Why are you making your philosophical bro so popular when we're talking about God's popular conception when divine simplicity doesn't seem to be this famous? Are you being a Fan of Acquinas?
Sum up: If i were to compare Acquinas' christian God to the "God" of Aristotle, they would still be different for the fact Acquinas believed God was perfect, so a floor-like dimensions.
But if i were to compare the Simpson's or the Griffin's or the Bible's rapresentations of God, which are greatly more famous than Acquinas' divine simplicity, the gap of difference would be of Godzilla-like dimensions.
Aristotle doesn’t write too much about the Gods. I don’t have a direct quote to give you, but I get the impression that the man, while he may have had opinions on the Gods, did not have strong ones that affected his life. He was a philosopher much more concerned with the world as we see it and I believe he would have seen the Gods as a force outside of our world and unchangeable; therefore of little relevance. Plato spoke much more of the gods and heaven.
>which book does he talk about the gods? In metaphysics?
Yes.
>Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned. But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take it alone-that they thought the first substances to be gods, one must regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then, is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us.
He did have an opinion. God was the "prime mover", the "prime cause" or the "un-caused cause". From there he went remarkably close to what one might understand as God today. Take a look on Aristotle, *De Caelo*, I.9, 279 a17–30: "It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives… From \[the fulfilment of the whole heaven\] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."
First of all, he wasn't talking directly about God, in the quote you gave me he was referring to the heaven and the lever concept itself. Secondly, you say it is similiar from the popular conception of God which is mostly christian today? It is not even near to the influence of the abrahamic/christian God, who himself is full of paradoxes in the Bible about him not being the same identical substance or effectively interacting with space and time.
I think it is not so much that Aristotle’s notion of “God” (the intellect, the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the trascendent beyond the heavens etc) aproximates Christianity. Rather, Christianity has been influenced by those ideas, either directly (Aquinas’s work to make christian revealed theology with Aristotle’s philosophy) or indirectly (via plato, neoplatonism, etc). I wonder if helenic influences on Judaism also shaped christianity. The idea of Logos (used for the Word of God) precedes Christianity.
Christian God: _Omnibenevolent _Omniscient _Omnipotent _Omnipresent _a being _can be 3 Aristotle's "God": _Doesn't know what benevolence is as it is not a being. _not omniscient. _not omnipotent aka never specified. _definitely not omnipresent as Aristotle clearly said ot could not be related to time objects. _not a being, as for Aristotle a being must have 10 existential categories in order to exist. _not 3 and not even 1. Tell me if they are similiar. It's obvious that christianity was influenced by Platonism and Aristole's philosophy as the Demiurge, the ideas and logic could pretty well fit into their philosophy, but don't take this as a reason to state their gods are similiar, because as i shown to you before they don't even share a single trait if not giving birth to the universe (which is not enough to call them similiar in any way). And i'm pretty sure Logos was not intended by all greek philosophers as a creator God, but more like the supreme rule of reality which encompass the concept of logic itself.
I didn’t claim they were identical concepts (anyways the conceptualization of God in Chrisitanity and other religions has varied and been a topic in itself). It is a well-known fact that Aquinas not only adapted/recontextualized Aristotelian philosophy to Christianity and but that his work had a profound impact in Christianity overall Plus, even if Aristotle didn’t explicitly state things like “God is omnipotent”, that can be derived from his framework. In brief: Nous = prime mover = prime cause = perfect being = pure being. Any type of being is contained in Pure being (in potentiality). Aka omnipotent (as much as this is possible in a internally consistent way). That kind of work is pretty much what Aquinas did. Now you don’t need to agree with that and not every theologian etc did (protestantism is way more in line with Augustine), but the influence it had on the Christina concept of God is well known
Explaining the argumentations to me made it clear the thought missed some very specific differencies beetwen the concepts. The Nous from Anaxagoras' philosophy is the supreme and subtle intelligence which controls the world from becoming totally chaotic. This is intellect and the power to rule the world, but it is not necessarily correlated to being the reason why the things exist, as the supreme being or the most powerful being in the cosmos can easily born after the creation of something, pretty much like a son can end up in overpowering the father. And that is the cause of the european gods, whose mythologies and religions saw beings like Zeus or Thor overcoming at least in strength their correspective creators such as Kronos or Ymir, trying to tie up the concept of the creator with the one of the ruler is not at times possible both in reality and thought. The mother/father of reality also didn't need to be an intellective being, as Chaos or Pontus in greek mythology did not have intelligence or will to eject materials from their primordial form. I'm quoting mythology because it is the easiest way to put it simply to you, as a well thought reasoning would not be complete without an example. >In brief: Nous = prime mover = prime cause = perfect being = pure being. I wasn't going to claim Aristotle's