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)

[David the apologist]

.

The atheist, for whatever reason, has come to form a categorization schema in which the "God of the philosophers" is at best a god of the gaps, and all the religious traditions have been placed on a level playing field so that Brahman and Thor are viewed as fundamentally the "same kind of thing," and that kind of thing is "a god." Hence, YHWH, Brahman, Allah, et al. are all just variations on the same irrational theme. This is probably why they're atheists: they see the monotheistic God as just another one of the characters in the old poems.

How do you come by your knowledge of Atheists and what they think?

Have you discovered in your research of Atheism that there is NO such thing as "the Atheist position?" Since no unifying dogma is required for "I do not believe in gods", weekly reinforcement meetings are not required, and no Sunday School offered, Atheists tend to have individual opinions rather than following "group think" or indoctrination.

Those who are indoctrinated to follow group think may have difficulty recognizing that others are not similarly afflicted.

Certainly I'm not saying that there is some kind of creedal statement that all atheists must affirm in order to be considered atheists, as there is for being a Christian. Since non-theists are often offended by such insinuations, I probably should have made this more clear.

However, despite this, it seems that many atheists share a common mindset. I'm rational enough to admit the possibility that this mindset has been acquired independently. However, I do think that it's equally possible that some sort of atheist-atheist influence of an unconscious nature may be a contributing factor as well, though it would have to be a "peer-peer" influence instead of a "leader-follower" influence like that seen in most religious circles.

If I had to make a bet, I'd bet that it was some combination of both independent development and subconscious peer-peer influence not dominated by either factor.

That being said, the doubt surrounding the way in which atheists tend towards similar mindsets doesn't change the fact that the mindset is there. Certain aspects of it would include tenets like "all religions are equally false" and "rational people don't just take authority at its word, they think for themselves." Ideas like these are widely shared among atheists. The reason for their being shared is irrelevant to the rather obvious fact that they are, in fact, shared.

[Danmark]

The monotheistic God is a Ground of Being first and foremost, and while He does play a role as an actor in the grand drama of the universe, His primary role is to support and organize that universe.

You've made many interesting points. Tho' I'll only quote this one of yours, I don't mean to dismiss the others.

This 'God as the very ground of being,' that Tillich discusses is a difficult concept. If you search the forum you'll find a more in depth discussion of it that cnorman, and I, and others entertained. I agree with Tillich's effort to try to find some middle ground between God as a mere being, a God with a personality, a God that 'exists,' and a God that blends into the universe and almost becomes nothing at all, or at least something less than personal. I struggled thru Tillich's Systematic Theology , volumes I and II, but thought he failed in his noble effort to find that middle ground.

In any event, I agree that the concept of God the Father, the Jewish God, a mere being, is akin to the Norse and Roman Gods; whereas the great I AM, a God who is beyond naming is more like the 'very ground of being' Tillich discusses. This is a profound concept. A concept perhaps too subtle for most of humanity to hold on to. Thus the Catholic church's deconstruction of this profundity by formulating the three gods that somehow are one. Catholic apologetics tries to get around this absurdity by calling it a 'mystery.'

If you can cite a source or make an original argument for how this trinitarian contradiction is justified, I would be interested to read it. The efforts I've made to follow Tillich and Schleiermacher have, I confess, not been completely productive. The discussions and nuances upon nuances divided into many parts multiplied by speculation suggest to me an effort that emphasises verbal and intellectual brilliance at the expense of clarity and logic.

[Danmark]

Certainly I'm not saying that there is some kind of creedal statement that all atheists must affirm in order to be considered atheists, as there is for being a Christian. Since non-theists are often offended by such insinuations, I probably should have made this more clear.

However, despite this, it seems that many atheists share a common mindset. I'm rational enough to admit the possibility that this mindset has been acquired independently. However, I do think that it's equally possible that some sort of atheist-atheist influence of an unconscious nature may be a contributing factor as well, though it would have to be a "peer-peer" influence instead of a "leader-follower" influence like that seen in most religious circles.

If I had to make a bet, I'd bet that it was some combination of both independent development and subconscious peer-peer influence not dominated by either factor.

That being said, the doubt surrounding the way in which atheists tend towards similar mindsets doesn't change the fact that the mindset is there. Certain aspects of it would include tenets like "all religions are equally false" and "rational people don't just take authority at its word, they think for themselves." Ideas like these are widely shared among atheists. The reason for their being shared is irrelevant to the rather obvious fact that they are, in fact, shared.

I don't favor the term 'atheist.' It seems to me that it credits theism with too much. Rather than belief in a theistic 'God' to which the atheist is opposed, it seems to me more rational to start with nothing; that is, to begin with an absence of belief and build belief based on evidence. For that reason I prefer the term 'non theist.' Despite all of the fancy, convoluted, subtle, and even brilliant efforts to suggest a god to explain natural phenomena, there remains no need to do so. 99% of the phenomena of nature that heretofore were mysteries are now easily explained by natural processes. Tho' there may still remain a psychological need to posit a 'God,' there is no longer a logical reason to do so.

