God vs gods

[Elijah John]

Here on this site, one often hears from non-believers statements and questions doubting the existence of "gods", plural. Not sure why that is. Why not just question God, singular? In Western culture, that would be a more relevant question.

Hardy anyone believes in "gods" anymore. Hindus and Pagans maybe. But most folks here in in the West are either Jewish, Christian of Muslim. Monotheism is predominant.
(Whether or not Trinitarians are actual Monotheists is another debate).

But this leads to an important question. Why philosohically, (excluding reasons of upbringing or cultural conditioning) do SO many in the West believe in God, singular, as opposed to "gods" plural?

What IS the case for Monotheism, as opposed to Polytheism?

(please, this is not intended to become a "prove God or gods exists", thread)

[Bust Nak]

I think I understand now, why non-believers do that. I think some do it consiously, and some unconsiously. To diminish credibility of belief in One God and put Monotheism on the same plane as polythiesm. To put belief in One God in the same category as believing in Zeus and Hera, Posiedon, Thor, and Odin. Trying to make it seem as ridicuoulus as believing in pixies, leprachauns, and unicorns. Am I right?

That's the thing, while specific beliefs may be ridiculous, such as believing that Zeus live on top of olympus when we can visit the mountain, but it isn't inherently any less ridiculous to believe in one god to multiple gods. Having multiple gods side steps many of the problem with monotheism. The only "advantage" for monotheism I see is that it is newer; but doesn't the fact that humanity came up with polytheism first, means it's more intuitive and makes more common sense?

[Elijah John]

I think I understand now, why non-believers do that. I think some do it consiously, and some unconsiously. To diminish credibility of belief in One God and put Monotheism on the same plane as polythiesm. To put belief in One God in the same category as believing in Zeus and Hera, Posiedon, Thor, and Odin. Trying to make it seem as ridicuoulus as believing in pixies, leprachauns, and unicorns. Am I right?

That's the thing, while specific beliefs may be ridiculous, such as believing that Zeus live on top of olympus when we can visit the mountain, but it isn't inherently any less ridiculous to believe in one god to multiple gods. Having multiple gods side steps many of the problem with monotheism. The only "advantage" for monotheism I see is that it is newer; but doesn't the fact that humanity came up with polytheism first, means it's more intuitive and makes more common sense?

What do you see as the advantages of polytheism over monotheism? What problems does polytheism solve that monotheism supposedly causes?

I know of some practical advantages of monotheism, that we can go into later. But I am looking for foundational truth here..why is one more real then the other? Or more likely to be real?

[Bust Nak]

What do you see as the advantages of polytheism over monotheism? What problems does polytheism solve that monotheism supposedly causes?

When the gods are human-like with conflicting agendas, it fits the random luck we see in the world better. Why do bad things happen to good people? God A just disliked him. Why are prayers not consistent? God B is busy dealing with god C. Why did the bad guy win? Don't blame god D, it's god E's fault.

I know of some practical advantages of monotheism, that we can go into later. But I am looking for foundational truth here..why is one more real then the other? Or more likely to be real?

Well, I suppose if one could explain the world with monotheism, as well as polytheism could, then you could cut out excess gods with Occam's razor. So the question becomes, can monotheism explain as well as polytheism?

[DanieltheDragon]

Monotheism=Belief in ONE God.
Polythieism=Belief in multiple gods.

I think Monotheism is almost certainly more rational than Polytheism,

Why?

especially polytheism regarding myths of Olympus, for example. Folks have been to the top of Mt Olymupus and have SEEN that there is no Zeus, Appollo, Hera, etc residing there.

They could have moved? or maybe when their believers stopped believing they faded into the aether!

But Deists and other philosophers have arrived at the conclusion that there is One God, ASIDE from any myths, including those found in the Bible.

What is the basis for this?

I'll give you one example of what I mean. Muslims argue that if there were multiple Gods, there would be multiple Creations, all competing with each other.

The muslim argument is an argument from ignorance. It assumes all gods are creator gods, secondly the gods could be hive minded in order to create. Use your imagination the possibilities are endless.

When chaotic things DO happen, we think of those phenomena as exceptions to the rule of harmony, because they are the exeception

Kinda have to disagree, I could agree that the universe obeys some physical and sub-atomic natural laws but the interactions between all the particles can be quite chaotic. Of course really that is all how you define order and chaos. But I am pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics would disagree with the "rule of harmony"

Why does Monotheism make COMMON sense? And polytheism does not.

I don't understand what you mean that monotheism makes sense and polytheism does not. The only argument you have made against polytheism is order vs disorder.

Are ants not ordered in their constructions and behaviors what about bees? Humans can make things very orderly and that often requires more than one individual helping.


If you want my argument for polytheism vs monotheism.



CROWDSOURCED CREATION





ONE CREATOR

still blank there hasn't been a car made that was designed engineered and built by one person.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]

You are not helping. You are not making the case for Monotheism OR Polytheism. You are just trying to equate the two on your scale of absurdity. That is not the intent of this thread.

