How reasonable is monotheism, even hypothetically?

[Curious George]

Not sure what you mean mate, ("sibgradient"?) , I prefer plain language. I have noticed the propensity of some members of the forum to engage in poetic riddles rather than say what they mean, perhaps to appear "super spiritual"? There is no shame in plain language, perhaps you can rephrase?

He meant subgradient, as in derivative.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Many people talk of monotheism as if it were a given that it is a good thing, worth presuming as true and somehow pursuing.

But is that at all true?

I don't think so, and here is why.

First of all, I don't think monotheism - the mainstream versions of its Abrahamic variety, at least - can be both true, accurate and important all at once. There is a serious logical contradiction in the attempt to give it all three atributes.

Why? Because in order to quantify an entity we have to delimit it by some form of parameters. And yet those same doctrines that insist that there is just One True God also emphasize its supreme transcendence, the classic example being the claim that everything that exists needs a creator, the sole exception being their creator God himself.

So, how is it even conceivable that such an entity, presumably above any and all attempts of human classification and delimitation, somehow can only be correctly perceived as being one (as opposed to any other number, including none)? How can the claim be even attempted without presuming some form of human authority to decide what is proper divine form and what is not? And if we do accept that such human authority exists, what is then left of the transcendental nature of that deity?

It seems to me that there is a core mistake in attempting to have a rigid, well-defined conception of deity and then building a doctrine that relies on the accuracy of that conception.

For one thing, that is not very useful. Human beings are simply not likely to hold very similar conceptions of deity - or as I personally prefer to call it, of the sacred - and insisting that we nevertheless should act as if we did will only lead to pointless anxiety, fear, even moral dishonesty or at least the temptation to fall into it.

And that leads to a far greater problem than simple inaccuracy of doctrine. Insistence on the claim of universal truth and significance of such a minor and deeply personal matter as conceptions of deity compromises the very worth of any doctrine. All too quickly it becomes too busy in defending itself from the fragility of its own premises and the unavoidable consequences, and the validity of the teachings of even its most skilled, best meaning adherents is put to waste.

We all should be at peace with the simple contemplation that it is not for humans to act as wardens of specific, rigid, limited understandings of the sacred. Such an effort is both arrogant and demeaning, regardless of whatever some speculative truth about the nature of the sacred might be.

Surely, if even reasonably average human beings can easily be skilled enough to have various aspects according to the people that they interact with and the situations that they find themselves in, then there should be no doubt that a true deity (if such exists) can hardly be limited in its manifestations in ways that would be unreasonable even to humans?

"It seems to me that there is a core mistake" My take on that mistake:

An anomaly of the Judeo/Christian’ tradition is this: If our Fall from grace came from within a spiritual union of a man and woman created and joined by God, by a single disobedience, one might imagine, even expect that our return to the grace and favour of God, called true religion, would be by the obverse path, by a yet unknown, single command to a single Law and obedience which re-establishes the divine union, which was once the foundation of a Covenant and direct knowledge of God. The complete absence of any insight into that 'original' transgression nor the state of man before the fall could yet prove to be the Achiles heel of tradition.

For the existence, ‘as in the beginning’ of such a single Law and command would be heretical to the established religious orders, for in practical terms, it would make them all instantly redundant, changing the very nature of religion itself from the top heavy, institutional temple/church traditions we observe in the world today, to an individual spiritual-virtue ethic conception, founded within the marriage of one man and one woman and without the need of a self ordained, theological priesthood or any other mumbo jumbo at all! Just integrity and fidelity to new moral purpose. Sounds like revolutionary stuff. Maybe that’s what sent Jesus to be crucified on the Cross?

 

[YAW7911]

Not sure what you mean mate, ("sibgradient"?) , I prefer plain language. I have noticed the propensity of some members of the forum to engage in poetic riddles rather than say what they mean, perhaps to appear "super spiritual"? There is no shame in plain language, perhaps you can rephrase?

If you have a drop of water, it's still water. The same can be said until you get to the ocean, and both the ocean and that drop is still water(of course sea water will kill you due to dehydration), and so is steam, ice and water in gas form. Under the right condition, they can join to become a single body of water. So I am saying is that while we are quantity wise different than a greater being(sometimes still inferior even as a collective), quality wise it's not that different. Thus I find no partcular need to revere anything.

 

[YAW7911]

"It seems to me that there is a core mistake" My take on that mistake:

An anomaly of the Judeo/Christian’ tradition is this: If our Fall from grace came from within a spiritual union of a man and woman created and joined by God, by a single disobedience, one might imagine, even expect that our return to the grace and favour of God, called true religion, would be by the obverse path, by a yet unknown, single command to a single Law and obedience which re-establishes the divine union, which was once the foundation of a Covenant and direct knowledge of God. The complete absence of any insight into that 'original' transgression nor the state of man before the fall could yet prove to be the Achiles heel of tradition.