[David the apologist]

The monotheistic God is a Ground of Being first and foremost, and while He does play a role as an actor in the grand drama of the universe, His primary role is to support and organize that universe.

You've made many interesting points. Tho' I'll only quote this one of yours, I don't mean to dismiss the others.

This 'God as the very ground of being,' that Tillich discusses is a difficult concept. If you search the forum you'll find a more in depth discussion of it that cnorman, and I, and others entertained. I agree with Tillich's effort to try to find some middle ground between God as a mere being, a God with a personality, a God that 'exists,' and a God that blends into the universe and almost becomes nothing at all, or at least something less than personal. I struggled thru Tillich's Systematic Theology , volumes I and II, but thought he failed in his noble effort to find that middle ground.

I've never read Tillich's work, to be entirely frank. The only really great theologian I've read is Aquinas, and even that is limited to portions of the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles.

When I say "Ground of Being," I don't think that I mean what Tillich meant when he said the same thing, though I can't be certain of that seeing as I haven't read a word of what he wrote. When I say "Ground of Being," I just mean "First Cause."

I suppose that, if I had to define God, I would say that He has three roles in any theistic worldview. First, He is the Ground of Being in my sense. Whether He creates it freely or produces it by emanation can differ between individual theists, but He is behind it in some way. Second, He is the Supreme Being, in the sense of being a Greatest Possible Being. Again, whether He's Supreme by being an Omni-perfect being, by being completely transcendent of human categories, or by being some combination of the two (my preferred statement is Divine Simplicity, which affirms both as being true of God) differs from theist to theist. Finally, He is the Ultimate Satisfaction of human desire. Whether He satisfies us by being a paradigm we emulate, a friend we come closer to, a "beyond" that we unite mystically with, or by some combination of the above is up for debate. That He does so is not.

In the Scholastic terminology, God is First in the order of Causation, First in the order of Eminence, and First in the order of Ends. Any being that doesn't meet all three criteria either gets a lowercase "g," or else gets a different term entirely.

In any event, I agree that the concept of God the Father, the Jewish God, a mere being, is akin to the Norse and Roman Gods; whereas the great I AM, a God who is beyond naming is more like the 'very ground of being' Tillich discusses. This is a profound concept. A concept perhaps too subtle for most of humanity to hold on to. Thus the Catholic church's deconstruction of this profundity by formulating the three gods that somehow are one. Catholic apologetics tries to get around this absurdity by calling it a 'mystery.'

Well, you have to keep in mind the paradox the early Christians were faced with. God, God's Word, and God's Breath were all undeniable parts of reality, undeniably distinct, and undeniably all Divine. Given the ancient attitudes towards words and breath generally, God's Word would have been seen as some kind of manifestation of God's Power and Wisdom, and God's Breath would have been seen as some kind of manifestation of God's Life. God's Power, Wisdom, and Life hardly qualify as distinct beings from God Himself, but God, His Word, and His Breath were different agents as God worked in history.

So, to do justice to the data, they had to say that God, His Word, and His Breath were the same and not the same. That's worth calling a mystery.

If you can cite a source or make an original argument for how this trinitarian contradiction is justified, I would be interested to read it. The efforts I've made to follow Tillich and Schleiermacher have, I confess, not been completely productive. The discussions and nuances upon nuances divided into many parts multiplied by speculation suggest to me an effort that emphasises verbal and intellectual brilliance at the expense of clarity and logic.

I would contend that no Christian can say that the trinity "makes sense" on any deep level. But I do think that terminology poses a major problem for anyone who seeks even a superficial understanding of the trinity.

The usual formula is "three persons, one essence," but I don't think that accurately translates what the church actually meant. For one thing, we're separate people who share the essence of humanity. For another, Jesus was seen as being "one person, two natures," and the two natures was taken to imply two wills. On that view, the three persons of the trinity would be seen as sharing a single will, which means that in modern linguistic contexts, calling God, God's Word, and God's Breath "three persons" is simply equivocation.

The term "Ousia," which is translated "Essence," could also mean "being" or "substance." I would suggest that "being," "Single Divine Reality," would be a better translation than "essence."

The term "Hypostasis," which is translated as "person," also could mean "concrete entity" or "substance." I would suggest that "manifestation," which conveys the sense of particularity while nonetheless implying that some deeper reality could exist behind and in the individual.

The formula "Three manifestations of a single Divine being" gives a better sense of Trinitarianism than "three persons, one God" does. The latter seems simply incoherent. The former, while vague, is perhaps more understandable. Care should be taken, however, that one not take "manifestation" to imply that the distinction between hypostases in the Trinity is merely illusory. These are real, fundamental, irreducibly distinct manifestations.

