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)

[Zzyzx]

;.

However, it is difficult for me (and I trust, others) to accept your suggestion that my chair is an illusion.

Its easy to assume that the chair I'm sat on has an inherent realness. That it exists separate from myself. But that doesn't really stand up to logical scrutiny.

The thing I am sat on is made of wooden panels with a few screws in it. Suppose I move the screws and lay the wooden panels flat on the floor. Where's the chair now? Gone! With nothing more than a swish of a screwdriver I make an inherent 'thing' with a definite 'reality' disappear entirely from the universe!

Snip

You believe that seeing a god is no more than a trick of the mind. I believe that the same can be said for all thoughts.

It is not uncommon to encounter this line of thinking when some Theists attempt to defend belief in invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural "gods." It is summarized with "Nothing can be shown to be real so it is reasonable to believe in gods that cannot be shown to be real."

Perhaps that is convincing to some.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 121 by Zzyzx]

For one Im an atheist. For two, I've literally never heard a theist say such a thing (though I've never met them all of course). And for three, that reply is little more than saying 'well its wrong' without really explaining why you think that.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 121 by Zzyzx]

For one Im an atheist.

Someone's theological position makes no difference in my response. I respond to what is written, not to my impression of their theology.

For two, I've literally never heard a theist say such a thing (though I've never met them all of course).

If you stay around the Forum a while you will see such posts.

And for three, that reply is little more than saying 'well its wrong' without really explaining why you think that.

I am not inclined to discuss anything serious with a person who has difficulty accepting that their chair is more than an illusion (and/or asks others to prove to them that the chair is not just an illusion).

It suffices for me that readers can decide for themselves if chairs being an illusion makes sense or makes a sound argument.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 123 by Zzyzx]

I can't help but give a wry smile when I read your replies. By way of an experiement, consider some of the statements from your last few posts, but replacing the word 'chair' with 'God'.

'You are certainly entitled to consider yourself and God to be illusions. However I am not bound to accept that reasoning.'

'However, it is difficult for me (and I trust, others) to accept your suggestion that God is an illusion.'

"I am not inclined to discuss anything serious with a person who has difficulty accepting that God is more than an illusion. (and/or asks others to prove to them that God is not just an illusion)."

In the absence of any reasoning, are you making anything more than a statement of faith? Is that different from ignoring a logical argument and relying on a pre-existing belief of God?

What difference is there? Because the chair obviously exists? Because most readers would agree with you?

How many billions of people have believed that God(s) obviously exists? And if you had made those statements about God rather than a chair, those readers would agree with you. I don't think that counts for anything, not least on a forum where the whole point is to debate the issues at hand.

If you prefer your view on the concept of the chair to be an expression of faith and your faith to be more convincing to you than a simple 'If A Then B' style argument, then that's fine. But I don't see how you can consider such a viewpoint to be materially different from perceiving something to be the act of a god.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 123 by Zzyzx]

I can't help but give a wry smile when I read your replies. By way of an experiement, consider some of the statements from your last few posts, but replacing the word 'chair' with 'God'.

'You are certainly entitled to consider yourself and God to be illusions. However I am not bound to accept that reasoning.'

'However, it is difficult for me (and I trust, others) to accept your suggestion that God is an illusion.'

"I am not inclined to discuss anything serious with a person who has difficulty accepting that God is more than an illusion. (and/or asks others to prove to them that God is not just an illusion)."

In the absence of any reasoning, are you making anything more than a statement of faith? Is that different from ignoring a logical argument and relying on a pre-existing belief of God?

What difference is there? Because the chair obviously exists? Because most readers would agree with you?

Your deliberate misquote experiment means little. The difference between a chair and God goes far beyond your invitation to rely on an ad populum fallacy. We can directly observe a chair. We can see it, we can feel it, it has mass. It bears our weight. We can make one and others of vastly differing belief systems will agree "That is chair." The amount of 'faith' it takes to believe in a chair is virtually non existent. None of this applies to God.

