Does *exactly one* god exist?

[Penumbra]

The term god is pretty loosely used. For instance, Mary in Catholicism has statues erected of her and she is commonly prayed too. It's basically the same as what occurred with Greek gods, but she's not called a "god". It's semantics. Satan is a god in that sense to, with the level of power that is described of him. Gods in many pantheons were themselves created at one point, just like beings that are called angels or saints in other religions and have the same type of power.

If there was a super powerful alien that came to earth, with intelligence and power vastly superior to humans, would it be a god? I'd prefer to just call it an alien, or its name, if it had one. What if it was a multidimensional being, if such a thing could exist, rather than purely "physical" as aliens are typically imagined to be?

I'd prefer not to label any conscious things in existence as gods, unless they created existence or are necessary for existence to, well, exist. Otherwise it's just some powerful entity. I suppose that the number of these types of beings that quality as gods under this view could be zero, one, two, three, or infinite. But after zero or one, it just seems a bit superfluous I guess.

 

[Madhuri]

Now that you did, indeed, say "everything" there can only be one origin.

But if you would've believed that this creator didn't create EVERYTHING, but just the majority of the world, there could be several gods.

What makes this thing God then? Is a 'god' simply a creator of something? Am I a god of my inventions?
When I think about what God is, I think only in terms of the Original thing, which is the force behind everything in existence. Something came first, and without it, nothing would exist at all.

 

[Madhuri]

Okay. And does the existence of God (with the capital) allow for the existence of other gods (lowercase)?

Sure.

 

[ellenjanuary]

What is - exactly one? What is - existence? It is part of my agenda to state - god does not exist, for existence limits god. I can go exactly one better, and paraphrase one far greater than I - The god of which can be spoken is not the eternal god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is - exactly one?

What I was trying to get at with the thread is that most arguments for the existence of God seem to me to be actually arguments for the existence of at least one God. I wanted to find out the rationale that people use, once they've established that some number of gods exist, to cap that number at one.

 

[Willamena]

I wanted to find out the rationale that people use, once they've established that some number of gods exist, to cap that number at one.

How many realities are there? How many existences? How do you cap that number?

 

[Willamena]

There is reality. There is existence. There is god. (Not equating them, but they work the same in a sentence.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How many realities are there? How many existences? How do you cap that number?

By definition: "reality" and "existence" are defined in terms of all the things that are. You can't have two "alls"; if you do, neither one is an "all".

Does the same apply to gods? I don't think it does. Plenty of people and religions throughout history have been polytheistic, so I don't think we can automatically assume that referring to "gods" in the plural is invalid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is reality. There is existence. There is god. (Not equating them, but they work the same in a sentence.)

I don't think that works unless you capitalize it to "God"... i.e. make it a proper noun. Until you do, it doesn't make grammatical sense. It'd be like saying "there is alligator".

 

[Willamena]

By definition: "reality" and "existence" are defined in terms of all the things that are. You can't have two "alls"; if you do, neither one is an "all".

Same for god, the "all-being."

Does the same apply to gods? I don't think it does. Plenty of people and religions throughout history have been polytheistic, so I don't think we can automatically assume that referring to "gods" in the plural is invalid.

But polytheism is not monotheism --we've been over this. If you're asking about the monotheistic image, ask just about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Same for god, the "all-being."

So the word "god" cannot be validly used in the plural?

Edit: are you saying that if you have two gods, then neither one is a god?

If you're going to put forward an assertion that effectively implies that polytheism should be discarded, at least give a real argument.

But polytheism is not monotheism --we've been over this. If you're asking about the monotheistic image, ask just about that.

That's what I have been doing. When it boils right down to it, this whole thread is about the arguments for montheism over polytheism.

 

[Willamena]

So the word "god" cannot be validly used in the plural?

Obviously the "validity" of words is more loose at this time in history than its ever been, with the advent of Internet and texting. But I'm sure there was a time and place when people would have absolutely agreed with that.

That's what I have been doing. When it boils right down to it, this whole thread is about the arguments for montheism over polytheism.

The argument for monotheism is that god's image presents in the singular, like reality and existence. The argument for polytheism is that god's image presents either as multiple-aspected, or in multiples.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think that works unless you capitalize it to "God"... i.e. make it a proper noun. Until you do, it doesn't make grammatical sense. It'd be like saying "there is alligator".

There is Reality. There is Existence. There is God.

There is also reality, also existence, also god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously the "validity" of words is more loose at this time in history than its ever been, with the advent of Internet and texting. But I'm sure there was a time and place when people would have absolutely agreed with that.

There was a time and place where people thought that belief in multiple gods was invalid? As in not just factually incorrect, but actually nonsensical? When and where did this happen?

The argument for monotheism is that god's image presents in the singular, like reality and existence. The argument for polytheism is that god's image presents either as multiple-aspected, or in multiples.

It seems to me that you're trying to shoehorn polytheism into monotheism. Polythiesm isn't just monotheism with God chopped up into pieces; it really is worship of separate, distinct gods. You're imposing your view of "god" onto people who don't share it.

 

[Willamena]

Edit: are you saying that if you have two gods, then neither one is a god?

That would depend (can you guess 'on what'?) ...on whether we're talking monotheism or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would depend (can you guess 'on what'?) ...on whether we're talking monotheism or not.

We're comparing monotheism to polytheism... as we have been for the entire thread.

 

[Willamena]

We're comparing monotheism to polytheism... as we have been for the entire thread.

I know.

 

[Willamena]

If you're asking why would one be "discarded" or "dismissed" and another invested in, in terms of belief, it's because one or the other represents whichever image of god is held.

 

[Willamena]

How many realities are there? Many people hold an image of the world represented by multiple realities, and some by only one. Still, the meaning of "reality" doesn't change, between them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you're asking why would one be "discarded" or "dismissed" and another invested in, in terms of belief, it's because one or the other represents whichever image of god is held.

This conversation is getting frustrating.

Okay - so you've pushed the question back one step. Fine. Now... why should someone hold a monotheistic image instead of a polytheistic one?

And your choice of words still shows a shoehorning of polytheism into monotheism. Polytheists don't hold an "image of god"; they hold an "image of gods".