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)

[Elijah John]

@ Arian...This is the kind of argument I was looking for:

"You know very well why there can ONLY be One God, the Creator, .. because of infinite regress. The created gods are created by the created, but the CREATOR cannot be created by the created. That would be nonsensical. The Creator can only be ONE, just as there can be only ONE 'infinity', and ONE 'eternity'."

----

Not sure if you went far enough here, but I this is along the lines I was hoping for in this thread.

Unfortunately, you polluted the waters somewhat with your smears against the RCC.

It is one thing to be critical of it's theology, and even it's practices, but to assert that Pope Francis advocates the worship or Lucifer is just false, and is a smear.

I too have been critical of the church of my youth, but I try to be fair and accurate, and try not to misrepresent what they actually believe and profess.

At least try to get your facts straight.

[Danmark]

Animals have free will too? Well in that sense, so do trains.
....
And finally, this last Pope revealed this too. Pope Francis, the Christian Pope announced to the world his/their god; Lucifer, who also has a son called Jesus;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnKywDY8P9E

Arian, really. This nonsense of yours has to stop. Comparing nonbiological objects that have no brains [trains] to animals that do only discredits your analysis.

And Arian, don't you think you have some duty to authenticate some of the absurd and dishonest hoaxes that go around the internet before you post them as 'evidence?'

I am not a Catholic and have no reason to support that faith or the Pope, but it should be obvious to any fair minded person that the Pope is not praising the Devil or calling Jesus the son of Lucifer.
See:
http://dinartruthmatrix.net/pope-franci ... he-father/

Just because you find something on the internet [particularly with a source as uneven as YouTube] that you think agrees with an argument you want to make does not give you the right to publish it here so recklessly. When any of us see something that appears as absurd as this, don't you think we have a duty to do at least some investigation before republishing it here?

This kind of practice only serves to devalue anything the debater argues.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 59 by Elijah John]

The Thomas Paine stuff is really where I have to disagree with you. His idea of what a deisitic entity based on christian literature has no real basis in both said literature or in nature. It is in essence his idea of what a god should be not what god is. I would have to argue that Paine is guilty of god creating.

He does, however, cite Creation as evidence for a Creator.

I am sorry that is just not going to cut it. I just don't see how we can conclude there is 1 god simply because thomas paine says so therefore I must believe him. That my friend is an appeal to authority.

Assuming there are god/gods
What about nature specifically speaks to a monotheistic god?

rejects most of the Bible, as well as the doctrine's of Pauline and Johannine Christianity.

For you this seems to be a plus. We both agree that the bible has some pretty absurd points to it but how is this not specifically picking and choosing?

To me this rings of god building. How do we trust what he pick and chose was right? what evidence does he cite for what he decided to leave in and leave out and why include or exclude any at all?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 59 by Elijah John]

The Thomas Paine stuff is really where I have to disagree with you. His idea of what a deisitic entity based on christian literature has no real basis in both said literature or in nature. It is in essence his idea of what a god should be not what god is. I would have to argue that Paine is guilty of god creating.

He does, however, cite Creation as evidence for a Creator.

I am sorry that is just not going to cut it. I just don't see how we can conclude there is 1 god simply because thomas paine says so therefore I must believe him. That my friend is an appeal to authority.

Assuming there are god/gods
What about nature specifically speaks to a monotheistic god?

rejects most of the Bible, as well as the doctrine's of Pauline and Johannine Christianity.

For you this seems to be a plus. We both agree that the bible has some pretty absurd points to it but how is this not specifically picking and choosing?

To me this rings of god building. How do we trust what he pick and chose was right? what evidence does he cite for what he decided to leave in and leave out and why include or exclude any at all?

I think you are distorting or misunderstanding what Paine says AND what I am trying to say. I was trying to explain to Danmark that the anti-Trinity verse from Paine I was citing is about the practical EFFECT of the false doctrine of the Trinity, that's all...I was not citing it as the proof of God as existing as a Monotheistic entity.

