Childhood is believing in the Newtonian Model of the Universe...

A geocentric theory? This was proven wrong.

C'mon, evolution's validity can be debated. But no one should be arguing for a geocentric universe. It is patently obvious we are living in a heliocentric universe. This is like the flat-earthers you guys. Remember how the flat-earthers got laughed out of Veeky Forums?

And the timecube theory too. Man, the geocentric theory of the universe is just dumb man. Creative, but dumb. Theologically and scientifically it makes sense that we have a heliocentric universe, and when these things are in unison, typically I look no further. This is the way God intended it.

>C'mon, evolution's validity can be debated. But no one should be arguing for a geocentric universe. It is patently obvious we are living in a heliocentric universe.
you think the sun is the center of the universe?The solar system perhaps, but the whole damn universe?

Sigh, whoops, sorry. Solar system.

All of this being said though guys, The Sand Reckoner was a beautiful work of scientific art by Archimedes. Everyone should check it out.

>Only one Universe. It is all within in a giant sphere. Nothing exist outside the sphere. All of space is body.
>The universe is divided into concentric crystalline spheres: sphere of the stars, 7 spheres for the planets (means ‘wanderers’ in Greek; Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)
>You have superlunar (or celestial) region above the earth and sublunar region below the earth. ether is the perfect substance on the highest plane.
>four elements (fire, air, water, earth) have different weight. Earth is the heaviest, and as such it is pushed to the center. Water is the next heaviest, followed by air and finally fire.
>the Earth is a unique, stable, and central place which defines the places that constitute an absolute, finite space, or the universe.

>I was only pretending to be retarded

celestial spheres looking a little better these days eh?

CHECK OUT MY NEW BOOK
The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

"Prime mover"
"Nudge"

Fucking Christian detected. Put Aristotle down you fucking kidnapper. He has nothing to do with your anthropomorphic divinity.

Tell me what you know about Socrates's God?

I am a Platonist, I follow the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. In terms of the "prime mover", I agree with Aristotle and accept that the unmoved mover is superior to the self moved mover.

I know that the most fundamental metaphysical principle is being. I know that the unmoved mover is subsequent and inferior. I know there must be at least one, but likely more, of these entities.

I know christians prefer the term "prime mover", that they misrepresent Aristotle's metaphysics, that they love his "on the heavens", and that they try to assign some action to the unmoved mover (such as a nudge).

That user reeks of hebrew mythology.

Existence was so comfy when the Big Crunch cyclical universe theory was still being taught.

It's all compatible. The first-mover concept refers to the creation of the universe and man through God.

There is no other way to look at it. Its argument is literally identical to Genesis. It stipulates that the self-mover desires to move things into others who in turn are self-moving and desire to create self-movers themselves.

But here, we're just going to ignore this and pretend like this HUGE similarity doesn't exist and that Abrahamic religion isn't true and hasn't nothing to do with it.

Neoplatonic Islam is the only way Veeky Forums!

>gravity
>untestable

You know, there is a way you can test gravity. Jump off a building.

I am the reference frame, the entire universe revolves around me.

So this... is the power... of the geocentric model...

Whoa.

who’s to say that’s gravity pushing me down?
>tfw you realize “”””gravity””” is suppose to be strong enough pull all of us towards the earth yet we can easily overpower it by holding things in the air.

>being this fucking retarded

this is basic physics. our arms provide more upward force than downward force on the object. the reason humans fall in the air is because there is very little pushing us upward (only the force of the air, which isn't that strong) and the entire force of gravity pulling us downward.

you essentially just confirmed Aristotle's concept of the weights of elements.

why can birds fly? why isn’t gravity pulling all things towards it at all times if it’s so heavy?

birds can fly because their bodies are designed in such a way that air on top of them moves faster than the air under them, causing a difference in air pressure. the air under the bird (or any flying object) is of a lower pressure than the air on top of them, this generates a force called lift, which counteracts the force of gravity. this is all very easily researchable, by the way.