Of course, I don't claim that this does justice to Trinitarianism either. My previous version of this post did a better job, but I took so long typing it that the computer logged me out and it disappeared in the deep, dark recesses of the internets. The "Save as Draft" button will see substantially greater use in the future.

[Danmark]

I've never read Tillich's work, to be entirely frank. The only really great theologian I've read is Aquinas, and even that is limited to portions of the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles.

When I say "Ground of Being," I don't think that I mean what Tillich meant when he said the same thing, though I can't be certain of that seeing as I haven't read a word of what he wrote. When I say "Ground of Being," I just mean "First Cause."

I suppose that, if I had to define God, I would say that He has three roles in any theistic worldview. First, He is the Ground of Being in my sense. Whether He creates it freely or produces it by emanation can differ between individual theists, but He is behind it in some way. Second, He is the Supreme Being, in the sense of being a Greatest Possible Being. Again, whether He's Supreme by being an Omni-perfect being, by being completely transcendent of human categories, or by being some combination of the two (my preferred statement is Divine Simplicity, which affirms both as being true of God) differs from theist to theist. Finally, He is the Ultimate Satisfaction of human desire. Whether He satisfies us by being a paradigm we emulate, a friend we come closer to, a "beyond" that we unite mystically with, or by some combination of the above is up for debate.

You've covered a lot of ground. I'd prefer to take this an issue or two at a time, starting with the terminology problem of confusing "the ground of being" with "the First Cause. For reference to Tillich, who I consider essential to a discussion of this subject [particularly if we are using the phrase "ground of being"], I suggest you read the discussion we had here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

Regarding the "First Cause" I'm reluctant to get into it since it has been argued to death and the bottom line for me is that I'm not impressed. Chiefly because first cause arguments simply push things back in time and replace the label 'universe' with the label "God."

Your reference to God being "the Greatest Possible Being" hit a note for me. I recall that back in my college days I thought God as the greatest being possible, made more sense than God being absolutely omniscient and omnipotent. It avoids some logical problems for the Christian. This may run into conflict with Tillich's concept of God not being a mere being, but as the "very ground of being.' Tillich BTW, claims it is as 'atheistic' to claim god is a being, as it is to say God does not exist. I don't pretend to understand this, except that I think he is saying God is beyond existence. "He" [there is no appropriate pronoun] is 'the very ground of being.'

It is regrettable that three of our best debaters who are interested in this area of theology are not regularly contributing currently: cnorman, McCulloch, and EduChris.

[RichTBiskit]

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.


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

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

The main reason for using the term "gods" instead of god, to me, is simply because christianity or islam or whatever is not singled out by athiests.

The belief that the concept of a "god" is ludicrous and nothing more than a means to feel better about death created by highly superstitious people looking for meaning in their lives is all encompassing and includes ALL religions. That makes whether or not a religion has one or many gods completely irrelevent.

In reality there is a more fundamental issue to be looked at with respect to what any given athiest actually does believe. That is:

-- What exactly constitutes a "god"

i see many possibilities:

1: A paranormal "force" occupying a higher plain of existence - beyond our comprehension as simple animals. But still a plain of existence in this universe

2: An immortal all knowing, all powerfull alien entity who with divine powers was able to create everything in the universe and the universe itself from whatever realm outside of this universe it inhabits

3: A more evolved alien entity/race with abilities and knowledge so far above our own that they appear god like, but in reality are mortal inhabitants of this universe like us



I take religions like christianity to be following number 2, the older religions such as norse, greek, egyptian etc more likely number 3.

[arian]

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.


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

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

The main reason for using the term "gods" instead of god, to me, is simply because christianity or islam or whatever is not singled out by athiests.

The belief that the concept of a "god" is ludicrous and nothing more than a means to feel better about death created by highly superstitious people looking for meaning in their lives is all encompassing and includes ALL religions. That makes whether or not a religion has one or many gods completely irrelevent.

In reality there is a more fundamental issue to be looked at with respect to what any given athiest actually does believe. That is:

-- What exactly constitutes a "god"

i see many possibilities:

1: A paranormal "force" occupying a higher plain of existence - beyond our comprehension as simple animals. But still a plain of existence in this universe

That would still be 'gods' (as one from amongst them), and if you already convinced yourself that you are a simple animal, the only 'god' you will be able to imagine would be an animal also. Maybe a super-duper animal that you attribute all kinds of make-believe magical powers, but an animal non-the-less.

2: An immortal all knowing, all powerfull alien entity who with divine powers was able to create everything in the universe and the universe itself from whatever realm outside of this universe it inhabits

That also would be 'gods', this one living IN a realm just outside the universe.

