All you require is an outlet for babbling on&on&on&on&on&on from your fevered fantasies without actually saying anything.
Why God, Why not Gods?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
All you require is an outlet for babbling on&on&on&on&on&on from your fevered fantasies without actually saying anything.
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
1st they all participated equally in creating everything. ”
It took place in the 1st place they created, of course.
Yeah, yeah. Turn to personal insults because you can't handle the truth.
1st they all participated equally in creating everything. ”
It took place in the 1st place they created, of course.
Yeah, yeah. Turn to personal insults because you can't handle the truth.
Apologies, but could you please provide some further details here? If all you have is god/s and nothing else, what's the problem? Furthermore, I'm somewhat confident that you have at some stage expressed that god/s are immaterial. If that's the case, again omnipresence isn't an issue. Being immaterial, they don't take up any space.
Kindly clarify.
Incorrect. Being omnipotent, they can do anything they like - including going back to before that creation and being the one to do it instead. They have the power, they just choose not to use it. That they choose not to does not negate the power to do so.
Last edited:
You made some of those up didn't you
Presumably they all exist. I wonder what a dinner party would be like with one representative from each faction.
Last edited:
because either only one god concerns us. has a hold on us, the others are fooling around. or there are many who have a hold on us and their interests either clash or are the same, if they're the same then it's as if it's one. if they clash then they're at war with each other and the strongest will win and he'll be the one who has a hold on us and he's the one we should be concerned with.
all practical roads lead to one god.
Hmm..
In fact, in most cultures so far, it has been gods, not god. Right from what we now only read about as mythology, in the form of Native American gods, Norse gods, the Greek pantheon etc, right to the very much extant Hindu religion, the idea of gods, rather than god, hasn't been rare. Its just the Judeo-Christian thought's pervasiveness that makes everyone think that one god is what is normal and right, and that the idea of many gods is ridiculous, or atleast unpractical.
In fact, in most cultures so far, it has been gods, not god. Right from what we now only read about as mythology, in the form of Native American gods, Norse gods, the Greek pantheon etc, right to the very much extant Hindu religion, the idea of gods, rather than god, hasn't been rare. Its just the Judeo-Christian thought's pervasiveness that makes everyone think that one god is what is normal and right, and that the idea of many gods is ridiculous, or atleast unpractical.
Well, that's not entirely true. Some ancient philosophers in Greece posited the idea of there being a single god, or rather a single whole that the gods were a part of of. Though, this was not the majority opinion among Greeks; it was, however, common among Egyptians and some Mesopotamians.
And then there's Zoroastrianism, pre-dating Christianity by a number of centuries, was explicitly monotheistic; or duotheistic in Zurvanism, a Zoroastrian sect, with Angra Mainyu as the god of destruction. But Zurvanism was constroversial in Zoroastrian communities, and evidence points to it being a regional thing concentrated in Western Persia; in any case, it went extinct by the 600's CE and modern Zoroastrianism is quite monotheistic.
And then there's Zoroastrianism, pre-dating Christianity by a number of centuries, was explicitly monotheistic; or duotheistic in Zurvanism, a Zoroastrian sect, with Angra Mainyu as the god of destruction. But Zurvanism was constroversial in Zoroastrian communities, and evidence points to it being a regional thing concentrated in Western Persia; in any case, it went extinct by the 600's CE and modern Zoroastrianism is quite monotheistic.
Last edited:
Its more the case that you have god, and wherever there is god there is his contingent potencies.
Kind of like wherever you have fire you have smoke, heat and light.
I don't think I have ever phrased god as being immaterial .... mainly because the notion of an immaterial thing bearing a consequence on a material thing poses problems.
Stating that god is immaterial is often a term that sits comfortably with atheists since they are very agreeable to the notion of a god that can't bear any influence in the world.
Can you see the absurdity of positing omnipotence in a linear time frame or do you require more details?
Omnipotence does not override logic. For instance demanding an omnipotent entity create a square circle is more of an exhibition of one's limitations of language use than anything else ... just like the idea of multiple omnipotent personalities existing in a linear time frame.
Actually what you are describing is a host of personalities produced of this world (or more specifically, the time factor of this world) ... which hardly fits the bill of omnipotence .....
And even if a square circle would be created - it is not like we could see it and recognize it as such.