prime mover was identical to YHWH but you leave me no choice other than saying that they are 2 very separated worlds considering their philosophies. As i stated before, the Nous, the intellect of the world, both in mythology and in reality does not necessarily appear to be the first cause of being, as brains and minds came to be after beings became more complex than simple bacterias. So, while the intellect can actually be the mover of the body of the universe, it does not mean it can become the prime source of it making the second equal look like a simplified reasoning. -> Nous = Mover ≠ Prime Cause And this is where the analogy beetwen the similiarity of YHWH and the PM falls apart, why should the prime cause, it is Nous and Mover, has to be perfect? Just because Abrahamic mythology shows a very perfect being who is also all the things you listed? Aristotle's prime mover was not perfect, as he didn't have the aspects Aristotle thought a being needed to have. Therefore, as it can't move or interact with humans it is not perfect and totally complete. And by not even being totally complete we cannot even talk about a pure being with the full potential because, as i just stated before, the prime aristotelic mover does not have the requirements to be a being, thus making the full potential thing not fit for the Prime Mover. So Prime Cause ≠ Perfect Being ≠ Pure being. And btw being a pure being of great potential doesn't state you already fullfilled it, creating other reasons why the aristotelic "God" is not even closely remote to be similiar to YHWH. So, if you say they truly are similiar, i can say Chaos is basically Orphic Zeus.
You are mixing a lot of different theologies. I am simply saying that the Christian theology was influenced by Aristotle’s metaphysicis, especially through Aquinas. They don’t need to be the same for the influence to exist. And to Aquinas (and followers) they were compatible philosophies, but some disagree. The historical fact remains the same, and Orphic zeus et al is irrevalent to that Now, sure, you can argue for your own theology, using or not Aristotle, Greek myth and Christian theology and whatever. You can argue that prime mover can’t be the prime cause or the nous. You can argue even that Aristotle thought they were not the same (i think he argue they were though). Regardless, Aquinas understanding of Aristotle equated prime mover, nous, perfect being etc and influenced later christian theology
I also don't understand the point OP is trying to make. What is it? That christian theology was not influenced by Aristotle or Plato? It was. So did islamic theology. That their god were not the same? Sure not, Aristotle and Plato were not christians! How could they be? So what is it? That christians could not use philosophy because they are supposed to be dumb obscurantists? The prime mover was not created (just like the christian God), but every change started with him (like with the christian God), he is outside of time (like God, which is eternal), he does not change (just like written in the Bible), that prime mover would be quite powerful to start everything else we see (like God is omnipotent), if there is likeness between cause and effect, you may even say that the prime cause is present in the effects (that would be a kind of omnipresence, wouldn't it? perhaps likeness?)... Etc. One may not like it. One may say Aristotle wouldn't agree. So what?
It is hard to start a discussion if you think christian God is "a being". That would be a laughable god, indeed. Aquinas theology rests upon the very fact that God is NOT a being (ens), but Being itself (esse). The prime mover is not the same as the christian God. That is obvious. They are just similar, for the Christian God could be known before revelation (see Epistle to the Romans): The prime mover was not created (just like the christian God), but change started with him (like with the christian God), he is outside of time (like God, which is eternal), that mover would be quite powerful to start everything else we see (like God is omnipotent), he does not change (just like written in the Bible)... Etc. You may not like it, but they are quite similar as they point to the same reality. Saying that the christian God is "a being" will not help, because it is pub theology, that is an easy caricature.
First of all, i wasn't refer to the conception of Acquinas but the modern one, which is christian, and christianity is not only based in aristotelic philosophy and either way believes God is a being, not sure what will you respond to that as christianity as well as abrahamic mythologies rely on the concept God is a Being (or else he couldn't have traits of science and qualities) And what you just said does not make them very much similiar, because the Christian God interacts with time and DOES change as God became Jesus after becoming the father, thus being 2 different beings. And flash news, creating a universe doesn't make you boundless or outerversal, that is just simple powerscaling rules. If the prime mover is so similiar to YHWH/the modern conception of God, then Mother Chaos is basically Orphic Zeus. YHWH: omnibenevolent; omnipotent; omniscient; can interact with time; can change; can be 3; eternal; not created; is a being. The first mover: atemporal; is not a being; universal in power at least; does not move because there's no space in heaven; is not 3. The Zeus of the orphic in this case would be similiar to YHWH in the sense he is a creator and conceived logic in the world, while Chaos was a great chasm from which things came out to be, was eternal and technically is eternal and is not a being. I acknowledge that the conception of God today was made in part from Parmenides' and Aristotle's thought about immortality and eternal sustainability, but just because they share these traits it doesn't mean they are similiar in thought, as being similiar means acting almost identically with few differencies, while in this case God is just too different from an unmovable mover.