For the existence, ‘as in the beginning’ of such a single Law and command would be heretical to the established religious orders, for in practical terms, it would make them all instantly redundant, changing the very nature of religion itself from the top heavy, institutional temple/church traditions we observe in the world today, to an individual spiritual-virtue ethic conception, founded within the marriage of one man and one woman and without the need of a self ordained, theological priesthood or any other mumbo jumbo at all! Just integrity and fidelity to new moral purpose. Sounds like revolutionary stuff. Maybe that’s what sent Jesus to be crucified on the Cross?

Don't let an order take over the government and all will be good.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Now imagine we have two All-Powerful Gods: God A and God B. God A wishes to do something simple, that any all-powerful being should be able to do. God A wishes to move a rock from point A from point B. God B similarly wants to do something that should be simple for an all-powerful being to do: God B wishes to prevent the same rock from being moved.

So does the rock move, or does it not?? If the rock moves, then God A is all-powerful, but God B is not. If the rock does not move, God B is all-powerful but God A is not. In both situations there is something a god cannot do, and one god is shown to be more powerful. When two all-powerful beings have differing desires: one wants something to happen, one does not want something to happen, then, logically, a thing cannot both happen and not happen, so one being will be proven to be more powerful than the other.

So there cannot be two all-powerful beings, for if two beings that can each "do anything", and each want to do something that the other one wishes to contradict, then one being cannot logically be said to be able to "do anything".

I'm sure someone might be tempted to be a Devil's advocate to this above thought experiment and logic by stating there might be two all-powerful gods, which never contradict one another. However if the gods cannot contradict one another, they cannot be said to be all powerful. And if the gods are all of one mind, then one could say there is just one god, with many bodies.

Two equally powerful gods so the stone goes nowhere? Let's have 20,000 equally powerful gods focussing on the stone and it still goes nowhere. Why not? Nothing "illogical" about that is there? Just saying mate, put simply, concepts about a god or gods will always throw up more questions than answers.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

If you have a drop of water, it's still water. The same can be said until you get to the ocean, and both the ocean and that drop is still water(of course sea water will kill you due to dehydration), and so is steam, ice and water in gas form. Under the right condition, they can join to become a single body of water. So I am saying is that while we are quantity wise different than a greater being(sometimes still inferior even as a collective), quality wise it's not that different. Thus I find no partcular need to revere anything.

You mean a form of pantheism? I would agree we are all part of "one thing", though I see no need to clothe the idea with religious notions. I'd agree there is nothing to revere, though there is plenty to wonder at in life. It never ceases to hold my interest.

 

[Nakosis]

I think diversity can BE our unity.

How so? No offence but this seems more like a slogan than a reality. And what diversity do you refer to. Trumps a pretty diverse fellow, do you think he will unite us?

 

[Sanzbir]

Two equally powerful gods so the stone goes nowhere? Let's have 20,000 equally powerful gods focussing on the stone and it still goes nowhere.

No, you misunderstand. One all powerful being wants it to move, one all powerful being simply wants it to not move.

Thus, if the rock does not move, as you say, then one god's power is superior, because his ability to do anything (in regards to preventing the rock from being moved) is thus superior to the other god's ability to do anything (in regards to trying, and failing, to move the rock that the other god did not want moved)

If each god wanted the rock to move in a different direction, and it also did not move, then neither of the gods can be said to be "all powerful", as both then failed in their desired outcome.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How so? No offence but this seems more like a slogan than a reality. And what diversity do you refer to. Trumps a pretty diverse fellow, do you think he will unite us?

All I know is that I feel more comfortable when there are lots of different types of people around me. It feels more natural. It's been my experience that homogeneous cultures cause problems, not just for "outsiders" but for any of their "own" that don't beat to their drum.

 

[Nakosis]

All I know is that I feel more comfortable when there are lots of different types of people around me. It feels more natural. It's been my experience that homogeneous cultures cause problems, not just for "outsiders" but for any of their "own" that don't beat to their drum.

Good for you. I actually don't mind it either. I just suspect a majority of folks will remain tribal.

Religion or nationalism is more for overcoming our tribal nature. I guess I just don't have much faith in our ability to overcome it on our own.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good for you. I actually don't mind it either. I just suspect a majority of folks will remain tribal.

Religion or nationalism is more for overcoming our tribal nature. I guess I just don't have much faith in our ability to overcome it on our own.

Overcoming? Nationalism, at least, is actually the glorification of that tribal nature.

