God or Gods?

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

Sunstone One essence at base( most fundamental level). That's all I can say.

 

[Willamena]

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that you knew there was some sort of divinity at work in the universe but you did not know whether it was a single god or a group of gods. Are there any reasons to suppose it is one or the other? If so, what are those reasons?

​

​

For a "creator of all," for instance, there is no need for more than one. One has got it covered, especially if the god did the deed instantaneously and spontaneously. More would be superfluous.

 

[Segev Moran]

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that you knew there was some sort of divinity at work in the universe but you did not know whether it was a single god or a group of gods. Are there any reasons to suppose it is one or the other? If so, what are those reasons?

It really depends on what you define "god"?
If you define it as an all powerful entity, than it is bound to be singular entity, as if it wasn't, it wasn't all powerful.
If you define it as an entity with abilities to manipulate our reality, than it will be probable there are several.

I'm a wee bit inclined towards the view it would be gods, rather than a god. Seems to me that, if nature was created by deity, then it shows signs that deity was plural. For instance, in how much strife there is, in how one thing seems to contradict another, and in the sheer diversity of things. But don't hold me to that opinion! I hold it lightly.

The great trick about a claim for a god, is that eventually, you must get to a single entity that is the first creator.
Even if you have several gods, something have created them, and so on and so on until you reach the singular force that is the "catalyst" for it all.

 

[Jedster]

It really depends on what you define "god"?
......
Even if you have several gods, something have created them, and so on and so on until you reach the singular force that is the "catalyst" for it all.

That is one way of looking at it.
Or equally, there could be an eternal uncreated entity or even several.

 

[Segev Moran]

That is one way of looking at it.
Or equally, there could be an eternal uncreated entity or even several.

Again, what is "god"?
If its an all powerful, there can be only one

 

[Jedster]

Again, what is "god"?
If its an all powerful, there can be only one

I was replying to text which says
The great trick about a claim for a god, is that eventually, you must get to a single entity that is the first creator.
Even if you have several gods, something have created them, and so on and so on until you reach the singular force that is the "catalyst" for it all.

All I was meaning is that maybe there are multiple uncreated entities or a single one, assuming said God or gods do exist.

 

[EtuMalku]

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that you knew there was some sort of divinity at work in the universe but you did not know whether it was a single god or a group of gods. Are there any reasons to suppose it is one or the other? If so, what are those reasons?



I'm a wee bit inclined towards the view it would be gods, rather than a god. Seems to me that, if nature was created by deity, then it shows signs that deity was plural. For instance, in how much strife there is, in how one thing seems to contradict another, and in the sheer diversity of things. But don't hold me to that opinion! I hold it lightly.

In Mercurænism we believe that the only god we can ever come to know is our Greater Self as a god. Therefore, we are our own god, however, there are as many gods as there are humans.

The explanation for this is beyond the scope of a religious forum, but simply stated, as we work on various practices of Individuation slowly our Greater Self is revealed and the separation between this Self in comparison to our lesser self is made more and more apparent.

Eventually, what we are left with is a glimpse of ofor GodSelf, to which we as Mercuræns strive to emulate and bring into our everyday, mundane existence.

Kinda . . . sort of . . . lol

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suspect that multiplicity is an attribute of the "natural world".

 

[Dash Balderson]

... Seems to me that, if nature was created by deity, then it shows signs that deity was plural. For instance, in how much strife there is, in how one thing seems to contradict another, and in the sheer diversity of things...

As I was reading your first paragraph, the exact thoughts you had above occurred to me... as I started the second paragraph I found myself totally miffed that you beat me to the punch before I even had a chance to fully formulate my thoughts!

So, now that I am done whining, my answer's multiple gods, which would more easily support the idea of conflict existing in the world/nature. One could argue that conflict is a basic necessity of "nature" (at least here on Earth). I mean... most of us (speaking collectively here, for anything that isn't a plant) can't even eat without raining on something's parade.

 

[tayla]

I'm a wee bit inclined towards the view it would be gods, rather than a god.

I prefer the monotheistic view. But I agree there are other powerful beings in the spiritual realm interacting at a more detailed level. I suppose you could call them gods. I think Christianity refers to them as angels, or demons, or devils, or such.

 

[jhwatts]

Psalms 82:1

Many gods.