Historicity of Jesus as a probability spectrum

The Historicity of Jesus as a probability spectrum (See comments in OP)

  • (1) p(HJ) = 100% (Most certainly historical)

    Votes: 46 39.0%
  • (2) p(HJ) = 90%

    Votes: 12 10.2%
  • (3) p(HJ) = 70%

    Votes: 11 9.3%
  • (4) p(HJ) = 60%

    Votes: 12 10.2%
  • (5) p(HJ) = 42%

    Votes: 13 11.0%
  • (6) p(HJ) = 30%

    Votes: 6 5.1%
  • (7) p(HJ) = 10%

    Votes: 6 5.1%
  • (8) p(HJ) = 0% (Pious Forgery)

    Votes: 12 10.2%

  • Total voters
    118
Jul 2016
885
Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
Right, multiple Gods. Aristotle's PRIME MOVER, who I take is your main God (since the others, as you say, are "subordinate") would have no contact with us.

IOW, are you now a proponent of polytheism ?

If you are monotheistic how do YOU reconcile Aristotle's "God" with the Christian "God" ?

Remember, you posted this:


Then you attempted to prove it with Aristotle's PRIME MOVER "God" here:



So, you used a "God" out of a polytheistic philosophical treatise to prove that there is a SINGLE "God" of the Bible.

But then, you post this:



So, are you changing your mind ? Are you saying that the concept of the PRIME MOVER is NOT correct now?

In accordance with Aristotle metaphysic there is ONLY ONE "god" or Prime Mover.
Aristotle worked out a highly articulated theory of theological reasoning ... which is "logically" correct.
So there is non contradiction between "reason" and "faith".
"God" is the object of rational inquiry and the object of religious "faith"
A proof of God's existence is an example of a preamble of faith


The object of the thread is the Historicity of Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,062
You posted this:

In accordance with Aristotle metaphysic there is ONLY ONE "god" or Prime Mover.
But then, you made a statement that seemed to imply there were sub-Gods. Here it is:

There is only PRIME MOVER .. the others are subordinates.
Who are these subordinates ? Does Aristotle write about any "lesser beings" of God ?

Aristotle worked out a highly articulated theory of theological reasoning ... which is "logically" correct.
Does that mean therefore that S. Thomas Aquinas is "logically" incorrect ?

Aquinas went to great lengths to synchronize Aristotle's philosophy to the teachings of Christianity. The aspect we have been talking about is a minor one.

So there is non contradiction between "reason" and "faith".
"God" is the object of rational inquiry and the object of religious "faith"
A proof of God's existence is an example of a preamble of faith
So what ?

Nevertheless, there are many contradictions between the philosophies of S. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. This is not controversial. It is a basic feature of study when one explores the philosophy / theology of S. Thomas Aquinas.


The object of the thread is the Historicity of Jesus.
There are, what seem to me, multiple contradictions within your posts.

I'm trying to get some clarification on what you have posted.

Is that okay ?
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,990
In accordance with Aristotle metaphysic there is ONLY ONE "god" or Prime Mover.
Aristotle worked out a highly articulated theory of theological reasoning ... which is "logically" correct.
How does Aristotel prove there's only one mover? I've tried to search in the net, but found this so far...

The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be.

But this proof I found not very convincing. Is there any other?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,106

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,106
There are, what seem to me, multiple contradictions within your posts.
Is not contradiction (in fact multiple contradictions) a feature of religions in general, and christianity in particular ?

Luckily contradictions can usually be ignored by appealing to miracles or to the old "God work in mysterious ways"
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,990
The very same thing that I quoted:

"Number of movers
Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such [mover] or more than one, and if the latter, how many."[29] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 47 or 55. Nonetheless, he concludes his Metaphysics, Book Λ, with a quotation from the Iliad: "The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be."[30][31]
aldo12, you call that convincing?
 
Jul 2016
885
Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
There are, what seem to me, multiple contradictions within your posts.

I'm trying to get some clarification on what you have posted.

Is that okay ?
Hi

Not all things that exist can be defined by a materialist science.
Particularly ideas and mental models.
Show me the numbers I ask you - where resides the numbers for instance. Is it a physical entity or a mental construct? If that cannot be considered metaphysical then what else can?
To me it looks like metaphysical is as real as physical if not more.


I don't want to persuade someone to accept or not "metaphysic".. but you can't deny, - from a logical point of view -, it is not "rational".
The answer of the fundamental questions is beyond empiric science.
The empiric science will never be able to answer the question: Why there is something instead of nothing...
 
Jul 2016
885
Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
How does Aristotel prove there's only one mover? I've tried to search in the net, but found this so far...

The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be.

But this proof I found not very convincing. Is there any other?

Can you prove that the numbers exist?
 

Similar History Discussions