This old argument that "faith" is required to believe anything, therefore EVERYthing is a matter of faith, is ridiculous. In a way that argument says there is no difference between a single pound note and a billion pounds. The amount of faith required makes a significant difference.

[Zzyzx]

.

"I am not inclined to discuss anything serious with a person who has difficulty accepting that God is more than an illusion. (and/or asks others to prove to them that God is not just an illusion)."

In the absence of any reasoning, are you making anything more than a statement of faith? Is that different from ignoring a logical argument and relying on a pre-existing belief of God?

No reasoning or logical argument or pre-existing belief is required to sit in a chair, but ARE required to conceptualize an invisible, undetectable, supernatural "god" that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

What difference is there?

Are you actually asking for a difference between a chair and a god?

Because the chair obviously exists?

The existence of a chair can be demonstrated with a wide range of repeatable, verifiable tests or experiments that those interested and motivated can perform. The existence of a proposed "god" cannot be demonstrated by repeatable, verifiable tests or experiments that those interested and motivated can perform

Because most readers would agree with you?

Argumentum ad populum is faulty whether applied to existence of chairs or gods.

How many billions of people have believed that God(s) obviously exists?

That most people in the US agree that "God" exists is no indication that it does.

And if you had made those statements about God rather than a chair, those readers would agree with you.

I do not ask that anyone agree with me (or care whether they do or not). What I DO suggest is that people make sound decisions based upon consideration of evidence from wide-ranging, disconnected sources that they can verify.

I don't think that counts for anything, not least on a forum where the whole point is to debate the issues at hand.

The "point" of debate for me is to present ideas for readers to consider and evaluate.

If you prefer your view on the concept of the chair to be an expression of faith and your faith to be more convincing to you than a simple 'If A Then B' style argument, then that's fine. But I don't see how you can consider such a viewpoint to be materially different from perceiving something to be the act of a god.

The chairs in my world are not concepts, they are objects. I can demonstrate their existence and their characteristics to anyone interested and motivated.

"Gods" and their proposed characteristics are concepts that cannot be demonstrated to exist outside of imagination / hallucination / fantasy / mental construct

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 124 by bishblaize]

What you are advocating really is solipsism. Which has no real value in anything related to debate. It reduces everything to an illusion therefore nothing is knowable and nothing is debatable. After all we could just be brains in a vat programmed to experience what we feel and touch. At some point yes we have to make some logical pre-suppositions like I exist and the chair I am sitting on exists. The question is what do we include and exclude in these suppositions. We use reason to sort that out. Is it reasonable to assume I am sitting on a chair? Is it reasonable to believe in something that has no evidence to exist? These are two very different questions.


I will give solipsism some merit for self awareness that is its main value, not debate.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 125 by Danmark]

I can only assume you didn't read my previous posts. Fair enough, there's a lot of posts on here to read. However you do seem to have taken my tongue in cheek reductio ad absurdum post at face value and swapped my actual position as an atheist stating that logical arguments should be considered on logical grounds, not merely 'because it is so', and made out that I'm arguing that since someone believes in a chair they should believe in God. How ironic irony can be.

Suffice to say that was not my argument. My argument was that all thoughts of the mind are interpretations of the things we see, taste, feel, hear etc.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 127 by DanieltheDragon]

The non-existence of self and that all phenomena are empty are key aspects of Buddhism and that was my position.

I've never really looked at solipsism though, which I'll go and read up on.

Clearly I dont think about such things when deciding what shirt to put on in the morning or when talking to my two year old. However if there was ever a place for such a debate, this is probably it. Considering the experience of someone's meeting with God is the time to review the fundamentals.

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 126 by Zzyzx]

I can tell from your reply you didn't understand my main argument. Apologies, this is no doubt my poor explanation of what is a fairly hard to explain concept.

If you're not interested, you're not interested. However the non-existence of self and the emptiness of phenomena are fairly central concepts to me. I won't labour the point, other than to say that as an atheist I found the concept extremely eye opening and worthy of more reading, particularly when we consider what constitutes the true and false experiences of our lives.