Demanding something which one is not capable of seeing and recognizing is ... stupid, and really just an example of an idle use of one's mind and tongue.
In everyday terms, people who demand others to do the impossible or to do that which cannot be done intentionally are simply attempting to assert themselves over others, to get the upper hand in the communication.
I suppose it means the same when such behavior is directed towards God.
It was surely not common among the Egyptians. Monotheism was more like a cult started by the pharaoh Akhenaten, which was discontinued in favor of traditional religious practices after his death.
Zoroastrianism, accepted. But a one-off example doesn't really prove the point.
I wasn't talking about Atenism, which is monotheistic. I was talking about the very common trend towards henotheistic monism that viewed Ra, Amun, Horus, or Ptah as the supreme god from which the gods emanated (it varied from dynasty to dynasty).
Perhaps not common belief among the peasants, but it was more or less dogmatic among the priests and royal castes.
The point was that the Abrahamic religions were not the first to posit monotheism or monism.
Okay. I like this topic. I'm going to elaborate what I think. I said hitherto that the problem with our society is that God does not exist. This gives sufficient reason for there existing a god, as well as sufficient reson that there should be Gods. That is also a heav politicial issue within post modernism at the time to'day. If we consider .for instance that God does not exist, we raise all sorts of problems which cannot possibly be adhered to. I believe this is far surpassin meny other people
Also I feel that anhy anttheist that proclaims he is like this who persists on the absense og god will lead himself down to tumoil of an absent and utterly obleak philosophy.
Therefore however God exists, he exists. This is my answer regarding the religion topic and anyoe who sees differently please state reasons for doing so
Also I feel that anhy anttheist that proclaims he is like this who persists on the absense og god will lead himself down to tumoil of an absent and utterly obleak philosophy.
Therefore however God exists, he exists. This is my answer regarding the religion topic and anyoe who sees differently please state reasons for doing so
lg,
If three building contractors compete for the right to build a specific house where only one contractor can win then the abilities to build a house of those who do not win are not diminished because they didn't get this contract.
That does not follow. The possesion of an ability is not altered by its use or not. Neither is it posible to be more greatly omnipotent, one is either omnipotent or not.
If three building contractors compete for the right to build a specific house where only one contractor can win then the abilities to build a house of those who do not win are not diminished because they didn't get this contract.
You appear to have a confused sentence, your subject is unclear. There is no issue of a god creating other gods. All gods in this scenario have equal abilities to create. That one creates and the others do not has no implication for any of them owing anything. But even if so then so what? It doesn't alter the fact that multiple gods are in existence.
This is dogma, not logic. The statement is fundamantally flawed. It does not follow that the qualities and possession of omnipotence and omnisciece are dependent upon the holder being the cause of all causes. Again, capabilities are not dependent on their use.
I do not see an issue. One creates while the others do not. There is no conflict. If they all wish to react with the inhabitants of the world then so be it. I see no necessary limitation why multi-god relationships with the created universe could not exist.
The proper definition of a god does not exist. There is no consensus on what the term "god" means. And as stated the possession of such abilities does not depend on their use. You have no case to logically justify the existence of a single god in preference to many gods.
In that case, how can there be any logical (neutral, not specific to a particular religion) discussion about G/god(s)?
Because you have been engaging in them so far.
signal,
From this basic argument numerous threads have been generated asking how to define a god. There has yet to be any type of consensus and there are just as many different suggestions as there are debaters.
This is significant evidence that gods do not exist and the vast array of suggestions here is entirely due to human fantasy.
It is good that now you begin to see one of the most critical arguments atheists present to theists? Just exactly what is the nature of your god? Until you define it clearly then it is not really posible to check to see whether it exists or not since we cannot know what to look for.
From this basic argument numerous threads have been generated asking how to define a god. There has yet to be any type of consensus and there are just as many different suggestions as there are debaters.
This is significant evidence that gods do not exist and the vast array of suggestions here is entirely due to human fantasy.
You said: "The proper definition of a god does not exist".
Why then do you engage in discussions about God?
Because you do engage in such discussions, a lot. Which suggests that you are in fact operating with some definition of God already. Just look at your discussion here with LG.
Me? No I was quoting. Did you mis the ""s?
Throw a wine and cheese and invite the philosophy dept. At the door hand every one a philosophy d'jour.
Why 'me', why not 'us'?
We always wonder why people tend to think they are just one entity.
Last edited: