Why God, Why not Gods?

swarm said:
No need for "plurally."



No need for "multiple."
Click to expand...

I trust you are having a good time?

We all know your opinion on the matter, and none of the rest of us thinks your repetitive statements of the same set of beliefs is amusing.

Seriously dude, get a life. There's not much future for you as one of those squeaky dolls which repeats the same statement over and over.
 
lg,

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
Click to expand...
By eternal, you mean has no end, right? But the OP talks about a beginning, a creation. If you mean everything is eternal and there was no beginning, then there would be no need for a "creator" god and we are done.

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)
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. If there were multiple gods then it wouldn't be a singular environment. I see nothing in what you say to prevent the fantasy of multiple gods. We have the fantasy of monotheism, so there is nothing that prevents an extended fantasy with many of them. What they'd decide to do among themselevs is entirely up to them. Perhaps they'll decide that only one of them speaks to man to give him the illusion that there is only one god.

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

ditto above
Click to expand...
And ditto 2u2.

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

ditto above
Click to expand...
And ditto 2u2.

I believe we have already had this conversation before (and that it reached a conclusion)
Click to expand...
Damn, that's an old thread, I don't remember that. No plans to read it though.
 
Cris

“
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
”
By eternal, you mean has no end, right? But the OP talks about a beginning, a creation. If you mean everything is eternal and there was no beginning, then there would be no need for a "creator" god and we are done.
Click to expand...
The problem is that relationships of contingency can still exist within eternal frameworks (unless you want to argue that eternal heat is independent from the eternal fire that creates it .....)
“
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)
”
That makes no sense. If there were multiple gods then it wouldn't be a singular environment.
Click to expand...
Actually the statement that multiple gods could exist outside of a singular environment doesn't make sense
I see nothing in what you say to prevent the fantasy of multiple gods. We have the fantasy of monotheism, so there is nothing that prevents an extended fantasy with many of them. What they'd decide to do among themselevs is entirely up to them. Perhaps they'll decide that only one of them speaks to man to give him the illusion that there is only one god.
Click to expand...
How do you propose that they reach a decision or consensus (or even disagreement) outside of a singular environment?
“
I believe we have already had this conversation before (and that it reached a conclusion)
”
Damn, that's an old thread, I don't remember that. No plans to read it though.
Click to expand...
pity

But anyway, to recap on the three broad fields of problems facing your proposal

1) one "god" could have a difference of opinion with another "god"
(Cris attempts to circumvent this point, saying they would have a mutual consensus by dint of omniscience. To carry through with that he would have to give more specific information about how merely having access to knowledge equals a consensus or somehow pacifies the sense of separateness that blossoms with ego - like for instance there are numerous conflicts in the world where the issue is simply conflicting egos - the resolution won't come from acquiring more knowledge, on the contrary more conflict comes from acquiring more knowledge because it is used as a tool to get the upper hand) ... th e only way omniscience creates a consensus is if they are all omniscient to the degree that they are the exact same personality (I address this at the end of this post)
- in essence however, two or more entities that are supremely omniscient, omnipotent and all powerful raises issues about how they maintain the status quo

(Ironically this is the proposition of polytheism - that there are several gods equally potent, and they manage things in the medium of material nature, so it ends up being material nature that is the superior force of existence, since such "gods" meet with varying degrees of success and failure by dint of the co-operation or conflict of others in the assembly, through the medium of material nature)

2) difficulties arise when one tries to determine who (or what) caused the environment that the two or more gods interact in - The god who caused the phenomenal world would be more greatly omnipotent than the other god/s that didn't. Even if these marginalized gods engineer another aspect of the phenomenal world at a later date, they would technically owe their cause to the god that caused the original phenomenal world which obliged them their capacity to act. This point leads to the idea that being the cause of all causes is the quality that omnipotence, omniscient and being all powerful are contingent on. Cris attempts to negotiate this by saying that the gods were all uncaused but it doesn't answer the question of what is the relationship of the phenomenal world with a group of equally supremely omnipotent gods

3) Omnipotent means having all potency - just like there may be many candles that may be lit by one candle, but it is the original candle that is "omnipotent" - so if it is engineered that all these gods could somehow operate out of an identical potency, if one of them exhibits a potency separate from the others (like for instance causing a blade of grass in a particular time place and circumstance to sprout) then they would have defied the capacity of other gods to fit the bill as "omnipotent" (a potency would have been exhibited by another entity that was beyond the jurisdiction of the other apparently omnipotent entities) - in other words the whole concept of having several supremely omnipotent and independent all powerful personalities is an oxymoron
 
Then don't define the gods as omnipotent. Problem solved.

There is always a way to solve a problem when only fantasies are involved. I learnt that from theists, oh and movie makers.
 
Alternatively if they are all omnipotent, can do anything, then they will be able to figure out how to cooperate with each other without conflict.

If it is a problem of omnipotence meaning all power, then that is not a problem, since time has no meaning to them there will never be a moment when they have to share.
 
Alternatively, operate a time sharing scheme where one god at a time has all the power and they have a rotation system.

Gee - as one thinks this through there is no end of creative solutions to allow multiple gods to coexist.
 
