If There is Only One God, Then How Do We Know There is Only One God?

[arthra]

If there is only one god, then on what grounds, if any, can it be claimed there is only one god?
BONUS QUESTION: Are there any good arguments for the existence of multiple gods? If so, what are they?

In my case.. I studied the various religions .. The texts over several years and found some striking similarities that convinced me there was one God. So studying the various scriptures convinced me.

 

[Thief]

If there is only one god, then on what grounds, if any, can it be claimed there is only one god?

BONUS QUESTION: Are there any good arguments for the existence of multiple gods? If so, what are they?

in the scheme of superlatives.....
there can be only ONE Almighty
top of the line

and it is written....
ye ARE gods

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bold empty claim


Well then bring the prophets forward so they may speak their minds


two bold empty claims in one sentence.
Impressive.

Just asserting it's a bold empty claim does not make it so.

The Prophets all speak through the Holy Books.

The Torah, the Gospels, the Quran and the Holy Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah all confirm there is only One God.

Billions of people on this planet also share this view

You are fully entitled to your opinion but by no means is it an empty claim as more people on this planet accept it than not.

 

[McBell]

Just asserting it's a bold empty claim does not make it so.

Then support them.
Until you do, they are bold empty claims.

The Prophets all speak through the Holy Books.

The Torah, the Gospels, the Quran and the Holy Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah all confirm there is only One God.

Bold empty claims do not support bold empty claims.
At least, not with those outside the choir.

Billions of people on this planet also share this view

Appeal to numbers is a fallacy that does nothing to support bold empty claims.

You are fully entitled to your opinion but by no means is it an empty claim as more people on this planet accept it than not.

Appeal to numbers is a fallacy that does nothing to support bold empty claims.

So now the ball is in your court.
Are you able to support your bold empty claims with something other than bold empty claims and appeal to numbers fallacies?
If so, prove it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then support them.
Until you do, they are bold empty claims.


Bold empty claims do not support bold empty claims.
At least, not with those outside the choir.


Appeal to numbers is a fallacy that does nothing to support bold empty claims.


Appeal to numbers is a fallacy that does nothing to support bold empty claims.

So now the ball is in your court.
Are you able to support your bold empty claims with something other than bold empty claims and appeal to numbers fallacies?
If so, prove it.

The Word of God is sufficient proof.

 

[CG Didymus]

I wonder where the Christian Trinitarians are? They could try and explain how there's one God in three parts and one very powerful evil being that the good three-part God sent down to Earth to be the "god" of this world? So I count that as three and a half gods. Or, if you want, a three part committee making up one Godhead that does everything nice and one mini-god that chose the dark side and does everything bad.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Word of God is sufficient proof.

Although you claim that all major religions support the "one God" theory, what about all the religions that explained the spiritual plane as being comprised of several gods? Where did these ideas come from? Since, as far as I know, the Jewish Bible is the first to say there is only one God. So, prior to the Jews, everyone was polytheistic pretty much. On top of that, the one supreme God isn't even defined in the same way in the various religions.

 

[McBell]

The Word of God is sufficient proof.

bold empty claim

 

[loverofhumanity]

Although you claim that all major religions support the "one God" theory, what about all the religions that explained the spiritual plane as being comprised of several gods? Where did these ideas come from? Since, as far as I know, the Jewish Bible is the first to say there is only one God. So, prior to the Jews, everyone was polytheistic pretty much. On top of that, the one supreme God isn't even defined in the same way in the various religions.

I was only referring to monotheistic Faiths. There is far more history than has been recorded so we cannot say that one God was not taught before recorded history. But we do have a few thousand years of religious records from different Educators stating there is only one God.

It is up to us individually whether we agree or not. I do agree fully with their claim.

 

[McBell]

I wonder where the Christian Trinitarians are? They could try and explain how there's one God in three parts and one very powerful evil being that the good three-part God sent down to Earth to be the "god" of this world? So I count that as three and a half gods. Or, if you want, a three part committee making up one Godhead that does everything nice and one mini-god that chose the dark side and does everything bad.

Or it could be a form of henotheism; three aspects of the same god honoured individually....