THAT is the topic I wish to explore. What rational basis does monotheism posit over polytheism. NOT whether or not God exists, NOR whether anyone SHOULD believe that God exists. Frankly, I have given up trying to convince anyone regarding the existence of God. I was not "appealing to authority" in order change anyone's mind, certainly not yours.

It is ironic that you accuse Thomas Paine of "god building" because he rejects the Bible that you too, claim to reject. Paine cites Reason and Nature as his baseline for accepting belief in God, and not the Bible. Are you accepting the Bible's portrait of God, then rejecting it wholesale as the only "actual" God that could possibly exist?

I think that Paine would say that the God of Nature, (what Jefferson calls Nature's God in the Declaration of Independance) is the real, the living God. And God as portrayed in the Bible is a storybook God.

How does Paine pick and choose? Simple, he rejects most of the Bible and revealed religion as "hearsay" and cites Nature, Creation as the only, actual word of God wherein we learn about the Creator's attributes. An incorruptible original that publishes itself for all who will see. (which attributes in particular, from which aspects of Nature is another topic)

And it occurs to me now, this is the answer to folks like DI who wonder why an almighty God cannot seem to protect his "word" from error and contradiction....Deists like Paine would say that it is only the book of Creation itself that is protected, inncoruptable and immutable, not books like the Bible.

Bill Maher put it this way: "God doesn't write books, He makes trees." I think Maher is a Deist.

I know the difference is subtle, and maybe I am not being clear enough. And I admit that Paine leaves his rationale for the ONENESS of God somewhat vague and unanswered, for him (and me) it seems to be an assumption. He just argues for God's existence from Nature...and against the Bible. He argues against atheism AND Biblical Theism, in equal measure.

Now what evidence from Nature exists that points toward the ONENESS of God? That is a good question. I would say the Sun, and that is what inspired Akhenaton towards his understanding of monotheism, but I realize that is an imperfect metaphor.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 64 by Elijah John]

THAT is the topic I wish to explore. What rational basis does monotheism posit over polytheism. NOT whether or not God exists, NOR whether anyone SHOULD believe that God exists. Frankly, I have given up trying to convince anyone regarding the existence of God. I was not "appealing to authority" in order change anyone's mind, certainly not yours.

That is what I am interested in discussing. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions on the subject.

Specifically what from nature(assuming that is the basis for your monotheism) promotes monotheism over Polytheism.

And I admit that Paine leaves his rationale for the ONENESS of God somewhat vague and unanswered, for him (and me) it seems to be an assumption

I agree it seems very vague and just an assumption. No actual evidence provided.

Now what evidence from Nature exists that points toward the ONENESS of God? That is a good question. I would say the Sun, and that is what inspired Akhenaton towards his understanding of monotheism, but I realize that is an imperfect metaphor

.

I agree because there are a lot more stars than just the sun. very imperfect metaphor indeed.

It is ironic that you accuse Thomas Paine of "god building" because he rejects the Bible that you too, claim to reject. Paine cites Reason and Nature as his baseline for accepting belief in God, and not the Bible. Are you accepting the Bible's portrait of God, then rejecting it wholesale as the only "actual" God that could possibly exist?

When one picks and chooses what they like out of any religious literature and ascribe it to X whatever that may be that is god building. I can't be guilty of god building because I have built no gods I don't believe in gods.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 64 by Elijah John]

THAT is the topic I wish to explore. What rational basis does monotheism posit over polytheism. NOT whether or not God exists, NOR whether anyone SHOULD believe that God exists. Frankly, I have given up trying to convince anyone regarding the existence of God. I was not "appealing to authority" in order change anyone's mind, certainly not yours.

That is what I am interested in discussing. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions on the subject.

Specifically what from nature(assuming that is the basis for your monotheism) promotes monotheism over Polytheism.

And I admit that Paine leaves his rationale for the ONENESS of God somewhat vague and unanswered, for him (and me) it seems to be an assumption

I agree it seems very vague and just an assumption. No actual evidence provided.

Now what evidence from Nature exists that points toward the ONENESS of God? That is a good question. I would say the Sun, and that is what inspired Akhenaton towards his understanding of monotheism, but I realize that is an imperfect metaphor

.

I agree because there are a lot more stars than just the sun. very imperfect metaphor indeed.

It is ironic that you accuse Thomas Paine of "god building" because he rejects the Bible that you too, claim to reject. Paine cites Reason and Nature as his baseline for accepting belief in God, and not the Bible. Are you accepting the Bible's portrait of God, then rejecting it wholesale as the only "actual" God that could possibly exist?

When one picks and chooses what they like out of any religious literature and ascribe it to X whatever that may be that is god building. I can't be guilty of god building because I have built no gods I don't believe in gods.

-I did answer, with the imperfect metaphor of the Sun. Beyond that, I stated repeatedly that is what I wish to explore IN this thread, the rational basis to favor Monotheism over Polytheism. Or vice versa. You seem to be saying that they are both equally absurd and irrational. Perhaps, ultimately, but I doubt it. If you don't wish to advocate for one over the other, then please, don't waste my time. I do not wish to have the "you can't prove that God or gods actually exist" discussion. I get it you are an atheist.

-Regarding picking and choosing, I pretty much agree with Paine's book the Age of Reason and his essays. But I go further in accepting the Bible than he does. As to my method of picking and choosing, I have explained it several times on this site, and I may do so again....on another thread.

-Also, getting back to the Sun metaphor, in the Egyptian Pharoh's time the Sun was not known to be just another star. So to him it WAS unique, and a sign and inspiration of the Oneness of God.

And Paine's evidence of Creation is to favor belief in a CREATOR, and he has evidence in his book Age of Reason as to which ATTRIBUTES are possesed by the Creator, deduced by him from the book of Creation, ie Nature. But the attribute of Oneness and God's unity is, unfortunately, not fully explained by him. There are others that he draws from Nature, but that is a topic for another thread.

Now do you think you can take a position, Monotheism over Polytheism or vice versa, and argue in favor of one over the other...If not, can you please leave the whole "equally absurd", "no evidence for either" discussion for another thread?

I'll say it one more time, I am LOOKING for a rationale for embracing Monotheism over Polytheism, and do not claim to have it....yet. I had hoped this thread would be a means of me to learn a rational basis for what I believe intuitively, that is Monotheism. Monotheism works for me, Trinitarianism, and Polytheism does not.

The best I can do right now, is to say that for me, Monotheism TRANSCENDS Reason, but does not contradict it. Trinitarianism, Polytheism I think, contradicts Reason.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Did I say either was absurd? You really need to actually read my posts before making false accusations. Please quote me where I make this claim. If we accept god(s) exist there imho seems to be no reason to suggest a singular monotheistic god. I refuse to make a case for god(s) but I can look to the rationale of polytheism vs monotheism. I really don't think it is fair to ask an atheist to make a case for gods. All I can address is the rationale.

Take a car for example no singular entity designs engineers and builds a car. It is a collection of many individuals who do this. Like a car the universe is very complex consisting of many parts.

You have continued to make many claims about mono vs poly. The best you have done to support these claims is to point to the sun. If you are going to posit a claim that polytheism contradicts reason. You best give me a reason that it does so.

Saying the sun speaks to monotheism is not a reason it's just another claim. Why don't you explain specifically about the attributes of the sun that speak to its oneness. Honestly I find it silly you use a polytheistic culture to speak in favor of monotheism sure the sun was unique to them so was death life war and many of their other gods. The sun merely being a part of the whole that speaks to polytheism.

If your going to make a claim that polytheism contradicts reason per the guidelines of this forum I hitherto compel you to support Or withdraw the claim. This is not about one being more absurd or no evidence. I am challenging you in the hopes that you can find that rationale you seek.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 67 by DanieltheDragon]

I believe you said you did not see a rational basis for either. Did not mean to put words in your mouth, if I did so.

But I told you repeatedly I do not want to have the whole "atheism vs theism" conversation, which is where your comments lead.

But you still are not getting what I am saying, or absorbing my attempted clarifications as to the point of this thread.

As far as I can see, you are not shedding any light on the subject of the OP.

---Dragon states:

"I really don't think it is fair to ask an atheist to make a case for gods."

---

EJ responds: Then don't even try.. frankly, I'd prefer that atheists DO NOT participate on this particular thread, that is unless they (and there are a few) can take one theistic position or the other, convincingly and in a way that shows they understand the competing theistic points of view, for the sake of argument. And avoid, for this thread, the whole theist vs atheist controversy.

[Divine Insight]

I don't see the point in trying to make a case for monotheism over polytheism.

Even if such a case could be made what would be the result? Do you think that would somehow support Hebrew mythology? I don't think so.

On the contrary a case for a singular divine entity would far more supporting of Taoism. You cannot find a more "monotheistic" religion than pantheism or panentheism.

So even if a case could be made that a divine entity would need to somehow be "one thing" then clearly the pantheistic religions would be the religions that benefit from this, not Hebrew mythology.

You also wrongfully claim in the OP that the Western religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic whist suggesting that the Eastern mysticism are not monotheistic. That is simply an error on your part.

If a prize for the most monotheistic religion were to be given out Taoism would certainly be the most assured winner.

Christianity would even need to take a back-seat to both Judaism and Islam because Christianity proclaims that God himself is a "Trinity" of Gods. Even if they claim that this is merely a schizophrenic personally on the part of the Christian God who talks to himself, prays to himself, and sacrifices himself to himself. If it's monotheistic at all, it's a really sick monotheistic God that has three distinct personality disorders.

So Christianity is pretty far down the list of being a monotheistic religion anyway. If Jesus is currently sitting on a throne at the right hand of God in heaven and has equal powers of judgement as God, or even more so as the Gospels claim, then Christianity is at the very least a Duel-theistic religoin. It clearly has two Gods. Jesus and Yahweh. According to the Christian Bible there are two Gods sitting on two thrones in the Christian heaven. So for it to even continue to claim to be monotheistic is a claim of false pretense?

Which God are they renouncing? Jesus the Son God? Or Yahweh the Father God?

It's a duel-theistic religion. Toss in the additional "Holy Spirit" and you've got a trinitarian religion. Hardly monotheism. If monotheism is important to you, you'd be better off becoming a Jew or a Muslim.

Or, if you're really serious about monotheism you should become a Taoist.

[arian]

Animals have free will too? Well in that sense, so do trains.
....
And finally, this last Pope revealed this too. Pope Francis, the Christian Pope announced to the world his/their god; Lucifer, who also has a son called Jesus;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnKywDY8P9E

Arian, really. This nonsense of yours has to stop. Comparing nonbiological objects that have no brains [trains] to animals that do only discredits your analysis.

Let's see now, by your own admittance this universe and everything in it including the rock called earth, and all the biological life on it came about by a chaotic, impersonal, unplanned, no will of anyone's or anything's event, .. correct?
Then you guys say "animals have free will"?
I have free will, and when I ask an animal to help me set up my machine, they exercise their free will, but refuse to do it, correct?

Comparatively the same free will exist for a train on a track, to an animal like a pet-rat to a human. Why the pet rat won't set up my machine? Because it is operating by its evolved free will, .. as 'what it is', a rat. The train operates as what IT is also, a train. Free will is illogical by the evolution story that defines existence as "It is what it is".

When biological life was just a rock (before it started to cool and create moisture) it did what it could, right? When it was just a single celled bacteria, there too it did what it could. After 4.5 billion years the human animal does what it can. How do you know what the train could do in another 4.5 billion years? For now it follows its tracks, but in time, .. hey who knows, right? Can you stop evolution? Look where we came from, .. a rock. The train is far more complex than a rock. It has a head start.

