Can you make a God claim?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Aristotle: Unmoved mover, i.e. that which persists in its being throughout all change.

Something that moves others but doesn't move itself or maybe it changes others and doesn't change itself?

The unmoved mover is Aristotle’s solution that bridges the divide between Parmenides (nothing changes) and Heraclitus (everything changes). His solution is based on the distinction between what exists in potential and what exists in actuality. Only something actual can act on potentials; whereas, what exists only in potential cannot. Since things cannot act on themselves, in order to avoid an infinite regress there must be something at the bottom of reality, something that exists in full actuality.

Anslem: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.

Something that is so much more powerful than everything else that is beyond comprehension.

Anslem does present a certain mysticism. Anyone who has experienced the Divine (and there are very many that have) knows that such encounters are ineffable. Even Aquinas considered all of this writing to worthless rags after having a mystical experience.

Plotinus: The All, i.e. the perfect source of Form in which the forms of all contingent things partially partake. (That one needs to be unpacked some, but I think is a fair summary)

This one sounds almost Hindu. God is all. Does that mean that god is a tree or rock like in some religions? God is the perfect form of everything else. Is my interpretation correct?

Some people interpret Plotinus pantheistically. I see a more panentheistic. Particular instances of form partake of the perfect forms that subsist in the intellect that is itself the completeness of all form.

Aquinas: Among other things, the Supreme Intelligence that determines the final causes toward which efficient cause are directed.

The most intelligent being that invented the end toward which the beginning is headed? Okay, that one can't be right.

[/quote]The idea is that efficient causes, barring intervening circumstances, bring about a specific range of effects. For example, when a hammer strikes a glass, the glass shatters. The glass does not burst into flames nor does it turn to liquid. This demonstrates that efficient causes act on natural bodies towards regular ends. Things without knowledge only act toward an end when directed by something that has an end in mind. Therefore it follows that some intelligent agent directs all causes toward their ends at the most fundamental level.