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]

Atheists, non-Theists etc.

You may not be using those words or phrases, such a "scale of absurdity" but that is what you are doing. You are basically dismissing BOTH Monotheism, and Polytheism as equally absurd or irrational.

Again, that is not the point of this thread. I am trying to determine WHICH theistic outlook has stronger roots in rationality. I am tired of the "equally absurd" arguments, especially on this thread.

But that is my fault, for not defining the parameters more clearly in the OP. I should have addressed the topic specifically to Theists. Or those non-believers who can convincingly adopt a Theistic POV for the sake of argument.

My apologies.

[Divine Insight]

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

The only problem I have with that kind of "God" or "Gods" is then the question becomes, "Who designed them?"

I think a better picture of "God" is a mystical mind that actually "dreams" up reality. No design required. The dream simply evolves. Physics becomes whatever is required to maintain the dream. Physics is actually secondary to the dream.

Now you may ask, "But who designed that original mind that is dreaming up reality?"

My answer to that would be, "Nobody designed it. It just is."

Now you may say, but doesn't that go back to the original problem?

But no it actually doesn't. The reason it doesn't is because the dream of reality is not "designed" it's just a dream of a mind that is also not "designed". So there is no "designing" anywhere in the whole process. The whole of "design" itself is just an idea that is part of the dream.

Is this an absolutely silly absurd idea?

Sure it is.

But then so is the idea that stuff exists for no reason and just happens to have the ability to evolve into complex sentient life forms.

That's just as silly as anything else.

So it's all silly.

No matter what we propose for the bottom line of reality it will necessarily be silly.

There is no escape from the fact that reality is silly no matter what is causing it to be.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 31 by Elijah John]

I just want to know exactly what about my arguments are absurd.

according to the forum rules if you make a claim you must provide evidence to back it up


you have claimed that I specifically and others are making absurd arguments

What about my arguments are absurd.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 33 by DanieltheDragon]

No Daniel, I did not say that your arguments were absurd. Sorry if you go that impression.

I said that you are CLAIMING, indirectly perhaps, that the case for the rationality of Theism, Monotheism, or Polytheism, are equally absurd.

And that is a conversation I do not want to have.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

I said that you are CLAIMING, indirectly perhaps, that the case for the rationality of Theism, Monotheism, or Polytheism, are equally absurd.

But I did not claim that. Go ahead and quote me if you think I did.

I said I don't see how one is more reasonable than the other to me they have equal merit. While I as an atheist don't believe in that stuff I can see why others would. Polytheism and Monotheism are not more or less reasonable than the other imho. I did not say both were absurd or unreasonable.

Maybe you could address the points I did make which seemed to be a civil and objective approach to the merits of polytheism vs monotheism.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 35 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't think you are being UNcivil...at all. I just think you are putting the two on equal footing. If you are sincerely trying to find the rationale for both (or either), instead of attempting to dismiss both as irrational, fine. My mistake, and I appreciate your clarification.

I guess I was just expecting a reflexive response from Atheists as "neither, both irrational"...my mistake.

But again, I am tying to determine and explore WHICH has the greater claim to roots in rationality, Monotheism, or Polytheism.

[higgy1911]

Again, I'm struggling to see how we can claim one to be more natural than the other. All of the rational arguments for the existence of God apply to polytheism.

Essentially there would be no reason to choose polydeism over monodeism. When you get into the specific religions then it just depends on the evidence for that particular set of beliefs.

So the difference between Christianity and Greek mythology has no relevance to whether generally speaking polytheism is more or less rational than monotheism.

As far as I have seen none of the rational arguments for God's existence indicate whether monotheism or polytheism is correct. They have equally rational footing.

[Elijah John]

Again, I'm struggling to see how we can claim one to be more natural than the other. All of the rational arguments for the existence of God apply to polytheism.

Essentially there would be no reason to choose polydeism over monodeism. When you get into the specific religions then it just depends on the evidence for that particular set of beliefs.

So the difference between Christianity and Greek mythology has no relevance to whether generally speaking polytheism is more or less rational than monotheism.

As far as I have seen none of the rational arguments for God's existence indicate whether monotheism or polytheism is correct. They have equally rational footing.

I'm sorry, but I guess the distinction is too fine for most non-Theists. This post is an example of why I should have been more specific in the OP in addressing it to Theists and not Atheists. I really was hoping to avoid this type of conversation.

The topic is meant to be similar to the whole Mono vs Trinitarian type discussion, but not exactly, as the multiplicity factor of Theism I was hoping to include Polytheism. To me, Trinitarinaism is a type of Polytheism.

Intuitively, I go for absolute Monotheism...and that began with my doubts about the Divinity of Christ. But BEYOND that, it is mainly an instinctive decision on my part, and was hoping to explore the rationality of each option on this thread.

Seems that ain't happening.

As a PRACTICAL matter, I find absolute Monotheism more workable, as in prayer for example, there is NO HESITATION as to which "god" to call on, as I believe there is only ONE God.

In Polytheism and even Trinitarianism, there is always the "ok, now which god do I call on for this?" type question. Well, except for Trinitarianism, because although many call on Jesus in prayer, he did not teach that, he taught his followers to call on the name of the Father, to focus on the Father.

So for my own absolute Monotheism, I know it is intuitive, and practical, but I was hoping to discover some additional, rational and theoretical underlying principles and reasons for this inclination as well.

Theists? Any light you can shed on this?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 36 by Elijah John]

WHICH has the greater claim to roots in rationality, Monotheism, or Polytheism

.

Perhaps you could explain which one you think is more rational and why? We could debate the merits of that.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 38 by Elijah John]

I see. Misunderstanding on my part. Sorry for the derail. Good luck!