And Arian, don't you think you have some duty to authenticate some of the absurd and dishonest hoaxes that go around the internet before you post them as 'evidence?'

I am not a Catholic and have no reason to support that faith or the Pope, but it should be obvious to any fair minded person that the Pope is not praising the Devil or calling Jesus the son of Lucifer.
See:
http://dinartruthmatrix.net/pope-franci ... he-father/

Just because you find something on the internet [particularly with a source as uneven as YouTube] that you think agrees with an argument you want to make does not give you the right to publish it here so recklessly. When any of us see something that appears as absurd as this, don't you think we have a duty to do at least some investigation before republishing it here?

This kind of practice only serves to devalue anything the debater argues.

You mean this?

"May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son, who, coming back from death’s domain,
has shed his peaceful light on humanity,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever.
Amen."

How conveniently they left out 'Lucifer' Listen to the video again and read the interpretation;

"His flame Dawning Lucifer's own creation
May I say O' Lucifer, who knows no setting,
Christ your son
Who came back from the dead and set his peaceful light on the human race
and is alive who reigns forever and ever
(and everyone says;)
Amen"

The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

Also 2 Corinthians 11:14

Do you know that when Europe heard that Francis, a Jesuit Priest was elected as Pope, it struck fear into everyone, not just Catholics, but into every denomination thereof, every ruler, everyone that holds an office, every business man, housewife and student. It is a living nightmare, and this is why all the popularity, out of fear! They remember history, and the horrors of what happened to those who disobeyed the Pope!

It is one thing to have a Jesuit Knight serving the Pope, but to have one become the Pope himself? Lord help Europe and every Catholic. They will wish and dream to have even Communism back compared to what a Jesuit Priest as Pope will do to the people.

Here is why?

Wikipedia - As part of their service to the Roman Church, the Jesuits encouraged people to continue their obedience to scripture as interpreted by Catholic doctrine. Ignatius is known to have written: "o I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it."

- Finally, though not initially formed for the purpose, they aimed to stop Protestantism from spreading and to preserve communion with Rome and the successor of Peter. The zeal of the Jesuits overcame the drift toward Protestantism in Poland-Lithuania and southern Germany.

~ "My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope."

Wikipedia - Ignatius wrote the Jesuit Constitutions, adopted in 1553, which created a tightly centralized organization and stressed total abnegation and obedience to the Pope and their religious superiors (perinde ac [si] cadaver [essent], "[well-disciplined] like a corpse" as Ignatius put it).

~ "When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:"

Wikipedia - His main principle became the unofficial Jesuit motto: Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam ("For the greater glory of God"). This phrase is designed to reflect the idea that any work that is not evil can be meritorious for the spiritual life if it is performed with this intention, even things considered normally indifferent

~ Secret oath: "I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus."
...
"All of which, I, .........., do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments, which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and sealed in the face of this holy covenant."

Wikipedia - Anti-Semitism
Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuit conversos (Catholic-convert Jews), an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus. The 16th-century Decree de genere remained in exclusive force until the 20th century, when it was repealed in 1946

~ The Jewish Encyclopaedia points out that Gnosticism "was Jewish in character long before it became Christian," and quotes the opinion, "a movement closely connected with Jewish mysticism." The Freemason Ragon says: "The Cabala is the key of the occult sciences. The Gnostics were born of the Cabalists."

~ Rabbi Benamozegh says, "Those who will take the trouble to examine with care the connection between Judaism and philosophic Freemasonry, theosophy, and the mysteries in general . . . will cease to smile in pity at the suggestion that Cabalistic theology may have a role to play in the religious transformations of the future. . . . It contains the key to the modern religious problem" (Anonymous, Light- bearers of Darkness, The Christian Book Club of America, p11).

This surely is the Final Hour. Pope Francis may the last Pope to bring the world to it's knees and unite all religions like Gnosticism, Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, Big-bang Evolutionists and so on since their ideology and goal is the same, and lead by the same Deity, as the pope said; Lucifer.