Why God, Why not Gods?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I don't like to guess too often, especialy with a yes or no question it's a waste of time. He does exist.

 

[mike47]

I don't like to guess too often, especialy with a yes or no question it's a waste of time. He does exist.

Oops.........how did he start ?.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Oops.........how did he start ?.

lol, why the oops? how did god start?.

I asked him that already he didn't star he is there. there was no star.


peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

T x two

 

[mike47]

lol, why the oops? how did god start?.

I asked him that already he didn't star he is there. there was no star.


peace.

Do you really believe that something starting from NOTHING can create itself and all this huge, huge, huge....huge universe of ours ?.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Even if one wasn't assuming this, it grants the time factor as the eternal point that all things are contingent on

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.

On the contrary, religion and science have different methodologies, and that has to be respected.

Isaac Newton's second law of thermodynamics still holds true after centuries of testing.

I am not sure what you want to argue here .... most persons involved in the philosophy of science steer well clear from the word "truth" (much less trying to hold empiricism as a means to determine the quality of anything advocated as eternal).

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.

This is assuming that everything is materially reducible (aka long live the vienna circle yada yada...)

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?

Its not clear how science has solved the problem of birth, death, old age and disease within a population experiencing the ravishing dualities of ascribing eternal values to temporary phenomena
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

False.

"The nature of creation" in this context implies everything EXCEPT the cause (an intelligent entity - a god).

unless of course you have a "creation" that is eternal.

Or do you think that, say, the heat of an eternal fire wouldn't be eternal

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.

Then that leaves you with the philosophical problem of explaining multiplicity in a singular environment or state (buddhists usually deal with this problem by suggesting that all existence is on a false platform)

Alternatively perhaps there are a vast number of gods who were all needed to combine their abilities to cause creation.

ditto above

Alternatively there might be an infinite numbers of gods necessary to cause and mainatin an infinite universe.

ditto above

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.

I believe we have already had this conversation before (and that it reached a conclusion)

One v. Multiple Supreme Gods - LG v. Cris

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

Here's my response to this issue in a different conversation
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1186460&postcount=7

In short, if you have multiple gods, you have gods that don't operate out of the facility of Omni- and the default singular aspect everything is contingent on becomes the time factor (or if you want to argue about multiple universes, it becomes whatever it is one determines that distinguishes one multiple universe from another)

 

[Bishadi]

Firstly thanks for making me use my brain wiht a nice reply with pearls of wisdom.

sharing ideas is how we can all learn; i like school

I have to ask this quickly because it' the thing I wanted to know most in your next reply, what exactly do you mean by "include all renditions and beliefs" how are you incorperating that with mas etc etc..?

by experiencing what others have shared from the variety of opinions reveals that many are speaking on the same lines but unaware of how the phenomenon actually works tangibly; for ex; entanglement, this physical property of light (electromagnetic energy: photon) is how prophecies and even the coherance of energy (consciousness) can exist.

many of the properties each sect (religious literature) shares are often tapping on the same item using different examples and words.

Grounding them to existence (nature/god/reality) is what combines the 4 colors of mankind (the globes knowledge)

Oh and I asked he does not know everything that will happen here on earth already.

Then what were the prophecies for within the variety of beliefs?

Do you want to know anything else? do you have a question to ask.

ask him if "the birth" was in June of 1966

ask him that since we all (life) are bound to carbon and by chemically describing carbon (C-12) then all of us within mankind are bound to the

6 electrons, 6 protons, and 6 neutrons of the element carbon

why would this 'coincidence' be such a big deal? (the number issue)

and then ask him, if the bad guy of the xtian beliefs is actually the good guy?


you have my questions

and of course, peace!

 

[Bishadi]

I am not sure what you want to argue here .... most persons involved in the philosophy of science steer well clear from the word "truth" (much less trying to hold empiricism as a means to determine the quality of anything advocated as eternal).

you were supposed to tell him newton didn't write the law (2LoT)

 

[Hapsburg]

In short, if you have multiple gods, you have gods that don't operate out of the facility of Omni-...

Gonna stop you right there. No one ever said the gods were omnipotent. That was an arbitrary Christian and Deist attribute. It doesn't necessarily apply to other concepts of deity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Gonna stop you right there. No one ever said the gods were omnipotent.

Then you are discussing a different category of god to the one mentioned in the OP

That was an arbitrary Christian and Deist attribute. It doesn't necessarily apply to other concepts of deity.