3: A more evolved alien entity/race with abilities and knowledge so far above our own that they appear god like, but in reality are mortal inhabitants of this universe like us

Again this would be of 'gods' like Odin and his son Thor. Any idea what 'God' would be like?

The problem I see with people trying to identify 'God' is that they use only the 'finite', and we know we cannot build, evolve, create, expand anything 'finite' into the infinite, .. right? So how could you imagine The Infinite, Eternal, All powerful God "I Am Who I Am" outside of any concept that is finite?

Another words just think, .. how much 'finite' would it take to build something 'Infinite'? It cannot be done. Our finite brain could never imagine/know The Infinite Eternal Creative Mind who is God, never. You'll just continue creating one finite god after another, and convince yourself that "this one is God", until you come up with a better one you like. We have a pretty big wheel consisting of tens and tens of thousands of gods, and the wheel just keeps getting bigger every day.

I take religions like christianity to be following number 2, the older religions such as norse, greek, egyptian etc more likely number 3.

They are all following the same limited, finite manmade gods, including all versions of the Christian Religions.

Try your mind, and see if the 'idea' of God you come up with fits the description of 'God' in the Bible?

Clue: We were created in Gods image! (start there)

[RichTBiskit]

[Replying to post 97 by arian]

arian, i'm not sure what your point your reply was trying to get across.

My post was just to highlight [as i understand it] the reason for athiests using a specific term, "gods", the plural, rather than "god" singular.

With the 3 points you are saying they constitute the need for word "gods" although as statements they were only meant to portray "examples".
For instance if i was talking about different types of penguins and highlighting a type, i would have put maybe "rockhopper" not "rockhoppers" - in NO way meaning to indicate the is only one rockhopper penguin in existence.

you wrote: "Try your mind, and see if the 'idea' of God you come up with fits the description of 'God' in the Bible?

Clue: We were created in Gods image! (start there)"

Again, i dont understand your point, how does doing that help to explain why athiests generally use plurals rather than singular term?

[arian]

[Replying to post 97 by arian]

arian, i'm not sure what your point your reply was trying to get across.

My post was just to highlight [as i understand it] the reason for athiests using a specific term, "gods", the plural, rather than "god" singular.

Thank you RichTBiskit for your kind reply.
Yes, I understand what you did and why you believe atheists use the plural form 'gods' rather than the singular 'One God'. What I was hoping to point out was that the concept of one God has been lost, and used your post as a good example of this. I did not mean to point to you that you were wrong, but used what you said as an example.

With the 3 points you are saying they constitute the need for word "gods" although as statements they were only meant to portray "examples".
For instance if i was talking about different types of penguins and highlighting a type, i would have put maybe "rockhopper" not "rockhoppers" - in NO way meaning to indicate the is only one rockhopper penguin in existence.

And of course you are right, and I understand that. This is why I brought it up. Look; we know there are many penguins in the world, correct? But we have only One God, Creator of all things and there is 'none besides Him' right?

So how would I a Believer in that there truly is but One God explain it to the world who erroniously believe that there are actually many gods? Would I admit to them that; "well yea, there are many gods, but mine is the .. the what? The best one? The greatest one? The only one to be considered?
You see? That would never get people to accept the fact that there is only One Creator God, One God and the rest are not 'God', but gods.

If I had a big chest full with thousands of of plastic toy soldiers, I could say; 'I have an army of soldiers at my disposal' .. see what I mean? It's true that I have thousands of soldiers, .. but do I? Same with gods, now people may say they worship one of those fake man-made gods, but are they really worshipping 'God'?

you wrote: "Try your mind, and see if the 'idea' of God you come up with fits the description of 'God' in the Bible?

Clue: We were created in Gods image! (start there)"

Again, i dont understand your point, how does doing that help to explain why athiests generally use plurals rather than singular term?

I was hoping to draw your attention to the fact that 'there IS' a God, a true God in a singular form, and not just 'one from' all the fake man made gods.

The atheists, including all religions understand God as 'one, or one or more from' all the man-made gods (plastic toy soldiers). I was pointing to that One True God, .. the Creator in whose 'image' we were created, to hopefully make a clear distinction between the real and the fake.

I'm sure you know that our Creator God is Spirit, and that no one has ever seen God, nor can He be seen, but only known, or understood, .. right? The physical mind understands only the physical, or man made fairytale gods, but our mind which is the image of God (actually a bit of God Himself) can perceive God. Our mind is spirit, and only in the spirit can we see/understand/communicate with God.

[arian]

Correction;

I meant to say physical brain, not physical mind.

I'm sure you know that our Creator God is Spirit, and that no one has ever seen God, nor can He be seen, but only known, or understood, .. right? The physical [strike]mind[/strike] brain understands only the physical, or man made fairytale gods, but our mind which is the image of God (actually a bit of God Himself) can perceive God. Our mind is spirit, and only in the spirit can we see/understand/communicate with God.