God or Gods?

[Sunstone]

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.

 

[Vouthon]

There are one set of universal laws of nature, which are immutable and general. The laws of quantum mechanics, of gravity, of motion and of electromagnetism apply everywhere in the cosmos.

A scientist's job consists in having the faith that when they perform experiments or make testable predictions using mathematics, those laws will not be broken and thus can be relied upon.

So the universe is governed by one set of reliable, unchanging, universal mathematical laws that will never fail or vary, such that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find that the speed of light has changed or that gravity will cease clumping matter together.

There is also one singularity at the origin of our universe. The known laws of physics can be employed to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to its initial state of infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

I think that is more consonant with the work of a single creator God than a pantheon.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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 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.

Id say gods because there is so much in life that arent created by means of one, that to say one god is to limit life. I dont see one orgin but multiple. For example, god and goddess makes sense given creation is an act of two people not one. Gods would be different part of human nature and emotion. We connect with life when we connect with the gods. Also, more than one working together gets rid of heirarchy. So, if one decides to worship, it wouldnt be becaue he felt he was told but he has the freedom to connect with the gods for his wellbeing. Gives worship a more indepth meaning.

 

[Fool]

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.

i believe it to be both.

as a collective, or absolute, it would be singular but manifested and created as plural. same concept as a photon is a particle and a wave. same idea of different forms of matter being created from the pool of energy available in the universe and not separated from it.


Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia

and

E = M(c*c) being the same thing

 

[Polymath257]

The universe often seems like a thing designed by committee. They used the Uncertainty Principle to cover up disagreements. And that whole wave-particle duality thing....definitely a compromise position!

 

[Araceli Cianna]

I was raised believing in only one God (you can probably guess which one). But after a while I thought about it and it seemed unlikely. There is never just one of any species in nature, for example there is not just one human or just one dog or just one whale. Everything is diverse. And so I think it's more possible that if we look at divinity as another type of 'species' then divinity would be incredibly diverse too.

 

[Vouthon]

I was raised believing in only one God (you can probably guess which one). But after a while I thought about it and it seemed unlikely. There is never just one of any species in nature, for example there is not just one human or just one dog or just one whale. Everything is diverse. And so I think it's more possible that if we look at divinity as another type of 'species' then divinity would be incredibly diverse too.

Isn't that where the Trinity idea comes in for Christianity? And the Hindu idea that:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,
and he is heavenly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title.

— Rigveda 1.164.46

​

For Dvaita Hindus, Vishnu is the supreme Being ("Brahman") but his secondary manifestations are many. Likewise, Gaudiya Vaishnsvites hold that the many forms of Vishnu or Krishna are incarnations of the one Supreme God, adipurusha.

According to one scholar, it is a "polymorphic monotheism, i.e. a theology that recognizes many forms (ananta rupa) of the one, single unitary divinity."

Trinitarian Christianity is somewhat similar courtesy of its dogma of One God in Three distinct, consubstantial, eternally pre-existent Divine Persons with the one Essence and Being. Each person considered in himself is entirely God and yet they are distinct persons in view of their relations, despite their being but one nature or substance.

In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature", yet "God is one but not solitary", because "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."

I should think this gives one the best of both worlds.

 

[syo]

there is the god of war. how can the same god be a god of peace? so you must have another god. since there are opposites, there are many gods. wiccans think there are two gods, because you have one and what negates the one. so, are there more gods or two gods are enough?

 

[Vinayaka]

Why not God and gods? Why does it have to be an either/or?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why not God and gods? Why does it have to be an either/or?

I think if you have that, the definition of gods would need to change from the generally accepted one. Arent Hindu gods incarnations of one god? If they are one and the same, I think its a matter of language and culture of seeing more than one god when, at its core, there is only one. Assuming the gods are god.

 

[Revoltingest]

The universe often seems like a thing designed by committee. They used the Uncertainty Principle to cover up disagreements. And that whole wave-particle duality thing....definitely a compromise position!

One divine being with dissociative identity disorder?
It's fruitless to count the uncountable.

