Christianity

[Belinda]

It's impossible to make an idol of nature. Nature is simply what is the case, whereas idols are particular ideas .

do not mix immiscible ..
Nature is both changeable matter, subject to the laws of nature, and regularity of nature to which matter is subject.
If we return to philosophical schemes, then the substantial form is the First cause of the world. Aristotle calls the One the form of the world.
The regularity of nature is the immaterial form of the world, its inner beginning, its essence, and matter is its content.
And an idol is, in fact, - the materialization of God, the materialization of the immaterial. Or, conversely, the deification of the changeable material.
Thus, the deification of material nature is the making of an idol, and the One is the regularity of nature.

I agree that nature is as you say, natura naturans and also natura naturata. I diagree that natura naturans is superior to natura naturata. The power of priests and kings decreed that natura naturans is superior to natura naturata, and from that paradigm stems class systems where the hewers of wood and the drawers of water are at the bottom of the heap, mere naturata. Also from the false superiority of natura naturans comes devaluing the physical, the human body, and sex.

You have it back to front! Your schema idolises natura naturata, whereas natura naturata and natura naturans are complementary , and subjectively each is a matter of perspective.

Regularity of nature is , as you say, an Aristotelian idea and it's subsequently the Christian idea of nature.

[Janoah]

• “For God

My question was, is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?
Let's say Aristotle proved that the One, the Primary cause (or first uncaused cause) - is immaterial.

There is no God/creator. I can prove that: Consider the opposite (there is a God). This means that there was a point that there was only God and nothing else since God is the creator of everything. God then creates. The act of creation however needs time since we are going from a state of only God to a state of God and the creation. This means that time has to be created beforehand. This leads to a regress in the creation of time since you need time for the creation of time. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

there is a Jewish story:
An atheist comes to the rabbi, and says -
"Rebbe, I don't believe in God!"
The Rebbe answers him -
"In a God you don't believe in, I don't believe either."

In Aristotle's proof of God, there is no creation out of nothing.
The most authoritative Judaic sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Therefore, your argument against the existence of God does not work.

[Belinda]

Janoah wrote:

In Aristotle's proof of God, there is no creation out of nothing.
The most authoritative Jewish sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Existence itself ('the world') is the cause of itself so existence itself does not need a causal explanation.

The world was not created in time because the world is all that is the case.

[bahman]

My question was, is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?
Let's say Aristotle proved that the One, the Primary cause (or first uncaused cause) - is immaterial.

There is no God/creator. I can prove that: Consider the opposite (there is a God). This means that there was a point that there was only God and nothing else since God is the creator of everything. God then creates. The act of creation however needs time since we are going from a state of only God to a state of God and the creation. This means that time has to be created beforehand. This leads to a regress in the creation of time since you need time for the creation of time. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

there is a Jewish story:
An atheist comes to the rabbi, and says -
"Rebbe, I don't believe in God!"
The Rebbe answers him -
"In a God you don't believe in, I don't believe either."

In Aristotle's proof of God, there is no creation out of nothing.
The most authoritative Judaic sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Therefore, your argument against the existence of God does not work.

So what the creation means?

[Janoah]

Janoah wrote:

In Aristotle's proof of God, there is no creation out of nothing.
The most authoritative Jewish sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Existence itself ('the world') is the cause of itself so existence itself does not need a causal explanation.

The world was not created in time because the world is all that is the case.

natura naturans and also natura naturata are from Baruch Spinoza's pantheistic schema.
I do not agree with the pantheistic scheme, in which "infinite matter" is deified, which is allegedly unchanged in Spinoza's scheme.
One can start by saying that simultaneous infinity is absurd.
And after all, idealization, deification of the material and on an intuitive level, is disgusting.
Although it may be desirable when, say, a lady of the heart is worshiped ..

Priests, kings, and woodcutters alike seek something permanent in the world, not subject to variability, to rely on.
Immutable both for woodcutters, and for kings with priests, only the immaterial regularity of nature, isn't it?

Aristotle spoke of the immaterial, unchanging form of the world. The fact that this form is the One law of nature is my conclusion. Francis Bacon said that the form is the laws of nature.

[Immanuel Can]

The most authoritative Judaic sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Except that's verifiably wrong.

Entropy proves the universe is not eternal. Energy is observably deteriorating from a state of higher order to a state of lower order, and distributing energy. We're moving from a point of infusion of order toward Heat Death.

It's observable, and as certain as any scientfic fact we know. And it's confirmed by things like the "red shift" effect. We know the universe has not always existed, and left to itself, will not always exist.

So even if we doubt Creation, we cannot possibly rationally doubt the Origin Point, whether we call it Creation, the Big Bang, or something before the Big Bang.

The universe is not "co-eternal" with anything. It's not eternal at all.

[Janoah]

There is no God/creator. I can prove that: Consider the opposite (there is a God). This means that there was a point that there was only God and nothing else since God is the creator of everything. God then creates. The act of creation however needs time since we are going from a state of only God to a state of God and the creation. This means that time has to be created beforehand. This leads to a regress in the creation of time since you need time for the creation of time. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

there is a Jewish story:
An atheist comes to the rabbi, and says -
"Rebbe, I don't believe in God!"
The Rebbe answers him -
"In a God you don't believe in, I don't believe either."