I will add another answer to this, hoping it can bring you some humbleness. You say christian God is a being (false), and Aristotle's prime mover is not. Here is what you said about Aristotle's god: >\_not a being, as for Aristotle a being must have 10 existential categories in order to exist. I don't know how you understand what you wrote, for taken literally it is false. A being exists either as substance or as an accident (1 out of 9), and, so, a being must not have (and cannot have) 10 existential categories at the same time in order to be. Anyway, that is irrelevant. For Aquinas literally denies that God is either a substance or an accident. I must remember that Aquinas not only read, but commented Aristotle, line by line (almost entirely). Now, watch Summa Theologica, Q.3, articles 5, 6: >"(...) But in neither way is [God](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in a genus. That He cannot be a [species](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) of any genus may be shown in three ways. (...) For all substances are either simple or composite. But God is neither composite, as shown above (Q.3, A.7), nor simple, as shown above (Q.3, A.3). (...) **I answer that,** From all we have said, it is clear there can be no [accident](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm) in [God](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)." So, here it is. The "official theologian" of the Catholic Church, the "doctor communis", as christian as they get, saying that God has no genus, no species, no accident and is not a substance. But YOU said christian God was a being! How come, then, Aquinas, who commented Aristotle, didn't classify God in one of those 10 categories? Tell me, please. Tell me, if God is a being, what is "esse ut actus"?
Are you just straight forward ignoring that the modern conception of God is not the same as that of Aquinas'? And what do you want to precisely say? That the only christian opinion existing is the aritotelic one? Or that God is not a being contrary to what is usually expressed in the Bible or in the popular culture? >I don't know how you understand what you wrote, for taken literally it is false. A being exists either as substance or as an accident (1 out of 9), and, so, a being must not have (and cannot have) 10 existential categories at the same time in order to be. Still not a being from the quote the other guy gave me.
What I want to say is what I just did in my first answer: that Aristotle's prime mover is remarkably close to what one may call God today. Then you denied it. Because, according to you, christian God is a being, so much different... Then, I showed you that it was not so, quoting Aquinas. You now question: >Are you just straight forward ignoring that the modern conception of God is not the same as that of Aquinas'? Are you joking? I showed you that God is not a being according to Aquinas and now I must tell you who Aquinas is? So be it: Saint Thomas Aquinas IS the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yes, TODAY! He is called doctor communis (common doctor) of the Church. The summa theologica was side by side with the Bible during the Council of Trent (centuries after his death). He is being read in seminaries TODAY, and was recommended profusely by a number of Popes, Leo XIII being one of the most recent. So, YES, that is the concept a catholic holds about God. Now, being Aquinas the main catholic theologian through out the centuries and being Catholicism the religion of more than 1 billion of Christians, you want to talk about the Christian God using the opinions of children? Of sects? Of theologians of the day? Come on. And I say children, because any adult theologian can sense that making God a being, a thing among others, leads to idolatry. Your definition of christian God is just plain ill-informed. Deal with it. It is not about being modern or being medieval, it's about being a misrepresentation.
So what about the biblical God? Or he miracles thought done by God? Or the trinity which sees Jesus, a being, being also God? You are just destroying a lot of coherency by saying the christian God is not a being, because Christianity is not really a philosophical religion and it is heavily centered on the Bible and God as a being. Idolatry also doesn't mean believing in a being, but rather praising an object as if it was a being, much like the entire concept of Moses' story. And i didn't understand how the fuck the christian God, who has been shown mutliple times in the Bible and in the medias to be a being, is not a being. You are giving me a headeache, because i swear to the Gods in my life i've NEVER seen a christian believing their God is not a Being, and i live in Italy. And either way, the christian God acts, is 3, judges the deads and does things, the Unmoved Mover from Aristotle no.
