Comparing The Judeao/Christian God With Aristotle's Prime Mover
Compare the nature of the Judeao/ Christian God with Aristotle’s Prime mover.
The nature of Aristotle’s theory, the prime mover has many similarities and difference to the that of the Judeao/Christian God. They both have a strong link to the creation of the world as they are both theories of how it was created. The Prime Mover causes the movement of other things, not as an efficient cause, but as a final cause. Therefore having no intention to interfere or influence after the time of creation. Whereas the Judeao/Christian god is said to be Immanent, he was Omnipresence throughout creation and therefore transcendent; with a plan to remain involved in the world after creation.
Aristotle shared a belief with many other Greek Philosophers. He …show more content…
believed that everything was subject to change. A philosopher who shared this belief had said “You never step into the same river twice” (Heraclitus). Aristotle agreed with this – everything is subject to change, and this change must be caused by something. Aristotle thought that everything is “on the move” – moving through stages of position, of condition and of quality. For example things are getting darker, lighter, colder, and hotter. Aristotle believed that something must causes this action of change hence the idea of the prime mover.
This is a major contrast to the Judeao/Christian God. This god is believed to be omniscience, meaning he is aware of his creation as he was present though it and continues to remain present on earth; Psalm 129v7 says “Where can I go from your spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” It is thought because he is omnibenevolent he is involved in the world that he created and influences it immensely to create the best for human kind. Genesis 1 says God spoke “let there be…. And there was” therefore he is the one that commands change, it is no un known source but a god that is omnipotent.
Aristotle believed that everything must have a cause.
He saw four different explanations as to why things are the way they are: The first, the Material Cause – this is the material or matter that a certain thing is made of; known as the bronze of the statue force example. His second explanation is the Efficient Cause – this is the agent that brings the thing about; the sculptor of the statue. The next is the Formal Cause – which is the model or idea that the statue conforms to; the pattern/instructions the sculptor followed. The last is the Final Cause – this is the reason for the thing, its purpose; the reason the statue was carved in the first place.
The Judeo/Christian God creates the universe from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). This is similar to Aristotle who also argued that nothing existed before the Prime Mover started the chain of causes. Also the Judeo/Christian God is an intelligent designer who crafts a purposeful world (e.g. the purpose of the stars is to create light at night). Aristotle also believed the universe was a teleological place where individual objects have a `final cause` (e.g. chairs are made for sitting) and the ultimate Final Cause is the Prime Mover.
Yes there are a few similarities but there are also many
differences.
The Judeao/Christian God plays an active part in bringing things into being on earth whereas Aristotle’s Prime Mover is indifferent to creation and will remain that way always. Not only this but the Judeao/Christian is active on earth, encouraging new things and creations but Aristotle’s Prime Mover is passive, causing things to happen through attraction. Finally the Judeao/Christian God desires a relationship with humanity and is therefore a personal God. For example, the creation of man was a special act of creation; God provided humans with the Garden of Eden; Humans are given a special role by God within creation; and a relationship between God and humans is set up involving rules that must be obeyed. This contrasts to Aristotle’s Prime Mover who if impersonal and therefore spends eternity thinking only of himself and not humanity or the world.
In summary I think it is clear that both ideas have obvious natures that have an in depth meaning and relation to the creation of the world. The prime mover Is an Unmoved cause that brings about change in our world but with no personal connection to humanity. Whereas the Judeao/Christian God is a personal god who brings about change, supports humanity and is continuously involved in the world. The Judeao/Christian God is said to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent, if this was the case why is our world full of suffering and surrounded by evil?
The nature of Aristotle’s theory, the prime mover has many similarities and difference to the that of the Judeao/Christian God. They both have a strong link to the creation of the world as they are both theories of how it was created. The Prime Mover causes the movement of other things, not as an efficient cause, but as a final cause. Therefore having no intention to interfere or influence after the time of creation. Whereas the Judeao/Christian god is said to be Immanent, he was Omnipresence throughout creation and therefore transcendent; with a plan to remain involved in the world after creation.
Aristotle shared a belief with many other Greek Philosophers. He …show more content…
believed that everything was subject to change. A philosopher who shared this belief had said “You never step into the same river twice” (Heraclitus). Aristotle agreed with this – everything is subject to change, and this change must be caused by something. Aristotle thought that everything is “on the move” – moving through stages of position, of condition and of quality. For example things are getting darker, lighter, colder, and hotter. Aristotle believed that something must causes this action of change hence the idea of the prime mover.
This is a major contrast to the Judeao/Christian God. This god is believed to be omniscience, meaning he is aware of his creation as he was present though it and continues to remain present on earth; Psalm 129v7 says “Where can I go from your spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” It is thought because he is omnibenevolent he is involved in the world that he created and influences it immensely to create the best for human kind. Genesis 1 says God spoke “let there be…. And there was” therefore he is the one that commands change, it is no un known source but a god that is omnipotent.
Aristotle believed that everything must have a cause.
He saw four different explanations as to why things are the way they are: The first, the Material Cause – this is the material or matter that a certain thing is made of; known as the bronze of the statue force example. His second explanation is the Efficient Cause – this is the agent that brings the thing about; the sculptor of the statue. The next is the Formal Cause – which is the model or idea that the statue conforms to; the pattern/instructions the sculptor followed. The last is the Final Cause – this is the reason for the thing, its purpose; the reason the statue was carved in the first place.
The Judeo/Christian God creates the universe from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). This is similar to Aristotle who also argued that nothing existed before the Prime Mover started the chain of causes. Also the Judeo/Christian God is an intelligent designer who crafts a purposeful world (e.g. the purpose of the stars is to create light at night). Aristotle also believed the universe was a teleological place where individual objects have a `final cause` (e.g. chairs are made for sitting) and the ultimate Final Cause is the Prime Mover.
Yes there are a few similarities but there are also many
differences.
The Judeao/Christian God plays an active part in bringing things into being on earth whereas Aristotle’s Prime Mover is indifferent to creation and will remain that way always. Not only this but the Judeao/Christian is active on earth, encouraging new things and creations but Aristotle’s Prime Mover is passive, causing things to happen through attraction. Finally the Judeao/Christian God desires a relationship with humanity and is therefore a personal God. For example, the creation of man was a special act of creation; God provided humans with the Garden of Eden; Humans are given a special role by God within creation; and a relationship between God and humans is set up involving rules that must be obeyed. This contrasts to Aristotle’s Prime Mover who if impersonal and therefore spends eternity thinking only of himself and not humanity or the world.
In summary I think it is clear that both ideas have obvious natures that have an in depth meaning and relation to the creation of the world. The prime mover Is an Unmoved cause that brings about change in our world but with no personal connection to humanity. Whereas the Judeao/Christian God is a personal god who brings about change, supports humanity and is continuously involved in the world. The Judeao/Christian God is said to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent, if this was the case why is our world full of suffering and surrounded by evil?