I hope your move goes well. I don't find the Aristotelian argument particularly convincing. Quantum mechanics allows for uncaused effects and uncaused effects are part of the current paradigm. Aristotelian metaphysics (which literally translated means after physics) is reliant on a mixture of common sense, Platonism and Aristotle's incorrect physics. My general though on Aristotelian thought is that some of it is wrong and some of it seems reasonable, but the reasonable parts are either tautological or can be doubted reasonably.

Aristotle's God is completely unaware of us and impersonal. The universe is eternal. This God is not easily reconciled with the Abrahamic God. This isn't a particularly large slice of God. I'm an agnostic when it comes to ineffable transcendent realities that do not exist on a plane that we would recognize. I call myself an atheist because I am a non-believer in the Christian traditions that I was brought up in and because it is a pragmatic paradigm. I do think though that an Aristotelian deity is completely possible.
There is a tension between the God of Abraham and the God of Aristotle. Some philosophers and theologians have embraced Aristotle's God and others have rejected it. All of the major religions have had multiple schools of thought regarding God. There are many conceptions of God.

It is historically inaccurate to suggest that the Christian faith has been passed down from the Apostles to know without any changes. Early Christians were Jews that believed that Jesus was touched by the Divine. Mark's gospel does not characterize Jesus as Divine. Even John doesn't declare a Trinitarian doctrine. There were multiple sects within early Christianity. There were disagreements about Jesus's nature (Arius and Athanasius). Augustinian concepts of the Trinity versus the concepts that emerged in the East.

I don't particularly admire Western Christianity. It has a rather bleak view of man and his relationship with the Divine. It is overly focused on dogmas and homogeneity. It has imagined a satan and hell that is unparalleled in other Abrahamic religions. The dark night of the soul is unique to western Christianity. Is Catholicism coherent? No. Do I think any conception of the Divine is coherent? No. Maybe Spinoza.

I practiced Catholicism for many years. I too had religious experiences from receiving the sacraments and prayer. I think they were psychological in nature and have had similar experiences while doing non-religious things. How do you now that your religious experiences aren't merely psychological?

Would I want to say that the change the universe undergoes is tending from potential (low entropy) to actual (high entropy), and so the higher the entropy, the more actualized the state is? If so, since life itself is an intermediate-entropy state, life is potentially high-entropy non-life: death is the actualization of all living things

Paul, I don't think that this is the correct use of potential and actual. The low entropy state is actual, it exists, the high entropy state represents a change or development of that state, not an actualization of a potential. Act and potency refer to the existence not to properties of that existence.
Death is not an actualization of a potential either it is a corruption of the material aspect of being.

at the core, everything is in fact one thing, one substance.

This is where you differ from Aristotlean metaphysics, and it seems to contradict your other axiom, if by saying that everything has an explanation you mean that everything has a cause (maybe that's not how you mean it) then the "substance" requires a cause. Aquinas explained the Aristotelian position by explaining that God is existence and essence and is uncaused. But the substance you describe seems to need a cause.

Maybe Tom will comment more also...

Hi Paul Please forgive my very tardy reply. I missed the post.. to my sorrow .. I love the points you raise. And I may not be able to address them .. if I can of course.. this evening.. but I've become quite convinced that that all sane thinkers are naturally Aristotelian.. via scholastic philosophers especially Aquinas. Quite a claim alright.. but Aristotle and the scholastics either nailed the nature of change at its basic level or they did not. I think I started my car today.. so I think they did and that if I did start my car today, its quite easy to prove the existence of God or a rather large slice of this Pure Act.. remembering the analogy or proper proportionality.. God's goodness is more unlike my goodness than it is like it. My goodness participates in the goodness of God. That's one reason we hate braggarts. Its all gift.

