Why God, Why not Gods?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
There are many polytheists in the world. Especially in Asia and Africa. The West is also seeing somewhat of a revival of polytheism, starting in the late 1800's but really only picking up speed in the 1970's. Today, there are about two million people who actively and publically identify as practising neopaganism or other kinds of pagan revivalism in Europe, Australia, and the Americas.
I personally believe that there are potentially infinite numbers of gods in existence; and, I am a hard polytheist, meaning that I believe they all (or at least most) are individual and separate entities. However, it is likely that only a few of them involve themselves with the affairs of humans or are interested in humanity in some way. I mean, the total number of deities described in history can be counted, even if it would number into the thousands.
I personally believe that there are potentially infinite numbers of gods in existence; and, I am a hard polytheist, meaning that I believe they all (or at least most) are individual and separate entities. However, it is likely that only a few of them involve themselves with the affairs of humans or are interested in humanity in some way. I mean, the total number of deities described in history can be counted, even if it would number into the thousands.
Last edited:
Polytheism generally assumes that gods are like cogs in a wheel. Monotheism [whether Hindu, Zoroastrian, Christian, Muslim or religious Judaic] assumes that God is the wheel.
e.g.
Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe in the Hindu religion.
e.g.
Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe in the Hindu religion.
there is even a theory that postulates the existence of zero gods.
No, that's monism; which holds that all postulated deities and spirits are components of a greater form.
Monotheism says there is just one big spoke, which is sometimes used as a billy club.
PS) Hinduism isn't monotheistic. At least, not entirely. Some traditions in it are, but it'd be preposterous to generalise all of Hinduism based on that.
-=-
The Holy Babble has God saying man was created in OUR image, not MY image.
The Holy Babble has God saying man was created in OUR image, not MY image.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, that's monism; which holds that all postulated deities and spirits are components of a greater form.
Monotheism says there is just one big spoke, which is sometimes used as a billy club.
PS) Hinduism isn't monotheistic. At least, not entirely. Some traditions in it are, but it'd be preposterous to generalise all of Hinduism based on that.
Do you know any Hiindus?
Exactly !.
There is no proof that there is only one God or multiple Gods or no god at all .
Look to any blue print and it can be used by millions or billions .
.
A few, yes. But merely knowing the opinions of some Hindus is no indication of the entire religion. Everything I've read about Hinduism seems to indicate that it is far more diverse and varied than most people assume. It really is more of a junk taxon for various related Vedic traditions and practices from Northern and Central India.
Shinto is an interesting mix of polytheism and animism. Yes, there are many gods; but in everyday life they seem to take a back seat to ancestor worship, and the veneration of tutelary spirits, genii loci as the Romans would say; guardian spirits of a place or of a family, as it were. Though they do worship the classical Shinto gods regularly, especially for certain festivals.
Of course, the Imperial family venerates the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu, as their ancestral god. And that's just, in my opinion, unspeakably badass.
Of course, the Imperial family venerates the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu, as their ancestral god. And that's just, in my opinion, unspeakably badass.
Last edited:
The nature of creation of being the ultimate point from which all things are contingent is necessarily singular.
The nature of creation of being the ultimate point from which all things are contingent is necessarily singular.
That is assuming that creation occurred and that there was in fact a necessary ultimate point. Religion has an opinion on this as stated by Lightgigantic. The sientific method requires us to be more circumspect than theists about accepting opinions untested by skeptical enquiry and rigorous intellectual examination, which relies upon the faculties of logic and reason.
Isaac Newton's second law of thermodynamics still holds true after centuries of testing. If the theist's god are gifted with the property of infinity/eternity, then matter/energy can be no less gifted by a similar logical argument. But the beauty of this argument is that it can be tested by science. Gods are specifically excluded from such attention. Who wants a god whose powers and authority are usurped by science?
OriginalBiggles, Prime
That is assuming that creation occurred and that there was in fact a necessary ultimate point. Religion has an opinion on this as stated by Lightgigantic. The sientific method requires us to be more circumspect than theists about accepting opinions untested by skeptical enquiry and rigorous intellectual examination, which relies upon the faculties of logic and reason.
Isaac Newton's second law of thermodynamics still holds true after centuries of testing. If the theist's god
OriginalBiggles, Prime
lg,
"The nature of creation" in this context implies everything EXCEPT the cause (an intelligent entity - a god). It would only take a single god to initiate this event. This does not preclude the existence of multiple gods where only one partcipated in the creation event while the others were merely onlookers or were simply disinterested.
Alternatively perhaps there are a vast number of gods who were all needed to combine their abilities to cause creation.
Alternatively there might be an infinite numbers of gods necessary to cause and mainatin an infinite universe.
If we look further to a true origin, i.e. where there were no creating entities (i.e. they would have been part of creation) then we can see that nothing could have ever begun, and hence there cannot have been a true origin.
On the other hand we have nothing that indicates that ANYTHING was ever created. If we take the popular religious speculation that the Big Bang was the creation event then it must be noted that was just a point in the past where the density of the universe was far higher than it is now, it does not imply that anything was created. In which case the nature of the universe at that point was the primary elementary particles (absolute simplicity) which through expansion eventually coalesced into ever increasing complexity through natural evolutionary processes. Whicih potentially might eventually evolve into a godlike complex entity. I.e nothing begins with complexity but it might be the endpoint.
False.
"The nature of creation" in this context implies everything EXCEPT the cause (an intelligent entity - a god). It would only take a single god to initiate this event. This does not preclude the existence of multiple gods where only one partcipated in the creation event while the others were merely onlookers or were simply disinterested.
Alternatively perhaps there are a vast number of gods who were all needed to combine their abilities to cause creation.
Alternatively there might be an infinite numbers of gods necessary to cause and mainatin an infinite universe.
If we look further to a true origin, i.e. where there were no creating entities (i.e. they would have been part of creation) then we can see that nothing could have ever begun, and hence there cannot have been a true origin.
On the other hand we have nothing that indicates that ANYTHING was ever created. If we take the popular religious speculation that the Big Bang was the creation event then it must be noted that was just a point in the past where the density of the universe was far higher than it is now, it does not imply that anything was created. In which case the nature of the universe at that point was the primary elementary particles (absolute simplicity) which through expansion eventually coalesced into ever increasing complexity through natural evolutionary processes. Whicih potentially might eventually evolve into a godlike complex entity. I.e nothing begins with complexity but it might be the endpoint.
Why?
What precludes multiple gods participating in creation of the universe? Or, what precludes other ones from existing as observers while one deity created the universe?
Or, even better question: why do the gods necessarily have to have created the universe? Why can't they all just be observers of something that spontaneously occurred?
Last edited:
Alternately, there may be many gods who each created a "universe".
Everything which now exists existed before The Big Bang, only in a different form.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
:cheers:
-=-
IF I had to guess, I'd say it also existed in another form prior to that 1.
I rather not have to guess tho.
IF I had to guess, I'd say it also existed in another form prior to that 1.
I rather not have to guess tho.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The universe, in some form or another, always was.