>it's all compatible
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, let me guess, an Abrahamist told you this "fact". The reality is that they are totally incompatible, and the Abrahamist only respects philosophy because he yearns for that veneer of respectability and that chance of one day approaching truth.

The "first mover" (lmao, again I can smell your sort a mile away) is not a reference to CREATION. That is absolutely, 100% false, a rank Abrahamic lie. The unmoved movers cannot create, they do not take ANY actions or form intent and plans, they are subordinate to being, creation does not exist so much as reorganisation, and therefore they have nothing to do with hebrew mythology.

The unmoved mover literally does not desire to move anything, that contradicts Aristotle's teachings. Things are moved because of its goodness, like humans moved to grab a piece of gold sitting on a table. You also are wrong to flippantly switch between unmoved and self moved movers, which are distinct entities in Classical works.

As for neoplatonism, they fell to the semantic error of beyond being. That is a separate but still important topic. Christians must know their place and determine their beliefs, and stop perverting the works of classical philosophers. Any christian who claims that their god is Aristotle's unmoved mover(s) is an absolute fucking disgrace who should be flogged and/or excommunicated.

I'd consider myself a Jungian so metaphysics are not my strong-suit. But in Platonic thing is the Prime Mover a moral entity? Does like some actions and dislike others, in a human sort of way. Or is it more like Spinoza's "Nature"

The prime mover, to the extent that it even appears in the source material, is actually just a reference to the unmoved movers. They are plural, but at the very least it has been shown by Aristotle that there must at least be one. So, if someone continuously says "prime mover", you can be sure that they are Christians (who try to push a monotheistic vision, despite their incoherent belief in the trinity).

Moving on to the question you raised, though: the unmoved movers are moral entities in the sense that they are the foundation of morality. They don't like or dislike anything, they are simply the source of the highest, irresistible forces.

If you want me to explain what we know about the unmoved movers, I can give a brief account or otherwise direct you to sources like Aristotle's Metaphysics book Lambda. If you want an account of their effects, an account of what we can observe, then its the forces, such as gravity. If you want an account of why this amounts to morality, then it is in part a question of semantics, and in part an account of how divine, irresistible morality has been shown to exist and how therefore we may reach a teleological, inferior, temporal morality that applies to you and me.

I must be perfectly clear, though: They don't like or dislike anything, they don't form any intention or plans, they don't taken any actions, and they cannot talk to you or become incarnate and get nailed to a cross to magically cure sin and open up the gates of heaven.

That's not how theology works. Again, I am a NEOPLATONIC MUSLIM.

I believe in reapplying theological beliefs backwards in time. Not claiming them as my own, just claiming a general truth that exists to be discovered and dictated to us by God.

The system waiting to be discovered is kind of like geometry, with the harmonic ratio and all of that good stuff.

Lmao, I don't care if you're a "NEOPLATONIC MUSLIM". Fundamentally speaking, the philosophical teachings accepted by Platonists are incompatible with faith in hebrew mythology and the account of god/trinity believed by Christians. Secondly, "neoplatonists" commit a critical error when they quietly divide "being" into "beyond being" and "being" and then proceed to make countless logical errors that are rooted in a semantic mistake.

Could you enunciate the difference between "irresistible morality" which it sounds like is outside the realm of humanity and teleological morality?

Also since there is no bearded man to pass judgement on me for the breaking a moral code how does goodness and badness play out? Why would I prefer to be one over the other or even care to distinguish them?

>our models are fucked again, what do we do?
>MORE EPICYCLES!!!!!

Kifflam brother uncle

>current year
>still using Newtonian physics on a cosmic scale

Newtonian physics is fine of a solar system scale

>the philosophical teachings accepted by Platonists are incompatible with faith in hebrew mythology
Absolutely false. The concept of 'The Good' in a hierarchical ranking of interests represents what is essentially God. You should know what I'm talking about. I believe it is book eight (?) of The Republic. The chart shows the highest unattainable 'The Good'. This is important to the philosophy of Platonism.