 

[YAW7911]

No, you misunderstand. One all powerful being wants it to move, one all powerful being simply wants it to not move.

Thus, if the rock does not move, as you say, then one god's power is superior, because his ability to do anything (in regards to preventing the rock from being moved) is thus superior to the other god's ability to do anything (in regards to trying, and failing, to move the rock that the other god did not want moved)

If each god wanted the rock to move in a different direction, and it also did not move, then neither of the gods can be said to be "all powerful", as both then failed in their desired outcome.

But how does moving a rock make something omnipotent?

 

[YAW7911]

Overcoming? Nationalism, at least, is actually the glorification of that tribal nature.

But in seeking ultimate unification more blood is spilled than during tribal, both in and out of scale.

 

[LuisDantas]

But in seeking ultimate unification more blood is spilled than during tribal, both in and out of scale.

How so? I have no idea of what you mean.

 

[YAW7911]

How so? I have no idea of what you mean.

If two or more of the same order are formed with different ideals, they will seek to eliminate each other and in that process it will lead to more death than a large number of separate tribes. But then can we rely on everyone to stay peaceful without fear?

 

[LuisDantas]

If two or more of the same order are formed with different ideals, they will seek to eliminate each other and in that process it will lead to more death than a large number of separate tribes. But then can we rely on everyone to stay peaceful without fear?

It is just not wise to rely on such poor expectations and limited means.

 

[Sanzbir]

But how does moving a rock make something omnipotent?

Uh... I... don't think you understand.

The rock isn't important. It's just one example of a simple task that two omnipotent beings could theoretically have a disagreement over.

The overall point is this:

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.

If two things are omnipotent, and each want to do something that contradicts the other one's action, then one of those individuals cannot be omnipotent, because at least one of those omnipotent beings will not see their will carried out.

Because if a being can do anything by definition, and that being wants to, say, move a rock, that being should be able to do so. Likewise a being that can do anything by definition wants to prevent a rock from being moved, then that being should also be able to do so.

Thus my example: If you have two beings that can do anything, and one wants to move something while the other wants to prevent that same thing from being moved, you have the following question: what happens to that thing??

Well the first being can do anything, so logically the thing must move because the first being wishes to do that.

But the second being can also do anything, so logically the thing must remain motionless because the second being wishes for this to be the case.

But the thing cannot both move and remain motionless simultaneously. That's not a possibility. So a reality where this is the case is not possible. A reality with more than one omnipotent being is thus not possible.

See??

 

[Sanzbir]

But in seeking ultimate unification more blood is spilled than during tribal, both in and out of scale.

That's not nationalism. You seem to be describing world domination. Nationalism cares about unifying a single nation, sure, but then after unification, there still is a tribalistic divide, divide between nations. Nation-scale tribal groups, if you will.

The only way "nationalism" could destroy all tribalism would be if the whole world was united in one nation, but nationalism as a political philosophy is based on the idea that there should be separate sovereign nations.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

If each god wanted the rock to move in a different direction, and it also did not move, then neither of the gods can be said to be "all powerful", as both then failed in their desired outcome.

Yes, sorry, that is what I was trying to say. That scenario negates any logical necessity for monotheism though doesn't it? Two or more equally powerful deities, why not? They can still say as a divine community they are "all powerful". If the deities opposed each other, the "logical" outcome would be stalemate, with everything frozen in time, or in a perpetual state of conflict; dualism with no eventual winner? I'm not saying I find that any more compelling than monotheism but when it comes to deities you have a blank canvas, you can paint any picture and nobody can come along and prove it isn't so.

 

[YAW7911]

Uh... I... don't think you understand.

The rock isn't important. It's just one example of a simple task that two omnipotent beings could theoretically have a disagreement over.

The overall point is this:

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.

If two things are omnipotent, and each want to do something that contradicts the other one's action, then one of those individuals cannot be omnipotent, because at least one of those omnipotent beings will not see their will carried out.

Because if a being can do anything by definition, and that being wants to, say, move a rock, that being should be able to do so. Likewise a being that can do anything by definition wants to prevent a rock from being moved, then that being should also be able to do so.

Thus my example: If you have two beings that can do anything, and one wants to move something while the other wants to prevent that same thing from being moved, you have the following question: what happens to that thing??

Well the first being can do anything, so logically the thing must move because the first being wishes to do that.

But the second being can also do anything, so logically the thing must remain motionless because the second being wishes for this to be the case.

But the thing cannot both move and remain motionless simultaneously. That's not a possibility. So a reality where this is the case is not possible. A reality with more than one omnipotent being is thus not possible.

See??

I am talking about some people taking hardly impressive feats as omnipotence.