In Aristotle's proof of God, there is no creation out of nothing.
The most authoritative Judaic sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Therefore, your argument against the existence of God does not work.

So what the creation means?

Creatio ex nihilo.
But, however, "Ex nihilo nihil fit".

[Janoah]

The most authoritative Judaic sage, Maimonides, also proves the existence of the Divine precisely on the basis that there was no creation of the world in time, that is, the world is co-eternal to the One.

Except that's verifiably wrong.

Entropy proves the universe is not eternal. Energy is observably deteriorating from a state of higher order to a state of lower order, and distributing energy. We're moving from a point of infusion of order toward Heat Death.

It's observable, and as certain as any scientfic fact we know. And it's confirmed by things like the "red shift" effect. We know the universe has not always existed, and left to itself, will not always exist.

So even if we doubt Creation, we cannot possibly rationally doubt the Origin Point, whether we call it Creation, the Big Bang, or something before the Big Bang.

The universe is not "co-eternal" with anything. It's not eternal at all.

We may not know, and we do not know all the laws of nature.
The proof of the existence of the One does not need the absurd "Creatio ex nihilo". This is what Rambam is talking about. Rambam says that his proof does not mean that he does not believe in creation at the initial moment in time, but to prove the existence of the One, he does not need "Creatio ex nihilo".

[Immanuel Can]

however, "Ex nihilo nihil fit".

False axiom. Obviously.

[Janoah]

however, "Ex nihilo nihil fit".

False axiom. Obviously.

Give proof of this falsehood. The "Big Bang" hypothesis does not mean that there was nothing that exploded, and the authors of this hypothesis do not assert creation from nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

however, "Ex nihilo nihil fit".

False axiom. Obviously.

Give proof of this falsehood. The "Big Bang" hypothesis does not mean that there was nothing that exploded, and the authors of this hypothesis do not assert creation from nothing.

The impossibility of an infinite regression of causes.

[Janoah]

False axiom. Obviously.

Give proof of this falsehood. The "Big Bang" hypothesis does not mean that there was nothing that exploded, and the authors of this hypothesis do not assert creation from nothing.

The impossibility of an infinite regression of causes.

Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but what is improperly with infinity in time?

[Belinda]

Give proof of this falsehood. The "Big Bang" hypothesis does not mean that there was nothing that exploded, and the authors of this hypothesis do not assert creation from nothing.

The impossibility of an infinite regression of causes.

Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but what is improperly with infinity in time?

That nothingcomes from nothing does not apply to God. God is cause of Himself. If God is the pancreator then causation too is His creation.

[Immanuel Can]

Give proof of this falsehood. The "Big Bang" hypothesis does not mean that there was nothing that exploded, and the authors of this hypothesis do not assert creation from nothing.

The impossibility of an infinite regression of causes.

Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but what is improperly with infinity in time?

It's not "simultanaety" that's the problem. It's "cause" that makes it impossible.

May I explain?

Think of it this way. Your father, let us say, is the "cause" of your existence. But if he is the "cause" of your existence, then it means he must have already existed before you were born. He had to exist BEFORE you did.

Now, if he didn't -- say, if you told somebody, "This person is my father: I was born in 1985 and he was born in 1989," then they know you're lying. They know because a man cannot possibly be your father if he was not even born until after you were.

So here's the important axiom, which no doubt you can see now: to be a "cause" of something else, a thing has to be in existence before the thing we regard as its "effect." If it is not, if it is either contemporaneous or only existing after the "effect," then we are 100% sure that thing is not, and cannot be, the cause of that effect.

This means that for every member in your ancestor sequences, the prior member was the prerequisite for the next one. Each subsequent member in that set of ancestors could not possibly have come into existence without the prior existence and action of the member before. Clear enough?

But in a chain of events in which each prior member is the prerequisite of the next, the chain cannot ever start. That's startling, maybe; but think about it.

If there are a fixed number of prerequisite states for the present state, the chain can start. (It might be short or long, but it can get going.) But if the chain is actually infinite, then there is always another prerequisite to ever member in the entire set. In other words, there are infinite prerequisites for the whole chain.

"Infinities," by definition, are limitless. There is no point at which the prerequisites have been met that would allow the chain to commence.

The conclusions are, I hope, now obvious. And they are inescapable, and mathematically and scientifically certain.


Anything that requires an infinite chain of prerequisites (causes) never gets started.

BUT...You and I are here!

Therefore, inescapably, we are not products of any infinite chain of prerequisites (any infinite set of causes).


Therefore, we are products of a FINITE chain of causes, and so is the whole universe, insomuch as it is also a member of the set of things that are involved in the cause-effect chain.

So far, so good? Is that evident now?

[Dontaskme]

So even if we doubt Creation, we cannot possibly rationally doubt the Origin Point, whether we call it Creation, the Big Bang, or something before the Big Bang.

What makes you think you know there was an ''Origin Point'' ?

Tell us now, and be honest, were you personally there in person at the conception of the ''Origin Point' or something, that you are able to verify %100 that indeed there was an ''Origin Point''

You tripping again IC