 

[Jumi]

The universe often seems like a thing designed by committee. They used the Uncertainty Principle to cover up disagreements. And that whole wave-particle duality thing....definitely a compromise position!

The laws of Nature certainly are like a committee. If I thought Nature was equal to God/s, I'd go with neoplatonic polytheism.

 

[Jumi]

I only believe in one God, undivided consciousness outside of our universe. The "other things", laws of our universe, are like blind clockmakers. I wouldn't call them gods, perhaps angels if I was feeling need to use poetic language...

 

[LuisDantas]

Were I to believe in the existence of any deity, I don't think I would conceive of it as being subject to rigid limitations of number. It would be plural even if one and only as well.

After all, even keyrings have that abililty to transcend number classifications. Why would we expect a deity to lack it?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Trying to view this from the outside (therefore more dispassionate) point of view of an agnostic, the answer has to be ONE.
The God must be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent throughout all space and time throughout all of the multiverses. Anything less and you just have a stack of turtles all the way down.
If you have plural gods, then you have, by definition, stated that this one is limited to end where that god begins. This is not the definition of The God, but rather the definition of unknown alien beings. They might have mind-begoggling hyper ultra powers and knowledge that makes mere humans want to call them “gods”, but really they are just extra-terrestrial aliens come for a visit. If they have limits, then they cannot know if they themselves are the ultimate form of life/energy in the omniverse.

Now, the fact that The True God must (if It exists) be a single, all-encompassing entity does not detract from the possibility that it may present itself to mortals as one of many possible ‘god-like’ avatars, perhaps even multiple at the same time. In fact, by definition, since as you read this, sitting there being a finite part of the omniverse, you are, in a way, one of Its infinite number of avatars. (though perhaps not a very impressive god-like one).

 

[crossfire]

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.

We have several different components to our own total psyche--Shadow, Anima/Animus, personas, ego, id, superego, etc. Are these normal properties of sentient beings possesing a subjective mind, or something unique to us humans?

 

[InChrist]

While ..

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3)

and

...For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20)

I don't think anyone could know the details about God the Creator without His personal revelation which I believe He chose to communicate to humanity through language and the written word.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think if you have that, the definition of gods would need to change from the generally accepted one. Arent Hindu gods incarnations of one god? If they are one and the same, I think its a matter of language and culture of seeing more than one god when, at its core, there is only one. Assuming the gods are god.

What, in your view, is the 'generally accepted definition of 'gods' '?

Hindu sects vary a lot on how they view God and gods. Certainly it isn't always the case that each God is just a manifestation of the one God.

In my sect, there is a Supreme God (Siva) who emanated other Gods (Ganesha and Muruga, as examples) (not supreme) that are distinct from Him. So it is God and Gods.

Of course anyone is free to differ. There are lots of interpretations within Hinduism, and a whole lot more within mankind.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

..

What, in your view, is the 'generally accepted definition of 'gods' '?

Hindu sects vary a lot on how they view God and gods. Certainly it isn't always the case that each God is just a manifestation of the one God.

In my sect, there is a Supreme God (Siva) who emanated other Gods (Ganesha and Muruga, as examples) (not supreme) that are distinct from Him. So it is God and Gods.

Of course anyone is free to differ. There are lots of interpretations within Hinduism, and a whole lot more within mankind.

Hmm. I learned something new. I was thinking that god is the overall theme to which all other gods are depended on. As for whats generally accepted, the idea is that god is seperate and worthy of different forms of reverence. Another similarity is placing god(s) or defining them apart from oneself making the gods in their own rights.

Abrahamic view, in addition god is defines by what is written and tradition rather than defined by only what is practiced and experienced. God has also a good history right after paganism (worship of multiple gods) and more political than anything else.

Gods have so many definititions that to say there is only one god, as per OP, would be limiting the historical, cultural, and spiritual aspects of what the ideas of gods have in common: object/person/experience of reverence or practice.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would think a single God suffering extensively from multiple personality disorder.