There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[samtonga43]

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle attempts to utilize a physical theology as a form of ascent to contemplative philosophy. He also states that this study is to be chosen over all other sciences; and it is this “first science of theology''1 that we must prefer to all other kinds of contemplation, the study of the divine. Through the 2nd century C.E. and onward, the development of Christian theology was partly inspired by interpretations of Neoplatonism, a term coined by early 19th century European scholarship to signify a period of time after Plato that began with the successors of Plato’s Academy, including Aristotle and later Plotinus and Proclus. This essay will focus on the Christian view of God through the lenses of the Prima Pars, of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, contrasted with Plato’s view of the One in Parmenides, with its further elucidation by the Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, written during the 5th century C.E. by Proclus.2 For the Platonic tradition, the One is not only superior to Soul and Intellect, but It is even beyond Being itself, truly ineffable; the same way the Christian God is above all assertions and negations, and that through which all divine beings and faculties exist.3 From the entirety of the Platonic corpus, the Timaeus and the Parmenides have been considered the substance of Plato’s thought, the former being on a mystical cosmology and the latter on metaphysical theology.4 The Parmenides contains nine hypotheses. The first hypothesis treats the dialectical exploration of how there is no name, discourse, science, opinion, or knowledge of the One, while the second hypothesis takes the predicates intelligibly negated in the first, and asserts them of the One coordinate with Being. 5 The distinction between I. what can be said of the One/God beyond Being and II. what can be said of the One/God coordinate with Being plays a major role in understanding systematic theology and will be explored in the second part of the argument. Since the hypotheses treat an extended range of metaphysical attributes, this paper will only go through the dialectics of two terms, whose development is expounded in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. Subsequently, these will be further contrasted with Thomas Aquinas’ theological framework of God in the Summa Theologica.

We can see traces and projections of Platonism and Neoplatonism in the foundation of Christian theology. Accordingly, St. Thomas Aquinas attempts to utilize an ascent to Platonism through the influence of Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius. While the discordance on faith has a significant impact on differentiating Plato from St. Thomas Aquinas, there are various other matters that relate the two thinkers. As shown above, Plato’s Parmenides had indirectly impacted the Thomistic framework of “God” as displayed in the Summa Theologica, to the extent that the One and the Christian God have a share in identities and functions. Furthermore, Aristotle’s translations, which are questionable to date102 , and his method and demonstrative precision also appear to have shaped St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology. For, the structure of the Summa Theologica mirrors Aristotle’s strict and successive style of writing. We note the aforementioned sources and influences on St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, including a loyalty to Christian interpretations and the historical, psychological and philosophical milieus of the times, which led to the development of his theological doctrine. This implies significant consequences that ought to be brought up for scholarly considerations. The profound nature of this inquiry deserves further investigation

Two observations:
Dense prose does not encourage one to want to read.
Please provide a link.

 

[samtonga43]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
If you want to keep looking silly go ahead.

Oh, the irony!

I have not seen another religion that goes as deep into the metaphysics of consciousness and reality. The I Ching was more psychology.

See bold. What do you mean by this, joelr? You use these words a lot, and you've been asked what you mean, but I don't think you have answered the question.
I am also curious about your use of the word 'bullying'. This word, to me, means
behaving in a way that hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful. Is this what you think shunyadragon is doing?

 

[PearlSeeker]

To Plato it was just an idea.

To Plato the world of ideas (forms) was more real than the sensual material world.

 

[shunyadragon]

About theism, no. You tell me, is there any possibility Zeus is real? About a general deism, a being that started reality, I don't know. It does defy logic for the first, undivisible, uncreated and so on...to have consciousness. We only know consciousness as the result of a very complex system. So that doesn't seem likely but I can't say if a deistic God is real or not.




Sure, the possibility that Muhammad got revelations about updates for Christianity from the angel Gabrielle. Or the possibility that Joe Smith got revelations from the angel Moroni about further updates to Christianity. All revelations are about that likely.
If I assigned a greater possibility that revelations are real than I would have to take Muhammad as seriously as Paul. Islamic apologetics are no joke and well put together. If someone had revelations it's them. So there is a painful doom for all who don't follow the updates.
But I don't believe in revelations and there is no evidence of any value. Christians may think Paul had revelations but billions of Muslims think Muhammad did and billions of Hindu think Prince Arjuna did.
The odds that they all did not is extremely high.




