God and gods

[historia]

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Questions for debate: Is this quote accurate? Is the difference between the concept of God and the concept of gods simply a difference in number (one vs. many)? When atheists and skeptics combine the two into the short-hand "God(s)," are they making a category error?

[Tcg]

Their imaging of GOD misses the mark.

Not really. It simply means their imaging of god, and perhaps their use of case, is different than yours. That's the problem with any idea of gOD, there is no cheat sheet to refer to which contains the proper understanding. Humans simply create their idea of goD or adapt it from other ideas of gOd, and run with it.


Some even realize there is no verifiable evidence for any of the various ideas and run without it.



Tcg

[Jagella]

You know, Tcg, every word of every post you make is saturated and just drips with utter disdain, bitterness, and hatefulness. Questioning the beliefs of others is fine, but the communication of that disdain and hate really communicates more about the speaker than anything or anyone else. Just a word of exhortation to you, man. But hey, leave the legacy you want to leave, by all means. Peace.

I don't know what Tcg may have said to make you react that way (you didn't post any direct quotations of his as examples), but "utter disdain, bitterness, and hatefulness" are sometimes appropriate. Since we are discussing religion, much of it deserves to be hated bitterly. I hope you agree with me that anything that serves to harm innocent people should be treated with utter disdain, unless, of course you love such things.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

As someone has said, gods is not the plural of God. God has no plural.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

As someone has said, gods is not the plural of God. God has no plural.

Hello Liam, God may be unique but perhaps his omnipotence doesn't let him interfere with human grammar. God does have a plural, as in the sentence:


"The Trinity does not mean there are three Gods, but three persons in one God."

[historia]

Historia you are mistaken Hindu mythology holds there is a supreme creator God .

Yes, I know. I pointed out that some Hindus believe in God in post 15 and post 27. Perhaps you didn't read those posts?

Like some ancient Greeks, some Hindus believe in both God and gods.

[historia]

Yahweh is as much an invention as the Greek gods. He magically maifests himself on mountains and so shares the ability the Greek gods had of coming and going on earth. Instead of being surrounded by minor deities, he has supernatural entities, angels, not of this world, for company. Angels are sent as messengers, like Hermes, to do the deity's bidding. It is odd that one would suggest there is any conceptual difference between Yahweh and the Greek divinities.

Had Yahweh remained merely a tribal deity of the ancient Hebrews, I could certainly see your point. But later Jewish and Christian theology came to associate Yahweh with the supreme, transcendent God.

An uncreated, eternal Supreme Being that is the ground for all existence is ontologically very different from the gods of polytheistic religions. The latter are, as you noted here, more like angels. And, as such, are ontologically much closer to humans than they are to God.

It is rather artificial to suggest a capital letter makes a massive difference.

In this particular case, the word is capitalized precisely for the purpose of signaling that there is a difference. In other languages, like Greek and Arabic, the definite article is used to signal we are talking about the God, and not merely gods.

[historia]

We know from Greek and Hindu mythology, for example, that the gods emerged from the created world.

What about the other two thousand or so proposed 'gods'?

Can anyone legitimately claim the following without knowledge of the competing gods?

If you'd like to give an example of another god, perhaps we can look at it together to see if it fits within my argument.

[historia]

We should keep in mind that the "concept" of a god varies with the individual both without and within Christianity. I think there may be at least as many gods as there are theists! There really are no universal theological authorities within Christendom that speak for all Christians although some authorities like the Vatican and the Watchtower may claim to be such authorities. As a result, it is important to avoid any naive, simplistic generalizations of what either Christians or pagans believe about their gods or the reasons they cite to believe in those gods.

Okay, but my argument doesn't rest on the notion that all Christians (or Hindus or polytheists) hold identical beliefs. I'm simply noting the mainstream, historical view of God and/or the gods formally held within each of these religious traditions.

If Robert's argument doesn't apply to these mainstream views, then his argument has little to no force.

They're really not that "radically" different. The "supreme being" of Christianity has natural attributes and powers and requires worship like most other gods.

No, God is ontologically very different from the gods. And the historical reasons for believing in either are also very different. That both might be worshipped is a superficial similarity in the face of these differences.

The god of the Bible is often described as being within the physical world and moves from one place to another. Moses had to meet Yahweh on Mount Sinai like he would need to meet Zeus on Mount Olympus, so Yahweh had to be on Mount Sinai for Moses to meet him there. So what you've posted here is a false difference. The Christian god is very similar to pagan gods especially in the person of Jesus.

See my reply to marco in post 46.

The fact that you have your own private interpretation of isolated verses of the Bible and an idiosyncratic understanding of Christology is simply not germane to the discussion. What matters here is what Christians and Jews believe. And they simply don't interpret these passages as you have here.

I don't believe in the Christian [God] because the idea seems false to me. It is alien to my way of thinking which is to say it doesn't fit into my view of reality. I know of no good reasons to believe the Christian [God] exists beyond the imaginations of Christians. As I see it, the Christian [God] is the creation of people either out of ignorance or deliberate deception.

Now, keeping in mind what I've posted above, can you say your reasons for doubting any god aside from the Christian [God] differ from what I just posted?

Fixed that for you.

Yes, anyone's reasons for doubting the existence of particular objects in the universe (i.e., gods) is necessarily different from the reasons for doubting the existence of a transcendent Supreme Being (i.e., God) that is the ground for all existence.

[Zzyzx]

.

We know from Greek and Hindu mythology, for example, that the gods emerged from the created world.

What about the other two thousand or so proposed 'gods'?

Can anyone legitimately claim the following without knowledge of the competing gods?

If you'd like to give an example of another god, perhaps we can look at it together to see if it fits within my argument.

FIRST, kindly address -- "Can anyone legitimately claim the following without knowledge of the competing gods?"

Note: 'the following' refers to your statement in post #28 "The 'gods,' by contrast, do not transcend nature, but rather are thought to have emerged from it. They are conceived of as just higher or more powerful beings within the created order."

Unless one claims knowledge of 'the gods' (inclusive -- thousands of them), the statement is invalid.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

The use of plural in the form of "Gods" is not a category mistake when describing multiple distinctly different concepts of "God" it is necessary for grammar. It would simply be grammatically incorrect to say:

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible god, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Deism would be a good description of a vanilla "God" but many others that claim the "prime mover" argument as a key part of their religion like Elohim, Brahma, Saturn, Ra, etc. So when addressing God worship without trying to categorically combine pantheons of non-creator Gods as the exact same concept as creator Gods it is still necessary to pluralise the word.