This is represented by the Sun outside of the cave. This entity could be interpreted as God. It is the thing which is above all other elements of reality in the table of reason. Even above the pure elements of forms and geometry itself. This level of contemplation is divine. It is impossible to look directly at (the sun) and impossible to fully comprehend or grasp.

This fully working notion of God was developed by Plato in The Republic. He knew what he was doing too. Many translators posit he referred to a singular God many times throughout the Republic and other dialogues like Laws.

Platonism is completely compatible with Islam or Judaism or any religion that embraces one God. Christianity is kind of in a bad position because it splits their god up into three, but their virtues are better than the jews and worse than the Muslims in my opinion, as far as intellectual values goes.

Unfortunately many people, including you, have the wrong idea of what religion should be about. For the first time, I've been seeing religions and different myths and religious understanding thousands of miles away to justify the same divine entity on this site. This is a huge improvement in understanding in my opinion.

For instance, it is not too farfetched to say that the God talked about in The Republic, the Quran, and the Tao Te Ching are one and the same, because they all try to describe and tell us a tale of a God interacting with and changing humanity to enlighten us. This is a wise way to approach God, as there is no other option but unity in the end.

Irresistible morality refers to the forces caused by the unmoved movers. For Aristotle, it's the force underlying the different types of movement of heavenly bodies. I update it to refer to gravity and other forces because of developments in physics, but it is still the same idea.

When I say "teleological morality" I mean the inferior, resistible force of various life forms. It's the morality of you and me, the change we cause in accordance with our nature. It has the direction of our excellence, which would be inferior good.

Good and evil play out in a number of ways. Fundamentally speaking, existence is good because the superior morality is irresistible and gives order. In terms of the lesser aspects of morality, you are right that there is no bearded man to punish us. If you wanted to be purely evil you would starve yourself and everyone else and just cause life to die out, I guess; it would be thoroughly unnatural and unpleasant. Then, given sufficient change, we would all be reborn (and eventually you would perform the same evil act, assuming it was ever possible, but that is a distinct teaching).

To add an addendum to this, I honestly do NOT believe in a geocentric theory of the universe. I am a scientific man, and I believe in a heliocentric theory of the universe. But evolution, as we know, cannot be observed. That is something worthy of much doubt

Christians will try to argue that the Platonic Good itself was born out of a woman's vagina, breast-fed, crapped it's diapers, waited in line at the market-place, got sand in it's eyes and had to rub it out with it's hands, and probably jerked off once or twice. This is nonsense.

You have lost the thread of this discussion, or at least gone down a different path. I am tempted to say that there needs to be a new thread for what you say.

The good cannot be the entity you call god, because the good is totally different from the god-character contained in hebrew mythology. The good in Platonism, to the extent we can glimpse it, is that ordering, rational principle that makes intelligence and truth possible. It doesn't become incarnate and get nailed to a cross. It doesn't talk to you, it has no capacity to form intentions and take actions. Also, it isn't the most fundamental metaphysical principle, which is actually being.

So, if I may use my own vocubulary. Vitality is good because it allows you to continue acting with the the basic laws of nature, irresistible morality. It sounds like it's also saying the universe is basically a good place since the basic laws that govern it are good.

One thing I am curious about is the Aristotelian view on suffering. Is it good to suffer under certain circumstances, it's kind of built into the system of the world. I assume, based on what I know of Greek mythos, that certain types of suffering are admirable or even desirable. I am speaking mostly of the psychological type of suffering rather than say than disease or broken bones.

Yes but this is exactly what I mean. If we were to truly define God, he certainly IS NOT a physical being. He is divine. This is the ONE aspect of criticizing religious interpretation I will allow you not to take literally. Because he is everything.

I will say it again. God. Is. Everything.

Read Emerson, he had a great idea about this. Basically wherever you are in a natural environment, everything you see is basically God's will. The further you are aware from complete nature obviously the less will God be represented, but this doesn't mean he isn't everything, it just means Satan's meddlings get more intense.

So you're wrong The Good is everything physical. But that was my point. God is EVERYTHING physical, but the manifestation of his meddlings in reality, or the instances where he 'fixes' society, could be viewed as letting the man in the cave free and seeing the sun.