I write in support of critical thinking, what happens after that , who cares, isn't something for me to be concerned about.





Yes but it's also a sign of plagiarism and religious syncretism. Weird that it took Aquinas, using Platonic ideas to come up with a theology of God rather than it actually coming from scripture. Yahweh did kick mountains down and had horns coming out of his hands at one point so maybe Aquinas needed something more modern.
Of course Islam also uses this to describe Allah.



In the Metaphysics, Aristotle attempts to utilize a physical theology as a form of ascent to contemplative philosophy. He also states that this study is to be chosen over all other sciences; and it is this “first science of theology''1 that we must prefer to all other kinds of contemplation, the study of the divine. Through the 2nd century C.E. and onward, the development of Christian theology was partly inspired by interpretations of Neoplatonism, a term coined by early 19th century European scholarship to signify a period of time after Plato that began with the successors of Plato’s Academy, including Aristotle and later Plotinus and Proclus. This essay will focus on the Christian view of God through the lenses of the Prima Pars, of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, contrasted with Plato’s view of the One in Parmenides, with its further elucidation by the Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, written during the 5th century C.E. by Proclus.2 For the Platonic tradition, the One is not only superior to Soul and Intellect, but It is even beyond Being itself, truly ineffable; the same way the Christian God is above all assertions and negations, and that through which all divine beings and faculties exist.3 From the entirety of the Platonic corpus, the Timaeus and the Parmenides have been considered the substance of Plato’s thought, the former being on a mystical cosmology and the latter on metaphysical theology.4 The Parmenides contains nine hypotheses. The first hypothesis treats the dialectical exploration of how there is no name, discourse, science, opinion, or knowledge of the One, while the second hypothesis takes the predicates intelligibly negated in the first, and asserts them of the One coordinate with Being. 5 The distinction between I. what can be said of the One/God beyond Being and II. what can be said of the One/God coordinate with Being plays a major role in understanding systematic theology and will be explored in the second part of the argument. Since the hypotheses treat an extended range of metaphysical attributes, this paper will only go through the dialectics of two terms, whose development is expounded in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. Subsequently, these will be further contrasted with Thomas Aquinas’ theological framework of God in the Summa Theologica.


We can see traces and projections of Platonism and Neoplatonism in the foundation of Christian theology. Accordingly, St. Thomas Aquinas attempts to utilize an ascent to Platonism through the influence of Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius. While the discordance on faith has a significant impact on differentiating Plato from St. Thomas Aquinas, there are various other matters that relate the two thinkers. As shown above, Plato’s Parmenides had indirectly impacted the Thomistic framework of “God” as displayed in the Summa Theologica, to the extent that the One and the Christian God have a share in identities and functions. Furthermore, Aristotle’s translations, which are questionable to date102 , and his method and demonstrative precision also appear to have shaped St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology. For, the structure of the Summa Theologica mirrors Aristotle’s strict and successive style of writing. We note the aforementioned sources and influences on St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, including a loyalty to Christian interpretations and the historical, psychological and philosophical milieus of the times, which led to the development of his theological doctrine. This implies significant consequences that ought to be brought up for scholarly considerations. The profound nature of this inquiry deserves further investigation

Very long windy . . . .

More redundant useless rhetoric that does not relate to the discussion/ where you selectively glorify the Vedas and Hinduism (a Theistic religion) and negate other religions of the world.

The bottom line is we simply disagree nothing more.

 

[samtonga43]

To Plato the world of ideas (forms) was more real than the sensual material world.

 

[joelr]

Two observations:
Dense prose does not encourage one to want to read.
Please provide a link.

Those who want information will find it and absorb it, those who do not will not. It's not my concern.

https://philarchive.org/archive/GHESST-2

 

[joelr]

Oh, the irony!

Make your case, show evidence. I don't see any? All you have are claims and acusations. You are the one piggybacking on a post and using it to hurl insults, which is silly. I could use much more precise words but I'm going to have to stick with that

See bold. What do you mean by this, joelr? You use these words a lot, and you've been asked what you mean, but I don't think you have answered the question.

