I don't know what texts you are referring to assert these statements with such certainty.

I don't know what texts you are referring to assert these statements with such certainty. — Paine

Aristotle,Metaphysics, Book XII, sections 7 and 9.

And the Aquinas part?

I will be back with my books tomorrow.

Aristotle: a Prime Mover or maybe many of them, as the final cause of the world. As finality he or they move the formal and material in eternal time. Everything is one with the finality

Aquinas: one God in three persons, as final and efficient creator out of nothing. Although he does say reason can't disprove an eternal universe he holds to creation from faith and has many new arguments based on Aristotle attempting to prove the existence of God.

The problem with their arguments is that everything has potential through their actuality and it can't be proven that matter is inferior to simplicity

The problem with their arguments is that everything has potential through their actuality and it can't be proven that matter is inferior to simplicity — Gregory

Do you have a passage of Aquinas that brings this point about simplicity forward?

Contra Gentiles chapter 16-20

The books are labeled according to Greek letters. Are you referring to Lambda or Mu?

The books are labeled according to Greek letters. Are you referring to Lambda or Mu? — Paine

Mu

You are right, the prime mover would have to be physical to be an efficient cause.

Just remember, the way philosophers speak disparagingly about theology and theologians and dismiss it as woo-woo is exactly how scientists treat philosophy and philosophers!

First lets put things in Categories.
Atheism was one of the major achievements of Philosophy (together with naturalism). As a result they allowed Science to experience a run away success in epistemology for more than 500 years and that was achieved by just removing agency and Arguments from ignorance from the list of "possible" answers and explanations.
Theology was a worldview that sneaked in Philosophy really early due to our superstitious nature and biological urges to ease our epistemic and existential anxieties.
We now view all supernatural worldviews as pseudo philosophy and this is why you won't find serious works under that tag.

But it did get me wondering what the difference is between theology, religion, and philosophy (of religion) — Paulm12

-Theology is the umbrella term where different religions arise and flourish.
Since we were unable to find any "wise" claims originating from theology(claims that can inform us of facts and expand our understanding for the world we live in), Philosophy is limited in studying these beliefs and their role in our societies.

In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

-If you read all my comments, that is my main argument. Theological claims are not Philosophical.
In order to understand that distinction, one needs to understand what Philosophy really is.
The etymology of the word inform us for the goal any philosophical inquiry should have." Produce wise claims that expand our understanding of our world and inform our actions".
In order for any claim to be wise it needs to be founded or originate from epistemic foundations.
We can NOT accept a claim to be wise when it is in conflict with Knowledge.
With that fact in mind we can easily see that Theology can not provide any wise claims because none of its convictions are based on knowledge. They are unfalsifiable faith based beliefs.
What philosophy can do is study what people believe and see whether they have a positive or negative impact on facts of reality.
So theology has more of a "chronicling" role in Philosophy than an actual discipline that can produce wise claims.

As I have said before, this is more of Chronicling and less of Philosophizing. We already know that those thesis are not wise because they either conflict with knowledge, logic or they are unfalsifiable. So we can not really work upon them and produce wise claims that can expand our understanding of the world we live in or inform our actions.

What we can say for sure is that the Theological assumptions are a poor source of wisdom or epistemology and this is why we can only find Philosophy studying its history and social impact than counting its philosophical contributions.

What we can say for sure is that the Theological assumptions are a poor source of wisdom or epistemology and this is why we can only find Philosophy studying its history and social impact than counting its philosophical contributions. — Nickolasgaspar

That totally depends on the theology used. A theology that specifies it's gods and mentions their reasons for creation, can have profound impact on epistemology and be a source of deep wisdom, no matter how much you don't want this to be.

Not really.
Specifying unfalsifiable concepts doesn't really replace the need of epistemic foundations in a claim.
In order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge.
i.e. You can find my tip of "jumping from the window to reach your car fast" to be wise especially when you are in a harry, but if my "wise" claim ignores the fact that the apartment is at the top floor of a tall building...that doesn't make it so wise...

So you need epistemic foundations for any claim to be wise...thus Philosophical.

-" A theology that specifies it's gods and mentions their reasons for creation, can have profound impact on epistemology and be a source of deep wisdom,"
Now If that was indeed the case then we should've been able to find parts of our Epistemology based on Supernatural Principles...and those principles should be able to produce testable predictions and technical applications when applied !
As far as I am aware no such entries have ever been made it in our Academic epistemology and we don't have any Major Philosophical breakthroughs.

So we really need to investigate why a religious claim appears to have profound implications in knowledge or wisdom and identify the true cause. Most of the times is just reason that happens to hold unnecessary supernatural assumptions.

Specifying unfalsifiable concepts doesn't really replace the need of epistemic foundations in a claim. — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe not, but these unfalsifiable concepts are needed as concepts within the sciences and outside of it ti direct science. For example, I think the gods, in their common effort to create the ingredients of the universe, created the most simple and perfect particles, which means only two will do. A preon model.

In order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge.
i.e. You can find my tip of "jumping from the window to reach your car fast" to be wise especially when you are in a harry, but if my "wise" claim ignores the fact that the apartment is at the top floor of a tall building...that doesn't make it so wise... — Nickolasgaspar

I don't agree. Wise claims need not be based on knowledge. On the contrary. A wise claim can be based on knowledge, but not necessarily so and wise claims direct knowledge.

