is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

[Agent Smith]

Fill in the blanks

The One ___ OR The Many ___

[Age]

Now, if some thing is 'naterial', then it can be touched, felt, tasted, smelt, heard, or cut up and looked at right?

If no, then why not? And will you provide examples.

But if yes, then HOW and WHERE, EXACTLY, does one find the 'materialistic' PROOF of 'thoughts' and 'emotions'?

yes, material is that which can be perceived by the senses, directly or indirectly. For example, a person does not directly perceive radio waves, but through the antenna of a radio receiver, yes, he can perceive.


***HOW and WHERE, EXACTLY, does one find the 'materialistic' PROOF of 'thoughts' and 'emotions'?***

try to do this homework on your own, please..

Here we have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER one who can NOT just back up and support what they CLAIM is true.

[Janoah]

But then, Aristotle wouldn't be a "true philosopher" either, and you cited him already...

The thing is, that one cannot be absolutely true, one can only approach the truth, everyone is mistaken, and philosophers too.
But, rather, philosophers after Aristotle only moved away from the truth in the idea of the One, and this was influenced by Christianity.
Aristotle brought the scientific language that the One - non-material. But Christians cannot believe what cannot be touched in the literal sense of the word, therefore, recognizing Aristotle, they are looking for ways to mess with themselves head, so that they can accept Aristotle, and "God" can be touched.

[Immanuel Can]

But Christians cannot believe what cannot be touched in the literal sense of the word,

Well, this is easy to prove untrue, in so many, many cases, I can't imagine where you came up with the idea. It's manifestly empirically false. You can check. But Christians not only believe the Torah, but also have verses in the Second Testament, such as "...no man has seen God at any time..." (John 1:18), and "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24), and "He [Messiah] is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1:15). So no, that just isn't the case at all, and I don't know how you can imagine it...unless you just don't know Christianity at all.

...therefore, recognizing Aristotle, they are looking for ways to mess with themselves head, so that they can accept Aristotle, and "God" can be touched.

That's just a weird conclusion...but since the premise of it is so wrong, it doesn't seem we need to point that out.

[Janoah]

But Christians cannot believe what cannot be touched in the literal sense of the word,

Well, this is easy to prove untrue, in so many, many cases, I can't imagine where you came up with the idea.

It's strange, because I started this topic with this,
the Apostle Thomas proved the materiality of Jesus by poking.
Or are you a monophysite?

[Immanuel Can]

...the Apostle Thomas proved the materiality of Jesus by poking.

No, the Apostle Thomas confirmed the bodily resurrection of Jesus by being offered the chance to touch His hands and side. He already knew about the "materiality" of Jesus...he'd seen that body crucified. What he wanted to know is, is this really true?

[Janoah]

He already knew about the "materiality" of Jesus...he'd seen that body crucified.

Here, you confirm that the God of Christians, Jesus, can be touched, for he is material.

[mickthinks]

The question seems to me to be malformed and confused. Philosophers are generally disinclined to predicate truth to concepts, reserving it for propositions. And we set the bar for what qualifies as "true" extremely (some think impossibly) high.

On the other hand, theological truth is known only to God and will be revealed to us on the Day of Judgement, by which time, I imagine, all interest in the question in the OP will evaporate.

[Age]

My question was, is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

Yes.

Let's say Aristotle proved that the One, the Primary cause (or first uncaused cause) - is immaterial.

What are 'we' saying this for, EXACTLY?

The Apostle Thomas proved the materiality of Jesus by poking.

'Poking', or 'touching', a physical human body is NOT proving that what A 'personal' name is referring to, EXACTLY, is 'material'.

OF COURSE EVERY human body is 'visible material'. But who 'people' ARE, and EVERY 'person' IS, EXACTLY, is INVISIBLE, and thus NOT 'pokable'.

And thus discovered the philosophical failure of the concept of the Christian God.

The ACTUAL 'failure' of the concept of ANY so-called "christian" God, or even of the ACTUAL God, Itself, was NOT 'discovered' through the 'poking' of a human being, but IS UNCOVERED, and REVEALED, in the MISINTERPRETATION/S 'you', human beings, HAVE and HOLD ONTO.

For God is non-material from a philosophical point of view.

Just some 'thing' to think about here, but what IS 'invisible' or 'non-visible' is NOT necessarily 'non-material' AT ALL.

[Immanuel Can]

He already knew about the "materiality" of Jesus...he'd seen that body crucified.

Here, you confirm that the God of Christians, Jesus, can be touched, for he is material.

Of course. But there's no point in what you're saying that I can see. "Materiality" isn't inherently a bad thing; and what would one expect in the case of the "Incarnation," if one even understands the theological claim behind it?

[Iwannaplato]

The Apostle Thomas proved the materiality of Jesus by poking. And thus discovered the philosophical failure of the concept of the Christian God. For God is non-material from a philosophical point of view.

In the Christian stories, it's pretty much a given that Jesus is physical, if not just physical. I mean, the whole passion of Christ -> Crucifixion. And, I mean, Jesus, in the stories, demonstrated just what Thomas demanded.

I'm not saying the stories are true, but if they are not you're trusting them for the above is strange. Like you accepted only a part and do not explain why only that part.

[Janoah]

"Materiality" isn't inherently a bad thing; and what would one expect in the case of the "Incarnation," if one even understands the theological claim behind it?

God is the First Cause, and the First Cause is not material and immutable.

[Immanuel Can]

"Materiality" isn't inherently a bad thing; and what would one expect in the case of the "Incarnation," if one even understands the theological claim behind it?

God is the First Cause, and the First Cause is not material and immutable.

Yes, that's true. God made materials, and as the First Cause of all things, is not Himself made of materials. He's immutable, too: His character does not change. That is the nature of God the Father, and why we call Him "God the Father."

So a man could never become HaShem. Fair enough. But could HaShem become a Man?

[Alexis Jacobi]

God is the First Cause, and the First Cause is not material and immutable.

Thus the idea of the Trinity: God existing on all possible planes: the abstract, the immediate (incarnated), and as a potency that moves through space and time, past, present, future.

All dimensions are therefore represented.

The Idea, naturally, transcends picture-book Christianity. The idea is far older.

[Dubious]

"Materiality" isn't inherently a bad thing; and what would one expect in the case of the "Incarnation," if one even understands the theological claim behind it?

God is the First Cause, and the First Cause is not material and immutable.

That's only one theory among many which seem more mutable.