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

[Janoah]

• “For God

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. And thus discovered the philosophical failure of the concept of the Christian God. For God is non-material from a philosophical point of view.

[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.

There are many human beings labelled "jesus", and obviously the human body IS made out of 'material'.

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

I am not sure how the two, supposedly, logically follow. But if you really would like to share how, then you will.

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

Why?

Also, are 'thoughts' and 'emotions' non-material from a so-called 'philosophical point of view also?

If no, then why not?

But if yes, then how do you know?

Oh, and by the way, as I already stated: it has ALREADY BEEN PROVED that the 'primary cause' (or 'first uncaused cause') IS invisible.

[Janoah]

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

Why?

Everything material is changeable. If it changes, it is consequently subject to the influence of causes. If it is subject to the influence of causes, therefore it cannot be the First Cause, the First Causeless Cause.
The One, - the First Cause of everything (or the First, causeless cause), therefore, cannot be material (because if it were material, it would be subject to change).


***are 'thoughts' and 'emotions' non-material from a so-called 'philosophical point of view also?***

"thoughts" and "emotions" are naturally material, products of the body's nervous activity. "Artificial intelligence", because it is clear that it is material.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Then this "philosophical point of view" is incomplete. Torah asserts that God can be incarnate, not just "non-material." How else did God meet Abraham, or "walk with Adam" in the cool of the evening? With whom or what did Jacob wrestle? What did Isaiah see when he said, "I saw the Lord..."?

[Janoah]

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

Then this "philosophical point of view" is incomplete. Torah asserts that God can be incarnate, not just "non-material." How else did God meet Abraham, or "walk with Adam" in the cool of the evening? With whom or what did Jacob wrestle? What did Isaiah see when he said, "I saw the Lord..."?

Not everything should be taken literally in the Biblical texts. Especially if taken literally, the text is absurd.
If, for example, in the text someone perceives something as the "finger of God", then God forbid, take it literally.
"Jews in the tradition of Maimonides posit that anthropomorphism in the Torah, such as the use of body part names, is completely metaphorical…"

[Age]

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

Why?

Everything material is changeable. If it changes, it is consequently subject to the influence of causes. If it is subject to the influence of causes, therefore it cannot be the First Cause, the First Causeless Cause.
The One, - the First Cause of everything (or the First, causeless cause), therefore, cannot be material (because if it were material, it would be subject to change).

Okay thank you. This will come in very handy as they somewhat back and support some of the CLAIMS that I have ALREADY MADE here.

***are 'thoughts' and 'emotions' non-material from a so-called 'philosophical point of view also?***

"thoughts" and "emotions" are naturally material, products of the body's nervous activity. "Artificial intelligence", because it is clear that it is material.

Besides this NOT logically following, just saying, '... are naturally material,' or 'it is clear that 'it' is material' does NOT necessarily make 'it/them' so.

ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF is what I am LOOKING FOR here.

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'?

[Impenitent]

nihilism is "a philosophical point of view"

-Imp

[Age]

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

Then this "philosophical point of view" is incomplete. Torah asserts that God can be incarnate, not just "non-material."

WHY do you speak and write as though what you say and claim is IRREFUTABLY True?

And, how MANY TIMES do you need to be INFORMED that it is BECAUSE you say and write things in a way, exactly like you did just here, which CAUSES people to NOT listen to you and to NOT take you seriously AT ALL before you COMPREHEND this?

Would you like to listen to someone keep TELLING YOU, 'It is written in the Koran ...', MEANING that whatever is written MUST BE true?

REALLY, would you KEEP listening to them? Would you take them seriously?

How else did God meet Abraham, or "walk with Adam" in the cool of the evening? With whom or what did Jacob wrestle? What did Isaiah see when he said, "I saw the Lord..."?

The IRREFUTABLE Truth here WILL BE REVEALED soon enough.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Then this "philosophical point of view" is incomplete. Torah asserts that God can be incarnate, not just "non-material." How else did God meet Abraham, or "walk with Adam" in the cool of the evening? With whom or what did Jacob wrestle? What did Isaiah see when he said, "I saw the Lord..."?

Not everything should be taken literally in the Biblical texts. Especially if taken literally, the text is absurd.
If, for example, in the text someone perceives something as the "finger of God", then God forbid, take it literally.

How about in Daniel 5? Would you take it literally there, or is it still mere metaphor?

"Jews in the tradition of Maimonides posit that anthropomorphism in the Torah, such as the use of body part names, is completely metaphorical…"

Let's see if that's true.

Then Abraham never met the Lord, nor did Hagar, nor Moses in Ex.3, nor Balaam, and Jacob didn't wrestle with the angel of the Lord...and the Lord didn't come to Bochim in Judges 2, even though the text says He did. And Gideon was a liar (Judges 6:22), and didn't meet the Lord "face to face." And so on, for the many more who claimed to see God in human form. They were all just using metaphors...the same metaphor.

That's your position?

I understand the worry that a man would be God, lest it mean blasphemy; but I don't understand any worry that the Almighty would manifest as a man. That seems a very simple thing for an omnipotent God, one would think.

[Janoah]

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..

[Janoah]

Then Abraham never met the Lord, ...

That's your position?

again, only and only allegorically.
This position of Maimonides is not only mine, but in general Judaism.


***an omnipotent God***

God "can't do anything", God has no potentiality, God is only actual, Aristotle proved this, because we are at a philosophical forum ..

[Immanuel Can]

Then Abraham never met the Lord, ...

That's your position?

again, only and only allegorically.
This position of Maimonides is not only mine, but in general Judaism.

Well, in my experience, Judaism's much more complex than that. It's divided between four major, and arguably a fifth category of belief...each with significant practices and theology of its own. And not everybody's following Maimonides, that's for sure.

God "can't do anything", God has no potentiality, God is only actual, Aristotle proved this, because we are at a philosophical forum ..

Torah says God does many things. Aristotle, so far as anyone knows, didn't even know HaShem. He lacked capability for making such a judgment.

[Janoah]

And not everybody's following Maimonides, that's for sure.

After all, it is more important to follow the truth, and not the authorities, and the authorities were called Aristotle or Maimonides, this is more a matter of historical science.
By the way, and besides Maimonides, there were authoritative Jewish sages who claimed that only true philosophers are capable of worshiping the One, and the rest do not understand that it is One.



***Torah says God does many things.***

Maimonides comments on the "acts of God" as natural phenomena.

[Immanuel Can]

...only true philosophers are capable of worshiping the One...

So Hume, Nietzsche, Russell...not "true philosophers." But then, neither would Socrates, Aquinas or Kierkegaard be considered "true philosophers," since the gods or God they revered is not the ineffable, unitarian 'god' you describe. Is that what you want to say?

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

[reasonvemotion]

To accept the veracity of the bible, only those who accept the bible as true can appreciate and understand what the bible has to say about any topic.

Without that fundamental understanding any discussion is moot.