Maybe not, but these unfalsifiable concepts are needed as concepts within the sciences and outside of it ti direct science. For example, I think the gods, in their common effort to create the ingredients of the universe, created the most simple and perfect particles, which means only two will do. A preon model. — Haglund

-I don't make sense of your statement. Science doesn't do assumptions, especially those who are in conflict with the observable paradigm. Again you need to demonstrate objective a cause (god) in order to use it in your argument. If not you are using an unsound arguments as a foundation for the rest of your claims and that is pseudo philosophy. Your foundations need to be epistemically solid.

I don't agree. Wise claims need not be based on knowledge. On the contrary. A wise claim can be based on knowledge, but not necessarily so and wise claims direct knowledge. — Haglund

So you say you don't agree...and then you stress their strong relation!(weird!)
As I posted many times, a wise claim needs to be based on knowledge, so that we expand our understanding of the world (produce more knowledge).
Again in order to make a wise claim you need the FACTS.(knowledge).
Putting the facts together is what makes your narrative wise. Using your narrative is what allow you to understand more things about the world(produce more knowledge).

Can a 5 kid provide you a wise claim for human sex life? Of course not because the kid doesn't know the facts. Wisdom doesn't form out of thin air...the better the facts the greater the value of wisdom in a statement. this isn't debatable. Aristotle knew it and this is why he placed Physika(science) within the Philosophical method!

This is not difficult.

-I don't make sense of your statement — Nickolasgaspar

That is, of course, because in your reality gods don't exist.

Science doesn't do assumptions, especially those who are in conflict with the observable paradigm. — Nickolasgaspar

There always have to be assumptions made against the paradigm. Science would be stuck if not. My assumption is quarks and leptons being composite. Which is against the standard (model) or current paradigm. But god inspired.

So you say you don't agree...and then you stress their strong relation!(weird!) — Nickolasgaspar

I said it can be based on knowledge. But not necessarily.

Again in order to make a wise claim you need the FACTS.(knowledge — Nickolasgaspar

That's a dogma. Well, actually no. It's a false claim.

Putting the facts together is what makes your narrative wise. Using your narrative is what allow you to understand more things about the world(produce more knowledge). — Nickolasgaspar

I agree. But the narrative doesn't need fact based. The narrative can even shape the facts.

That is, of course, because in your reality gods don't exist. — Haglund

I don't accept "personal realities". I only accept A reality where everything in it can be objectively verified by the same high standards of evidence and methods of evaluation.
If you are arguing about subjective personal realities then I have no interest in claims that you can not objectively demonstrate to be true.
Last time I checked 4.300 religions , 160+spiritual categories and numerous pseudo philosophical worldviews make claims about their subjective realities.
"Mine" only has one objective version and it is challenged by the high standards of science.
This objective "reality" allows you to post your comments on this platform....

I said it can be based on knowledge. But not necessarily. — Haglund

You can not have your pie and eat it too. Either your wisdom is founded on knowledge or it can be empty deepities without foundations.
(coincidences are not impossible).

That's a dogma. Well, actually no. It's a false claim — Haglund

lol no it isn't its a condition for a claim to be wise. Wisdom demands data in order to arrive to an informed conclusion BY DEFAULT.
You seem to cherry pick my lines....you tend to ignore those that prove the problematic nature of your belief.
Again its a good reason why older people are wiser than toddlers, or those who reflect upon their observations or their acquired knowledge etc...this is not debatable.

First lets put things in Categories — Nickolasgaspar

:up: :clap:

I agree. But the narrative doesn't need fact based. The narrative can even shape the facts. — Haglund

-That is magical thinking. Sure narrative can guide us to specific facts but bad narrative can make up facts (god beliefs).
Religions is a great example on how faith based narrative creates a distorted picture of the world and its facts.
i.e. you are denying an obvious facts....wisdom needs input in order to be credible.
You have strong beliefs that doesn't allow you to see and accept simple facts.

Just remember, the way philosophers speak disparagingly about theology and theologians and dismiss it as woo-woo is exactly how scientists treat philosophy and philosophers! — Agent Smith

Its neither Science's or Philosophy's problem.
Bad Philosophers and Theology allow scientists and good philosophers to "rub facts in their face".
Again Science and Philosophy have pretty clear goals. The production of Knowledge and Wisdom. Bad philosophy and theology provide none of the above.

Its not fair to demand respect from others when "you"(not you specifically) want to play tennis...without the net. You are not a tennis player...just because you hold a racket.

Its not fair to demand respect from others when "you"(not you specifically) want to play tennis...without the net. You are not a tennis player...just because you hold a racket. — Nickolasgaspar

Exactly! How lamentable it is that this is parenticide. Daughter ideas attacking/killing parent ideas. The world of memes seems more depraved and violent than the world of animals. The stakes are probably higher, oui?

Its neither Science's or Philosophy's problem.
Bad Philosophers and Theology allow scientists and good philosophers to "rub facts in their face".
Again Science and Philosophy have pretty clear goals. The production of Knowledge and Wisdom. Bad philosophy and theology provide none of the above. — Nickolasgaspar

As far as what I wrote is concerned, I'm serving in the capacity of a conscientious reporter.