 

[Gyrannon]

The ONLY proof that any of them has are their literature about said Gods. There is just as much proof for their Gods as there is for Cthulhu & The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Tabu]

You assume to much.
I know there are differences between the versions of the Bible.

Of course, that fact is nothing more than a diversion from the point.

Well , you have just said what multiple intellects would do , divert from the point.

 

[Tabu]

Who's to say what's "god like"? If a god does it, isn't it "god like" by definition?

Unintelligent is not God like , it would create chaos again.

You mean like a single god that acts as if no gods exist at all?

If they are latent ,of no use . Why even call that god?

Asking how multiple gods would divide their work assumes the existence of multiple gods.

I am questioning your assumption here . If somebody says to me that Penguins actually live in the moon , and I ask them how do they breathe or get food there ? Doesn't mean that they actually exist on moon.

 

[Notanumber]

Obviously, I do not believe there is such a thing as a god, but if there is, it must have a split personality to say the least.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unintelligent is not God like , it would create chaos again.

If they are latent ,of no use . Why even call that god?

I am questioning your assumption here . If somebody says to me that Penguins actually live in the moon , and I ask them how do they breathe or get food there ? Doesn't mean that they actually exist on moon.

Just so I'm sure I understand you: you're saying that:

- unintelligent gods can't exist.
- lazy gods can't exist.

Is that right?

Do you think a single god would or wouldn't meet those criteria, given what we see around us?

 

[Tabu]

I don't understand. It's hard to underestimate a god (Abrahamic?) I don't believe exists. I use gods for convenience. I believe in spirits. I don't understand the concept of a god/entity without "him" once being human or the core of different parts of the natural world.

The gods are family with humans and everything. One god and one leader just sounds too political. I was born and raised in Western culture but my mind is far from a one-party worship. Love, peace, harmony, and happiness etc are a conglomerate of things the spirits have and guide us so we can have the same. The only way we can have that is through our ancestral spirits of kin, humanity, land, and our own spirit. How do you squeeze a rainbow into one color?

I don't understand the Supreme Soul (Supreme Intelligence etc). The gods are on the same level as we are. They help us just as some of our family we hope to help us as well on earth living. It's a community of living souls and spirits on earth.

I understand your views , I also appreciate their value in you life , how you relate to your ancestors and your affection and attachment to your grandparents in keeping them alive within you and feeling their support and blessings at all times ,working together as a family . I would never discourage such a comforting view.
But , I would myself see it differently , I would see it as an another opportunity and a reason to increase in my love and appreciation of My Beloved One, The Ocean of Love , The Purifier , The Liberator , The Remover of Sorrow The Restorer of Happiness , The Egoless one , that He comforts all irrespective of the belief they have of Him.

 

[Tabu]

Just so I'm sure I understand you: you're saying that:

- unintelligent gods can't exist.
- lazy gods can't exist.

Is that right?

Do you think a single god would or wouldn't meet those criteria, given what we see around us?

I think you didn't read properly what I had mentioned within brackets in my very first reply on this thread.

(Except in those limited domains where free will has momentarily dismantled )

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you

But , I would myself see it differently , I would see it as an another opportunity and a reason to increase in my love and appreciation of My Beloved One, The Ocean of Love , The Purifier , The Liberator , The Remover of Sorrow The Restorer of Happiness , The Egoless one , that He comforts all irrespective of the belief they have of Him.

I'ma push a bit more because I'm honestly curious. How can there be only one god when there are so many that can likewise give you the same experience?

Another way to ask, why does one god make more sense than many?

 

[Tabu]

Thank you

I'ma push a bit more because I'm honestly curious. How can there be only one god when there are so many that can likewise give you the same experience?

Another way to ask, why does one god make more sense than many?

Many Gods
Interdependency if work is divided
Variation in views leading to clash of views
Many Bosses to do one work
.. all leading to chaos and confusion .
Please read my discussion with 9-10 ths penguins,
Pls if there is any question beyond that I will try to explain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you didn't read properly what I had mentioned within brackets in my very first reply on this thread.

I don't see how that statement is relevant to what we're talking about.