I guess this discussion has been remarkable because I've discovered a divine truth thanks to you. The Good is the manifestation of absolute contemplation of God's will, aside from the physical aspects, and the manifestation of this in the allegory of the cave is the Sun, which is too blinding to see, but provides much more light to walk in than the artificial fire. But once we start to adjust our eyes we get closer and closer to seeing the truth and defining God. Just as we're doing right now in this thread.

And yes, this has taken a different tangent entirely than the point of this thread obviously. This happens all the time, I just wanted to clarify that again, I don't believe in a geocentric theory of the universe. And actually, by this very allegory Plato, perhaps unwittingly, helps reinforce his theory of a heliocentric universe theologically by showing us warmth and radiant joy as being the center of attention, not the physical reality he is on, but the light that illuminates it being the cause of his freedom and sight.

Everyone is subject to the superior morality, vitality or no. Even a corpse will be subject to those forces. At any rate, yes, I am saying that the universe is fundamentally a good place.

I won't pretend to be a great ethicist or otherwise in possession of some special insight into Aristotle's specific, ethical beliefs. Aristotle wouldn't want a person to suffer for the sake of suffering, but rather the degree of suffering and any other reaction should be commensurate with the situation faced by the human and ultimately directed at his excellence. There is also the teaching, perhaps more present in Plato, that the self-contained is superior to the reliant, and suffering may in part lead to that self-sufficiency and improvement.

Well thank you for the explanations. Metaphysics is not my strength but it sounds like a very powerful philosophy.

If God is everything, then god is also physical. You reject this, so your position degenerates into incoherence.

You give god a "will". The unmoved movers of Aristotle don't have a will, nor does the principle of being. So, again, incompatible or else incoherent.

God cannot be compared to being or the unmoved movers, because you assign him properties that distinguish and subordinate him from those entities. I don't intend to read Emerson because I won't ever meet Emerson and his readers are both willing to discuss him with me and yet unable to provide a compelling account of his teachings.

My pleasure. I am convinced that the teachings of Plato and Aristotle represent a high point in human understanding of metaphysics and theology.

>>I will say it again. God. Is. Everything.
this is what Einstein believes along with hippies

The ethical implications and conceptualizations of good and bad are very similar to Nietzsche. Particularly the part that the universe is basically a good place and that self-reliance is a virtue. The metaphysics remind me of Spinoza, though I am not very familiar with him.

I have another question. Heraclitus believed that change was fundamental to all things, while Plato postulates that this is not true for the forms. In an Aristotelian view does all Being change as Heraclitus says are there are eternal elements?

>If God is everything, then god is also physical.
Yes. I never said God wasn't physical.

Your point was that The Good wasn't physical and God is so my position is false.

I say now you misunderstand my position. I am saying that the Platonic Good IS everything. It is the highest form of reason, so it makes its way into all forms we create and design. And not only this, it is the light we see with and shape our perception of the world through. This is God. Everything. How is it not?
Then Einstein was pretty smart. Thinking of God as everything is actually kind of a complex concept. It is unity, but it's also confusing because then sin works its way into the equation somehow. Again though, God provides parables for Sin even, with how people develop cancer or things of this nature. Clearly it is unwanted by souls, but because of the external, material reality, these things exist as an aberration of perfection.

Like reality is God's dream, Satan is his nightmare.

Sorry, I'm going to sleep so I can get up for work. If the thread is around tomorrow I will respond or otherwise I'm sure we'll bump into each other in another thread. Thank you for the discussion.

you don’t belive deities can incarnate as humans? to me, you sound retarded.

“God is everything” is called pantheism you plebs and its much older than Einstein or hippies

And then there's actually studying physics and realizing that it's irrelevant.

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/(mass of sun+mass of jupiter+mass of saturn)*[5.2 Astronomical unit *mass of jupiter+9.6 Astronomical unit *mass of saturn]/radius of the sun
Heliocentrists on suicide watch.

As long as the Universe does not have any boundaries the point of the observer is the logical center