That is debating the existence of the Supernatural, something I am not doing here. I cannot prove God's existence, you cannot DISPROVE His existence either.

And yes, gods by definition are Creator gods. If they are not, they are comic book characters....or mythical characters.

The primary characteristic of God is First Cause...Creator. That is fundamental to the definition.

If you can do something besides attempting to poke holes in Supernaturalism, if you can SERIOUSLY make a case for polytheism, please continue. Please show WHY Polytheism or Monotheism is more rational, instead of saying they are BOTH equally irrational.

Otherwise, I'm done with discussing the topic with you. You are not helping understanding of the topic as stated in the OP, which is what I am trying to explore. Trying to determine the rational basis for each, and comparing the two.

[Divine Insight]

I think I understand now, why non-believers do that. I think some do it consiously, and some unconsiously. To diminish credibility of belief in One God and put Monotheism on the same plane as polythiesm. To put belief in One God in the same category as believing in Zeus and Hera, Posiedon, Thor, and Odin. Trying to make it seem as ridicuoulus as believing in pixies, leprachauns, and unicorns. Am I right? .

This most certainly doesn't apply to me.

My rejection of Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Bible) has absolutely nothing at all to do with monotheism versus polytheism. As far as I'm concerned the Bible is ridiculous.

You have suggested that we can dismiss the Greek Gods because we now know that there are no Gods on Mt. Olympus. Actually that's not even a good reason to reject the mythology because you can always create the very easy apology that the God's simply moved as mankind evolved to become more technically advanced.

But look at the Bible. The Bible claims that the fall of mankind is the reason for death and imperfections in the world. In even claims that thorns started growing on plants after the fall. Not to mention that serpents wouldn't have been crawling on their bellies prior to the fall.

But we now know that there was death, disease, thorns on plants, and crawling serpents before mankind ever showed up on the planet. And that's a lot harder to make apologetic excuses for than to just say the Gods moved from a mountain.

I don't see where the Biblical picture of a God has anymore credibility than the Greek fables of Zeus and company. Polytheism versus monotheism certainly isn't sufficient to make up for all the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible.

IMHO, the Bible is ridiculous whether it's monotheistic or polytheistic. That's not even a consideration. Being monotheistic doesn't help it at all. It still has talking snakes and talking donkeys and demonic fallen angels rebelling against God, etc.

It's just as ridiculous as any of the polytheistic religions.

God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, etc.

It's silly. Being monotheistic doesn't make any of that go away.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]

You are just trying to equate the two on your scale of absurdity. That is not the intent of this thread.

Please quote me where I am doing this.

That is debating the existence of the Supernatural, something I am not doing here. I cannot prove God's existence, you cannot DISPROVE His existence either.

quote me where I am doing this



You make several claims without supporting them.

I think Monotheism is almost certainly more rational than Polytheism,[...]
Monotheism make COMMON sense? And polytheism does not.

when I ask why suddenly I am trying to disprove god???? or trying to make them absurd.


When you say that multiple creators can't make something harmonious and I point out that most things humans make like cars are not only harmonious but involve lots of people designing engineering and constructing them.


Lets extrapolate my argument about the car.

Why can't there be designer gods, engineering gods, and a construction gods surely if humans can work together so can gods....

[Bust Nak]

You are not helping. You are not making the case for Monotheism OR Polytheism. You are just trying to equate the two on your scale of absurdity. That is not the intent of this thread.

The intend to equate mono and poly-theism on the scale of absurdity, at least in this thread, is not to discredit monotheism, but to highlight that one is not inheritely more rational than the other.

And yes, gods by definition are Creator gods. If they are not, they are comic book characters....or mythical characters.

The primary characteristic of God is First Cause...Creator. That is fundamental to the definition.

That may be the characteristic of capital letter 'G' God but it's not required of a generic monotheism god, let alone polytheisitc ones.

If you can do something besides attempting to poke holes in Supernaturalism, if you can SERIOUSLY make a case for polytheism, please continue. Please show WHY Polytheism or Monotheism is more rational, instead of saying they are BOTH equally irrational.

I think that's the point, neither one is more rational then the other.

[higgy1911]

None of the science or reason based arguments I have seen in this forum have ever actually shown why monotheism is more likely accurate than polytheism. For that you get into theologically specific arguments. All of arguments that attempt to show God is logically necessary fail to show why God must be singular.

[DanieltheDragon]

I was actually pondering this a bit today. If we look at complex systems. Like say running a large country there are about 2,723,000 government employees in the USA.

but if we really just want to focus on statesman or elected officials that brings us down to about 500,000 people who run the USA.

Does a polyelected government sound more reasonable than a monoelected government? Could 1 person run the USA?

The Boeing Dreamliner took roughly 18,000 people to design engineer and build. Could 1 person do the work of those 18,000 people?

Is it more reasonable to have a monoemployee R&D department or a polyemployee R&D department.


To design, engineer, and construct a system as complex as the universe is it more reasonable that one supernatural entity did it or many?