Hence there are other designations for being a deity that don't approach the issue of being the source of creation, the summum bonum, etc.

The notion of a god being Omni to be the ultimate creator is not an arbitrary attribute of christianity. It is an essential element to philosophy (for reasons thoroughly discussed in the other linked thread)

 

[Hapsburg]

Then you are discussing a different category of god to the one mentioned in the OP

:bugeye:

The OP said, "We always talk about a Single God who is hypothesized to be the creator of everything except himself.
But, won't it be possible that it could be more than 1 God?
2,3,4,5,.........infinity Gods out there?"

Nowhere in that was the word "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnipresent", "omnibenevolent" or "perfect" used.

I can accept that your definition of a god is fair and usable, if a tad narrow and restricted. Why can't you accept the validity of my definition of a god? Are you that intolerant that you won't even consider a different viewpoint for the purpose of discussion? :shrug:

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Disbelief in many Gods is the beginning of Atheism.

 

[Enmos]

Disbelief in many Gods is the beginning of Atheism.

Atheism always was.

 

[lightgigantic]

:bugeye:

The OP said, "We always talk about a Single God who is hypothesized to be the creator of everything except himself.
But, won't it be possible that it could be more than 1 God?
2,3,4,5,.........infinity Gods out there?"

Nowhere in that was the word "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnipresent", "omnibenevolent" or "perfect" used.

my point is that if you follow "creator of everything" philosophically you end up with a definition of "omni " (particularly omnipotent)

I can accept that your definition of a god is fair and usable, if a tad narrow and restricted. Why can't you accept the validity of my definition of a god? Are you that intolerant that you won't even consider a different viewpoint for the purpose of discussion? :shrug:

if one wants to advocate that there are many omnipotent etc gods one is relying on a corruption of terminology for one's arguments (either not using the proper definition of god as the cause of all causes or not using the proper definitions of omniscient etc)

 

[Hapsburg]

my point is that if you follow "creator of everything" philosophically you end up with a definition of "omni " (particularly omnipotent)

I never said the gods are the "creators of everything". Perhaps The All is; actually, that is implied by the philosophies I get my theology from. But that being is separate from, and greater than, the gods.

if one wants to advocate that there are many omnipotent etc gods one is relying on a corruption of terminology for one's arguments...

I was never arguing that there are many omnipotent gods. Just that there are multiple gods. Why can't you under-fucking-stand that?

...not using the proper definition of god as the cause of all causes or not using the proper definitions of omniscient etc

Again, there is no one "proper definition of god". Your definition fits for a monotheistic entity, sure; but that's not what is being debated here.

 

[lightgigantic]

I never said the gods are the "creators of everything".

The OP poses the question why is it that a monotheistic god is said to be the creator of everything.

Perhaps The All is;


actually, that is implied by the philosophies I get my theology from. But that being is separate from, and greater than, the gods.

I think this statement suffers from the same philosophical problems that polytheism does.

I was never arguing that there are many omnipotent gods. Just that there are multiple gods. Why can't you under-fucking-stand that?

Perhaps because you didn't contextualize your statements as separate from the OP

Again, there is no one "proper definition of god". Your definition fits for a monotheistic entity, sure; but that's not what is being debated here.

Arguing that there is no one "proper definition of god" is an argument of polytheism

 

[fiicere]

Gonna stop you right there. No one ever said the gods were omnipotent. That was an arbitrary Christian and Deist attribute. It doesn't necessarily apply to other concepts of deity.

Yeah, this seems to be a common objection.

Let me start by saying Gods (capital G, standing for the Abrahamic-esque or Omni-whatever) cannot exist plurally without contradiction.

Seems to me that the ONLY reason to invite plurality is to imply a different sentience. AKA, the only reason to have two gods rather than one which serves two purposes is to imply that they make different choices.

In that case, defining God to have some level of metaphysical power short of omni-whatever, I would still say multiple gods cannot exist. Otherwise, in the areas of contention, we'd see a great many more inexplicable events. A war, or even a slight disagreement, between two metaphysical forces would not create the unity we see in nature, where physical law seems immutable.

 

[swarm]

Let me start by saying Gods (capital G, standing for the Abrahamic-esque or Omni-whatever) cannot exist...without contradiction.

No need for "plurally."

I would still say ...gods cannot exist.

No need for "multiple."