Hi Ignatius. Sorry for the slow response.. I'm moving.. Aristotle showed that the ultimate cause of things cannot be dependent upon something prior as our bodies are dependent upon bone structure, which relies on molecules , which relies on atoms , then quarks, quark alignment etc. His analysis of the common experience of "change" from which we today get actual and potential. etc.. shows that it is impossible to ground reality in this instant.. right here and now.. in something that itself has to be actualized by a prior (not temporal) cause. There must be something that is purely actual. .or BEing itself. in which we all have participated being. I find it a perfectly sound argument and proof.

But as the ground of being.. and ultimate cause of the ongoing actualization that we call reality, .. any effect.. including intelligence and moral value and intentionality etc.. all the personal stuff .. is ultimately dependent upon his transcendent cause. It doesn't totally demonstrate all aspects of the God of monotheistic religions, but as many say, a big slice of it.

From there its a matter of investigating the various claims of various religions. I find Catholicism is the only fully coherent world view extant. The Christ on the cross represents what we all immediately recognizes as the ulimate in human potential for goodness... giving up your life for someone else. .. It all fits perfectly. And we finite things can't of our nature.. jump up and suddenly be other than what we are. If we are to be completed or become fully actualized in a real sense.. it's something we'll have to receive.

I might add that I am entirely convinced that I have experienced this unquenchable personal love in the sacraments a time or two. Unmistakable.

I don't have a particular iteration. .. Christ authorized and selected particular disciples to .. "feed my sheep" assuring guidance and presence through time. Apostles. They teach but very little presents any intellectual difficulty.

When we look at our free will.. necessary to even judge if you have free will. .it can't be physical for that reason. and so the idea of something spiritual (non material) is pretty easy.

Obviously I'm skimming here , but that' s a little of the gist of it. I found my thousand doubts and questions got excellent credible answers and am immensely grateful. Cheers.

Let's suppose your arguments convinced me and I believed in the God of Aristotle. A God who is completely non-personal and is not even aware of my own existence. How do you convince a believer in the God of the philosophers that he should actually believe in your particular iteration of Western Catholic God.

Please forgive my phone sent garbled text. I was just attempting to state that our Statistical friend got it. And I mean gets it. I think it is obvious, at least to me that the Aristotelian metaphysic is indeed foundational . .we all use it. If you think you exist, it holds. And from this the existence of the transcendent ground of being (Pure Act) as the very ground of our being and explanation for our natures is unavoidable. Simple reality deeply perceived. It explains how as Being itself, it must be goodness itself.. rather Himself or Personal It self.. and we all recognize the hierarchy of being innately , practically and some of us, intellectually. molecules form dirt, dirt feeds flowers and wheat. Animals eat plants and rational animals are the higher form we naturally love and advance. It is an order of being. Pure actuality is necessary to explain this and all phenomena, because and infinite series of the kind of things (here and now, not in the past) that require actualization by something logically prior e.g. molecules formed into bones, as structural elements in persons .. all of these have a prior dependence down to the very alignment of quarks if they exist etc. The key point is that a series like this, an essential series cannot get going or be intelligible if there is not something grounding the actual that is pure act and not requiring actualization. The refutation of this argument requires a denial of the adequacy of Aristotle's defining of the nature of change and what it involves. If you and I think I changed the position of my fingers and caused this script to appear on your screen.. Aristotle lives. Russel could not identify the cosmological argument and refuted a silly idea of someone else who did not know the actual argument. I personally think the proof is unavoidable if one accepts the everyday reality of change and the most basic precepts of ordinary reasoning. My apologies for my grammatical excesses.. :-)

your metaphysical stance is prior to your opinion on metaphysics as it must be. You're just not conscious of it. Stat k.ows.

Bang on. Materialism is adopted unconsciously paradoxically along with the AL narcissism that is nominalism. Your posts are marvelous.

Excellent rendering.

Agreed.. metaphysics necessarily is prior to epistemology. Our causal principles do not break down a the subatomic level. But we do discover some limits to our knowledge on merely the physical plane. Formal and final causes are where the intelligibility lies as we see in our word.. information.