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…
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
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…
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