Sunday, September 11, 2016
Aristotle’s God is sort of similar to the God I believe in, but certain characteristics that he mentions make me question their validity. For instance, the very fact that he is considered pure in form and actuality makes sense, and in him no changes can occur. Of course, when I think of the word “changes” I immediately think of laws of nature and other such un-changeable occurrences in nature. Yes, God could change things if he wanted to but of course I know Aristotle is talking about these laws of nature that don’t allow for change under a pure ruler such as God. He continues on to defend God’s existence by stating that God must be an unmovable and eternal being (substance/actuality) in order to have caused an initial movement. The issue is that he implies God needs to be loved in order to provide this initial movement, however, it is not that God needs love, but that God is love. He himself is that virtue. I find fault in Aristotle’s reasoning concerning God’s knowledge of us. God created us and thus has full knowledge of our existence and interacts with us and our history. Also, God is the first and only unmovable mover. I do however agree that God does consist of form without matter, in a way. Such that he is a being that is not actually physically a being. Although, I will say one more thing about Aristotle’s God. Aristotle has this false assumption that everything is progressively becoming more like God. Let me ask you, though: Is ISIS becoming more like God? Are all of our social upheavals in the media becoming more like God? Are the countless religious, political, and social issues of this world becoming anymore like God who is holy, loving, joyful, and kind? NO. And so, Aristotle’s God falls short of being an accurate representation of the one true God.