The philosophy is deep, it covers a lot of ground and is rich in ideas. Look it up in the internet philosophy guide if you want to understand the philosophy in the Gita. I have no interest in having this conversation with you.

I am also curious about your use of the word 'bullying'. This word, to me, means
behaving in a way that hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful. Is this what you think shunyadragon is doing?

Well intellectually he certainly isn't more powerful as he's been demonstrating and as to actual size and power that isn't an issue since this is the internet. I wish someone would bully me in real life. It just never happens.
But he's repeatedly and aggressively attacking me with unfounded nonsense arguments made up in his mind.

 

[rational experiences]

Men quote the history of human man thesis planet earth.

So men said you cannot theory past rock.

Rock held it's gases within. It owned no heavens.

Scientific idealism for men of science.

One entity. A planet.
One entity. It's rock.
One entity. It's nothing like a sun.

In the exact each single body placement. In space

Space cosmic law.

The reason I stated no man is God.

God was the rock.

...as I stand on top of the rock as a living human. Exact now..instant.
...as I own a bone body similar construct of rock. Closest identity I belong on earth only.

No other type of human argument allowed. As legal was brought against the human science community of theism.

 

[joelr]

To Plato the world of ideas (forms) was more real than the sensual material world.

Plato's One is beyond all things as we understand them.

This section of the study will focus on the relationship between the One in the first hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides, as further articulated by Proclus, and Thomas Aquinas’ view of God in the highest sense. Proclus defines a “hypothesis” as “that which takes part of the procedure and produces similar conclusions, either all affirmative or all negative or both.” 11 The first hypothesis in Plato’s Parmenides dialectically explores the One as superior to Being and to all other things, by intelligibly negating all predicates that could in turn be said of the One coordinate with Being. While affirmations are considered positive in the world of empirical sciences, the negations present in the Parmenides are higher and beyond the former, since they are most fit to describe what is transcendent all knowledge and perception. For Plato denies that the One is or is not but even negation itself.12 Plato’s hypothesis reaches the truly ineffable. PseudoDionysius interprets this to mean that Plato by begins from the hypothetical and ends in that which is unhypothetical and, as stated earlier, ineffable.13 In this following section the discussion will refrain from affirmatively attributing any physical predicates of God and will deal only with denials of all sorts of categories of beings, whether they may be intellectual or corporeal.

 

[joelr]

Very long windy . . . .

meaning I know what I'm talking about.

More redundant useless rhetoric that does not relate to the discussion/ where you selectively glorify the Vedas and Hinduism (a Theistic religion) and negate other religions of the world.

Whoopsy.....right except IT'S NOT EVEN THE RIGHT DISCUSSION HA HA HA HA!. This is a post to SOMEONE ELSE. They are NOT making delusional absurd manic claims that if one comments on a small aspect of a religion they are commenting on the entire religion and "excluding" all others. Because most people are stable and can make logical arguments and don't have the need to try to bully people.
But I understand everyone is a tough guy behind their computer.
Wow, talk about redundant and useless? Whew!

I have to get back to my Hinduism lecture. Hey, it's so DEEP! Not only that, but it's so much deeper than all other religions of the world!!!! I can't selectively glorify it enough!!!! I'm going to try anyways. I negate all other religions it's so deep!

 

[samtonga43]

Plato's One is beyond all things as we understand them.

This section of the study will focus on the relationship between the One in the first hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides, as further articulated by Proclus, and Thomas Aquinas’ view of God in the highest sense. Proclus defines a “hypothesis” as “that which takes part of the procedure and produces similar conclusions, either all affirmative or all negative or both.” 11 The first hypothesis in Plato’s Parmenides dialectically explores the One as superior to Being and to all other things, by intelligibly negating all predicates that could in turn be said of the One coordinate with Being. While affirmations are considered positive in the world of empirical sciences, the negations present in the Parmenides are higher and beyond the former, since they are most fit to describe what is transcendent all knowledge and perception. For Plato denies that the One is or is not but even negation itself.12 Plato’s hypothesis reaches the truly ineffable. PseudoDionysius interprets this to mean that Plato by begins from the hypothetical and ends in that which is unhypothetical and, as stated earlier, ineffable.13 In this following section the discussion will refrain from affirmatively attributing any physical predicates of God and will deal only with denials of all sorts of categories of beings, whether they may be intellectual or corporeal.

