Today someone told me I was their idol, does that count?
Name a god - how many can we find
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Today someone told me I was their idol, does that count?
you know absolute meaning the ultimate, the origin of, the highest degree, the basis, the essential.
Similarly God is the absolute truth, the origin of existence, the basis of reality itself, the only real objective existence. Do you see how there can only be one?
There cannot be two absolutes...thats impossible. Just as how you cannot divide a whole into multiple parts or there cannot be two absolutes.There are two "absolute" ONEs in the total of TWO, are there not?
Each ONE is unmoving, unchanging etc - but is merely a part of the TWO.
Likewise - if you had a pile of infinite bricks - and split it into two piles - how many bricks in each pile?
Anyhoo - isn't there a God of Rats, somewhere? Or just a Death of Rats?
I don't really understand your brick analogy...it doesn't make much sense
The absolute reality, the only true existence, that is God, how can there be many? All forms of reality, all forms of existence stem from the absolute...it is the ultimate...there is none besides the absolute...saying there are two absolutes is a contradiction....
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Well I have been told the same thing, but I don't take it to heart.
You've just refuted yourself, nice work!
I don't see how - just as actual water can be qualified as being liquid, an actual god is that which is the cause of all causes.
Running up a gynormous list of names that may or may not fit the bill doesn't establish anything, just as running up a gynormous list of names for water that may or may not fit the bill doesn't amount to much either.
LG,
No. Consensus means ALL agree.
Why? Why must there be an eternal cause? If gods are uncaused then any of them could cause anything. There is no necessity in your assertions that rules out more than one god.
No it isn’t. Your analogy makes no sense. Where is the connection? If gods are uncaused then it doesn’t follow that just one of them must be a root cause.
Your point has no meaning if gods are uncaused since it would then be arbitrary as to which god causes what. Since an uncaused god would be outside of the scope of a god that causes all causes. If one god created this world then that doesn’t rule out the existence of other gods.
Vital,
That still doesn’t rules out multiple gods with identical properties. It follows that if it is possible for one god to know everything then the precedent has been set for other gods to know everything. Even if one god is the origin of existence that doesn’t mean that other gods could not have also begun existence had they so chose
Of course you can. Two or more entities with identical properties.
Again that doesn’t rule out multiple gods with identical properties. Why must only one god possess the ability to be absolute reality?
Not so if all gods share the same abilities. It is not that there are multiple absolutes just that each god has equal power.
cris
How is it possible for there to be more than one (ultimate) cause for a phenomena?
Well suppose we had the phenomenal world and we ask who caused it - God A or God B? either god A and B are actually the same entity or One of the gods is seen to be the cause of the other - in the absence of this you are not working with a defintion of god as the cause of all causes, which is akin to not working with the understanding that a person can only have one biological mother
How can a god be uncaused in the presence of a god that is the cause of all causes?
Still it is clearly an oxymoron. Its obvious that you want to work with an unconventional defintion of god (ie god is not the cause of all causes) to make your arguments appear authoratative.
you missed what I was indicating - why isn't there a consensus in human society on anything if we have superior intelligence?
How is it possible for there to be more than one (ultimate) cause for a phenomena?
The universe only allows for one singular fully independant entity as the cause of all causes - anything less would be an oxymoron
Well suppose we had the phenomenal world and we ask who caused it - God A or God B? either god A and B are actually the same entity or One of the gods is seen to be the cause of the other - in the absence of this you are not working with a defintion of god as the cause of all causes, which is akin to not working with the understanding that a person can only have one biological mother
I don't see how it would be arbitrary - if we both arrive in a foreign country on the same plane can I take your luggage with me? In other words if an entity appears in a certain way and exhibits an effect, doesn't the effect get attributed to the cause?
How can a god be uncaused in the presence of a god that is the cause of all causes?
Still it is clearly an oxymoron. Its obvious that you want to work with an unconventional defintion of god (ie god is not the cause of all causes) to make your arguments appear authoratative.
lg,
It demonstrates the tendency of humans to invent a superstition or god as an explanation for anything that is not otherwise understood. The worldwide tendency and the vast differences in names and the abilities/properties indicate the unlikleyhood that any single god has any basis in reality.
cris
Or it could also indicate an atheists inability to see the underlying common principle of theism and the qualities that determine its accuracy ... just like a person being hypnotized by the etmylogical varigatedness of words for water while being completely bereft of the knowledge to distinguish its qualities
Or it could also indicate an atheists inability to see the underlying common principle of theism and the qualities that determine its accuracy ... just like a person being hypnotized by the etmylogical varigatedness of words for water while being completely bereft of the knowledge to distinguish its qualities
Water can be agreed upon by everyone and does 'fit the bill', it's a tangible thing, observable, demonstrable and testable, unlike a gynormous group of gods.