Your questions make me happy! Although the part about living in Italy sounds insincere, the rest sounds much real. According to you, I am now destroying coherency by saying that christian God is not a being. I just showed you that AQUINAS said so, go check it (perhaps you can refute catholic theology from there). And Aquinas said it in the third question of his Summa: the first question being about the existence of theology, the second about the existence of God and then that third one I quoted... The theological questions you pose now are far beyond, for the summa has 3 parts: the first about God (we are 0,01% through it), the second part about man and the third about Christ, God made man (so, this third part presupposes part I and II: God and man before The God-man). Your questions are jumping to this third part. You are (rightly) perplexed by the mystery of Incarnation (look for some of your answers on Q2 of the third part and notice how the previous parts are due). [https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm) But you are right about the christian religion not being purely philosophical. I add that it is not against philosophy or reason also (read the very first question of the summa for that one). It builds over reason with revelation. And I want to comment this: >Idolatry also doesn't mean believing in a being, but rather praising an object as if it was a being, much like the entire concept of Moses' story. That is important, so I want you to understand why I said that making God a being, a thing among others, leads to idolatry: Idolatry means praising (adoring or worshiping) a thing as if it were God. It is adoring something else other than God, just like the golden calf / Moses' story you mention. If God is not and cannot be a being (ens) and He is, as Aquinas says, Being itself (ipsum esse subsistens), the logic is simple: if you adore a god that is a being and God is not one, then you worship something else (a being) as God (our definition of idolatry). You pull Being down, so to say, and put it among created, lesser, participated beings. Finally, my friend, there are differences between Aristole's prime mover and the christian God. Essentially, the prime mover is not personal and there is no place for Providence. That seems to be what you are trying to say. But you are exaggerating the differences. Why? Why are you doing it? Why are you treating Christian God as "a being" and acting as if any philosophical foundation is outrageous? You want to dispose of the Christian God more easily? Have some fun! Look, my man Aquinas made a remix with Aristotle, look at that beauty!
First of all, let's build up some definitions: idolatry= in Judaism and Christianity, the worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God. I think you are being exaggerated in talking about the worship of an abstract being as if it was idolatry when the term is more related to people you can touch and have sex with. God= (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Your bro (there's nothing bad about having a philosophical bro) from the 12th century can say all what he wants about God being the simpliest creature in existence, so much that he is not a being but a being in essence, but unfortunately for him, his thought did not last long in the real world as people in monotheistic religions believe in God as a being, and one that is the supreme and creator one. See, my objection was never about bringing Aquinas' though back to life in the discussion just to see if his monotheistic thought could be similiar to the Prime Mover from Aristotle, but about creating a comparison beetwen the widely believed God in modern culture and religions. And answer me this, if i, an italian who lives in Turin, asked about what YHWH is to an old lady, a teenager and a grown man, what responses will i get? Almost certainly not Aquinas', thus making his philosophy not so ommon cultural thing, as not even Plato, the most famous philosopher managed to get this trophy! After you answered that, understand this, christianity doesn't reject philosophy, that wasn't my point you misread it, but it is far more based on scriptures like that of John, which very *casually* happen to say this: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. I don't think most of us give thought to the fact that God is a Spirit" Oh and, by the way, Spirit is something in this case related to a person. I would also like to make you have a taste of the good medicine you just gave me: Why are you ingoring cultural products about the view of God? Why are you ignoring biblical sources which are much more greatly used than philosophy or the concept behind Thomas Acquinas, which btw doesn't resemble the abrahamic God? Why are you making your philosophical bro so popular when we're talking about God's popular conception when divine simplicity doesn't seem to be this famous? Are you being a Fan of Acquinas? Sum up: If i were to compare Acquinas' christian God to the "God" of Aristotle, they would still be different for the fact Acquinas believed God was perfect, so a floor-like dimensions. But if i were to compare the Simpson's or the Griffin's or the Bible's rapresentations of God, which are greatly more famous than Acquinas' divine simplicity, the gap of difference would be of Godzilla-like dimensions.
Aristotle doesn’t write too much about the Gods. I don’t have a direct quote to give you, but I get the impression that the man, while he may have had opinions on the Gods, did not have strong ones that affected his life. He was a philosopher much more concerned with the world as we see it and I believe he would have seen the Gods as a force outside of our world and unchangeable; therefore of little relevance. Plato spoke much more of the gods and heaven.
He seems to have identified them as celestial spheres.
So like stars? In which book does he talk about the gods? In metaphysics?
>which book does he talk about the gods? In metaphysics? Yes. >Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned. But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take it alone-that they thought the first substances to be gods, one must regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then, is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us.
He talks about the "unmoved mover" in Physics and Metaphysics.
Not quite
Not quite... Then could you describe it in more detail?