Please cite your source.

 

[samtonga43]

meaning I know what I'm talking about.

No. You are just copying the words of someone who (maybe) does know what she/he is talking about.

Whoopsy.....right except IT'S NOT EVEN THE RIGHT DISCUSSION HA HA HA HA!. This is a post to SOMEONE ELSE. They are NOT making delusional absurd manic claims that if one comments on a small aspect of a religion they are commenting on the entire religion and "excluding" all others. Because most people are stable and can make logical arguments and don't have the need to try to bully people. But I understand everyone is a tough guy behind their computer.
Wow, talk about redundant and useless? Whew!

LOL! Calm down, young man. Have a nice cup of tea and breathe...............

I have to get back to my Hinduism lecture. Hey, it's so DEEP! Not only that, but it's so much deeper than all other religions of the world!!!! I can't selectively glorify it enough!!!! I'm going to try anyways. I negate all other religions it's so deep!

Yep. This is exactly how you're coming across.

 

[joelr]

Please cite your source.

https://philarchive.org/archive/GHESST-2



God, Western Concepts of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

this covers all the Greek views then christian theologians and Islamic theologians

 

[joelr]

No. You are just copying the words of someone who (maybe) does know what she/he is talking about.

And yet I'm the one bringing the subject to light? I've heard scholars talk about Aquinas re-hashing Plato for years and have looked into it to see why. Knowledge is funny, people get it, then they write it down, then you read it and you also have it. Of course the jealous insecure will always try to bring you down when you are educated but who cares. They are sad people.

LOL! Calm down, young man. Have a nice cup of tea and breathe...............

I am plenty calm.

Yep. This is exactly how you're coming across.

I highly doubt you understand the conversation you are replying to. Someday when you find your spine (and other parts) maybe you can make your own argument instead of commenting on a response which was actually sarcasm directed at someone else.

 

[samtonga43]

And yet I'm the one bringing the subject to light? I've heard scholars talk about Aquinas re-hashing Plato for years and have looked into it to see why. Knowledge is funny, people get it, then they write it down, then you read it and you also have it. Of course the jealous insecure will always try to bring you down when you are educated but who cares. They are sad people.

Please cite your source/s
And please learn to use the ? properly.

I am plenty calm.

If you really believe that your posts suggest that you are calm, you are deluding yourself.

I highly doubt you understand the conversation you are replying to. Someday when you find your spine (and other parts) maybe you can make your own argument instead of commenting on a response which was actually sarcasm directed at someone else.

Oh, I do realize it was (not too clever) sarcasm. But it is how you come across.

 

[joelr]

Please cite your source/s
And please learn to use the ? properly.

I gave you a paper comparing Platos One to Aquinas, do you need more? I'll use "?" however I like. Deal with it.

If you really believe that your posts suggest that you are calm, you are deluding yourself.

I am plenty calm.

Oh, I do realize it was (not too clever) sarcasm. But it is how you come across.

How I come across to someone who jumps into a thread just to make personal attacks is of no importance to me. Any other petty grievances or do you have an actual point?

So you knew it was sarcasm in defense of a ridiculous point being made over and over that was completely illogical yet you still decided to jump in with personal attacks. Weak.

 

[samtonga43]

I gave you a paper comparing Platos One to Aquinas, do you need more?

Do you know what "cite your source" means?
If not, please find out.
Then do it.

 

[samtonga43]

So you knew it was sarcasm in defense of a ridiculous point being made over and over that was completely illogical yet you still decided to jump in with personal attacks. Weak.

Yes, I knew it was sarcasm, and I replied because I thought you should know how you come across. If you don't want to know...............carry on.

 

[joelr]

Yes, I knew it was sarcasm, and I replied because I thought you should know how you come across. If you don't want to know...............carry on.

Like I already said. The opinion of someone who has to piggyback into an argument just to try to insult me is not something I care about. Weakness. Any negative thoughts you have are a compliment.

 

[joelr]

Do you know what "cite your source" means?
If not, please find out.
Then do it.

I did. Everything was in the paper.