But, lest you forget, those names indicate beliefs of a gynormous group of individuals, all having very individual views of their gods as you do of yours. The list is evidence of that.
The part you probably don't quite get yet, is that your very own version of a god is at risk of being false based upon your logic.
That, or else you must proclaim you yourself hold the one true knowledge of a god, and all the others on that list are false.
(Q)
there are also gynormous numbers of brand names for asprins - despite the variety they all have qualities that are quite similar - in fact in some times the ingredients are identical - and to top it all off they all claim that they help relieve the symptoms of head aches
I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate by your logic - "they're all wrong" ..... "some of them are wrong" ...... ?????
obviously I was using the analogy of water to indicate that it is distinguished by quality, not etymology - it was not meant to establish the endeavour required for understanding
there are also gynormous numbers of brand names for asprins - despite the variety they all have qualities that are quite similar - in fact in some times the ingredients are identical - and to top it all off they all claim that they help relieve the symptoms of head aches
I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate by your logic - "they're all wrong" ..... "some of them are wrong" ...... ?????
LG,
My only authority here is the simplicity of logical reasoning.
I was referring to intelligence superior to ours, i.e. that of a god.
I haven’t said that. What I propose is multiple gods capable of causing the phenomena. Only one need actually do it. The choice of which one is arbitrary.
OK, that’s no problem, either could do it.
Why? We have stated that they are two separate gods.
Why if they are both equally uncaused? It does not follow that there must be only one god in any scenario.
Not so. Any of the uncaused gods would fit your definition.
And you have totally failed to make your point or show any connection with this final statement. It is entirely unrelated.
This appears entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Yup I have no problem with that. What has that to do with multiple gods?
Because something uncaused wasn’t caused or needs to be caused. Any uncaused god could be the cause of all causes, that doesn’t rule out multiple gods with those abilities.
You seem to be missing the point that something uncaused is not subject to a god that causes all causes; something uncaused doesn’t enter its jurisdiction.
No not at all. Your god can still be the cause of all causes but that doesn’t rule out the existence of equally powerful gods that are equally uncaused and have similar capabilities.
My only authority here is the simplicity of logical reasoning.
ok...so something with identical properties is the same...thats like me describing gravity and you describing gravity and saying they have the identical properties, so logically they must be two separate things...wtf????
also, this 'god' existed before the material universe, he is the origin, all has sprung from him,
right so again..thats like me saying there's gravity1 and gravity2, they have the exact same properties so logically they must be two different things hahaha
different things with identical properties? How then are they different? Why? Because its just logical...the absolute meaning all has sprung from it...the ultimate cause...the cause of all causes...how can it possibly be multiple?
Then these 'Gods' are identical, so they are non-different...meaning its all one
lg,
Hmm, this post appears absent of intelligent argument and is primarily ad hominen. Feels like the desperation of someone who is losing an argument and can't think of anything constructive. Basic political tactic, blame the opponet in the absence of any substance of your own.
I got the same impression from your post, hence the reciprocation
Cris
If they are sufficiently intelligent to perceive the cause of all causes there is a consensus - its the same principle that a team leader is required for undertaking any project
are you saying that the same entity could have seperate incarnations or are you saying that the entities would be operate out of eternal distinct and different potencies (in otherwords would the multiple gods be uniformly omnipotent and omniscient and thus there would be no distinction between one and another since they would essentially all have the same sense of "I" or would the powers of one god be capable of infringing or withdrawing from the purview of another?
If they are sufficiently intelligent to perceive the cause of all causes there is a consensus - its the same principle that a team leader is required for undertaking any project
are you saying that the same entity could have seperate incarnations or are you saying that the entities would be operate out of eternal distinct and different potencies (in otherwords would the multiple gods be uniformly omnipotent and omniscient and thus there would be no distinction between one and another since they would essentially all have the same sense of "I" or would the powers of one god be capable of infringing or withdrawing from the purview of another?
your unressolved anger issues appear to be inhibiting your abiltity to form a rational argument
Vital,
No not quite. Two twins would be identical but they would be separate. In the case of multiple gods they would be separate but equally capable.
No. Two separate descriptions of the same thing are not the same as two descriptions of separate things with identical properties.
Ok, but that doesn’t rule out other gods with identical abilities.
Again you have simply made the same mistake as above. You need to think this through more carefully.
Twins is a good example.
Why not? Why can’t there be multiple gods with the same abilities? Nothing you have said rules out that possibility.
You really are having difficulty understanding this simple idea. Take two identical cars coming off a production line. What you are trying to say here is that there is really only one car. Do you see your problem?