From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is better to have a faith than not.
Health, Well being, Self esteem, they all benefit from religious belief.

There is an exception to this.
If you are ever about to enter a taxi, and see some kind of religious symbol inside, for example a crucifix around the rear view mirror, make an excuse and get into the one behind.
The driver will drive like a maniac.
 
Last edited:
fiicere said:
We all know your opinion on the matter, and none of the rest of us thinks your repetitive statements of the same set of beliefs is amusing.
Click to expand...

Got a mouse in your pocket?

And here I was basically agreeing with you. Just no pleasing some theists.

The Abrahamic-esque concept of Gods and later God (capital G, standing for Omni-whatever) cannot exist without contradiction. They/it are catagorically impossible.

But if you aren't sane that hardly is going to slow you down so why worry?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is better to have a faith than not.
Click to expand...

Funny how the pragmatists came to the opposite conclusion.

"Other important aspects of pragmatism include anti-Cartesianism, radical empiricism, instrumentalism, anti-realism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

Although James might give faith for health a go, after a few hits of N2O.
 
Cris said:
Then don't define the gods as omnipotent. Problem solved.

There is always a way to solve a problem when only fantasies are involved. I learnt that from theists, oh and movie makers.
Click to expand...

The problem with perfect omni gods is they make boring copy and nobody really believes that shit, even the "believers."
 
Saint 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?
Click to expand...

There were, and still there are, many gods in some form of human belief systems. However "one god" idea was something distinctive in human history. To push literally everything into one intangable great power source was revolutionary: nature, family, life style, society, everything.

We discover diversity, interdependent systems and great deal of other different mechanism in nature every day. Yet people tend to look for one great rule, to imagine one unifying theory of everything, and I think this tendency has rooted in the cultural and imaginative background of "one"ness.
 
Cris said:
Then don't define the gods as omnipotent. Problem solved.

There is always a way to solve a problem when only fantasies are involved. I learnt that from theists, oh and movie makers.
Click to expand...
I guess redefining the query of the OP is also a good means to solve a problem .....
 
Cris said:
Alternatively, operate a time sharing scheme where one god at a time has all the power and they have a rotation system.
Click to expand...
once again, to reiterate ....


2) difficulties arise when one tries to determine who (or what) caused the environment that the two or more gods interact in - The god who caused the phenomenal world would be more greatly omnipotent than the other god/s that didn't. Even if these marginalized gods engineer another aspect of the phenomenal world at a later date, they would technically owe their cause to the god that caused the original phenomenal world which obliged them their capacity to act. This point leads to the idea that being the cause of all causes is the quality that omnipotence, omniscient and being all powerful are contingent on. Cris attempts to negotiate this by saying that the gods were all uncaused but it doesn't answer the question of what is the relationship of the phenomenal world with a group of equally supremely omnipotent gods

Gee - as one thinks this through there is no end of creative solutions to allow multiple gods to coexist.
Click to expand...
once again, to reiterate .....

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)
 
Then that leaves you with the philosophical problem of explaining multiplicity in a singular environment or state
Click to expand...

According to the monotheistic religions, there was just god and nothing else, nada, absolute nothingness.

Is there a reason that 1 god can dwell inside nothingness any better than 10? It can be as omnipresent as it wants but it's utterly inconsequential if there's nothing to be omnipresent of.

The god who caused the phenomenal world would be more greatly omnipotent than the other god/s that didn't
Click to expand...

Incorrect - they would all be equally powerful, one would simply be more active.
 
SnakeLord said:
According to the monotheistic religions, there was just god and nothing else, nada, absolute nothingness.
Click to expand...
Only amongst those that insist on approaching the universe through linear time frameworks (as opposed to cyclic ones)
Is there a reason that 1 god can dwell inside nothingness any better than 10? It can be as omnipresent as it wants but it's utterly inconsequential if there's nothing to be omnipresent of.
Click to expand...
I also agree that a linear chronology of the universe and an omni-god are incompatible



Incorrect - they would all be equally powerful, one would simply be more active.
Click to expand...
If only one of them is responsible for establishing the singular medium that they are all interacting in, it most certainly is a power that the others don't have scope for.

Kind of like it doesn't make any difference whether you show up individually or with all your other siblings in tow to an artificial insemination clinic. You cannot become your own father. The position is already taken.

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is better to have a faith than not.
Health, Well being, Self esteem, they all benefit from religious belief.

There is an exception to this.
If you are ever about to enter a taxi, and see some kind of religious symbol inside, for example a crucifix around the rear view mirror, make an excuse and get into the one behind.
The driver will drive like a maniac.
Click to expand...


From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is better to avoid faith.
Faith is extremely destructive to health & selfesteem.
 
lightgigantic said:
If only one of them is responsible for the establishing the singular medium that they are all interacting in, it most certainly is a power that the others don't have scope for.

Kind of like it doesn't make any difference whether you show up individually or with all you other siblings in tow to an artificial insemination clinic. You cannot become your own father. The position is already taken.
Click to expand...


1st they all participated equally in creating everything.

I went back in time & married my great great grandmother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top