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

[Unveiled Artist]

Frankly, I think the assumption that there are no gods is easier to reconcile with what we observe than the assumption that there is one god or many gods.

I see no reason to say that one god fits better than many gods (or that many gods fit better than one god). Once we open the door to the existence of at least one god, I see no reason to put an upper limit on the number of gods that might exist.

I certainly don't think it's justified to think that exactly one god exists. I think no gods is a more reasonable assumption, but if - for whatever reason - we have to assume the existence of gods, I think the exact number of gods would be an open question.

And it's a question that, so far, you haven't justified an answer for.

This isn't specifically for me, but what would be an example of justification of something or someone that can't be proven?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This isn't specifically for me, but what would be an example of justification of something or someone that can't be proven?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that God or gods can't be proven? If so, why?

 

[idav]

If you haven't decided whether monism is about gods, then you haven't decided whether monism has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Oh I know what I believe, just offsetting the fact of you ruining my argument so quickly.

This is one of those I was going to say I really don't have an answer, but I thought I would throw out what I had.

Its a good question for sure. I gave @Sunstone the kudos he deserves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was thinking when you said this...

I certainly don't think it's justified to think that exactly one god exists. I think no gods is a more reasonable assumption, but if - for whatever reason - we have to assume the existence of gods, I think the exact number of gods would be an open question.

And it's a question that, so far, you haven't justified an answer for.

Can you give an example of what would be a justified answer for the existence of god(s)?

What answer would you consider justifiable, I guess in other words?

 

[Tabu]

Frankly, I think the assumption that there are no gods is easier to reconcile with what we observe than the assumption that there is one god or many gods.

I see no reason to say that one god fits better than many gods (or that many gods fit better than one god). Once we open the door to the existence of at least one god, I see no reason to put an upper limit on the number of gods that might exist.

I certainly don't think it's justified to think that exactly one god exists. I think no gods is a more reasonable assumption, but if - for whatever reason - we have to assume the existence of gods, I think the exact number of gods would be an open question.

And it's a question that, so far, you haven't justified an answer for.

Even if I had felt that I had proved something , you would feel I proved nothing.

This is what one our Dadis responded when asked to prove a statement to be true ,
She said , ” Truth does not have to be proven. It only has to be presented."
When it comes to seeing the truth– the very first thing is to check my own level of truth. Ask yourself – is there truth in me?
Today, as I go about my daily tasks, fulfilling my responsibilities with lightness and power, I experience the bliss of knowing the truth of who I am and who is God. I have no need to prove this truth; my actions reveal and present it.
With my inner experience of the truth of the soul my vision for all others that I meet is of pure feelings as I greet the light within."

So I leave you with a note of Good Wishes , pure wishes of love , peace and happiness as I greet the light within you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As Tabu said, it is a matter of belief, nothing to be proved. I believe in a thousand Gods and Goddesses. Don't ask me 'why?'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if I had felt that I had proved something , you would feel I proved nothing.

This is what one our Dadis responded when asked to prove a statement to be true ,
She said , ” Truth does not have to be proven. It only has to be presented."
When it comes to seeing the truth– the very first thing is to check my own level of truth. Ask yourself – is there truth in me?
Today, as I go about my daily tasks, fulfilling my responsibilities with lightness and power, I experience the bliss of knowing the truth of who I am and who is God. I have no need to prove this truth; my actions reveal and present it.
With my inner experience of the truth of the soul my vision for all others that I meet is of pure feelings as I greet the light within."

So I leave you with a note of Good Wishes , pure wishes of love , peace and happiness to the light within you.

I note that it was only when your argument was unsuccessful that you declared that you don't need to give an argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As Tabu said, it is a matter of belief, nothing to be proved. I believe in a thousand Gods and Goddesses. Don't ask me 'why?'.

So we shouldn't expect your beliefs to be rational? Good to know, I suppose.

 

[Tabu]

I note that it was only when your argument was unsuccessful that you declared that you don't need to give an argument.

I don't see the argument as unsuccessful ,but endless.

 

[idav]

I certainly don't think it's justified to think that exactly one god exists. I think no gods is a more reasonable assumption, but if - for whatever reason - we have to assume the existence of gods, I think the exact number of gods would be an open question.

As I mentioned in one of my posts, there is a question of there being a source which even an atheist should acknowledge. One source being the default as opposed to no source. Nobody, correct me if I'm wrong, will assume existence come from zero sources? Then its a matter of whether you think such a source is god or not.

Maybe perhaps jumping the gun a bit there but existence being a source unto itself sounds like one source still and also to me sounds like a god concept, but of course we would disagree by that point.

 

[Acim]

There is no argument for just one god, so multiple god's are out of the question.

Bold empty claim

 

[idav]

This seems self-defeating, since wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest not assuming any gods at all?

I would like to readdress this from my perspective. To me it isn't that I want to complicate things by invoking the god label, but that existence does seem that complicated. Science just finds an endless rabbit hole instead of some simple explanation. So in that sense one god is an actual explanation, and saying zero gods its making the universe out to be more simple than it actually is. However I cheat by saying existence IS god.

edit: the issue that comes from the OP is then I run into how is there only one existence....and then my brain breaks lol

 

[Acim]

Frankly, I think the assumption that there are no gods is easier to reconcile with what we observe than the assumption that there is one god or many gods.

Please reconcile this with what "we" observe.

I see no reason to say that one god fits better than many gods (or that many gods fit better than one god). Once we open the door to the existence of at least one god, I see no reason to put an upper limit on the number of gods that might exist.

I'm glad my first post in this thread provided the rationale for why one fits better than many.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So we shouldn't expect your beliefs to be rational? Good to know, I suppose.

That was for an argument. Actually, I am a strong atheist. Check my belief on left.

Nobody, correct me if I'm wrong, will assume existence come from zero sources? Then its a matter of whether you think such a source is god or not.

Maybe perhaps jumping the gun a bit there but existence being a source unto itself sounds like one source still and also to me sounds like a god concept, but of course we would disagree by that point.

Science accepts that there is a possibility - creatio ex-nihilo. And if there is a God (or many), what is their source?

 

[Notanumber]

If there were a god, why would it pit one religion against another?

 

[idav]

I certainly don't think it's justified to think that exactly one god exists. I think no gods is a more reasonable assumption, but if - for whatever reason - we have to assume the existence of gods, I think the exact number of gods would be an open question.

However your accepting rationale for no gods but not accepting the same rationale when we are to assume there are gods. Am I reading that right?

 

[idav]

Science accepts that there is a possibility - creatio ex-nihilo. And if there is a God (or many), what is their source?

If God has a source that wouldn't be much of a God. Of course that doesn't rule out lesser gods, even to the thousands, but the argument is for an ultimate source.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is special pleading.

 

[idav]

That is special pleading.

How so? I think its taking a definition of god, the source, and calling it like it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I mentioned in one of my posts, there is a question of there being a source which even an atheist should acknowledge. One source being the default as opposed to no source.

Or many sources, to go with the theme of this thread.

Nobody, correct me if I'm wrong, will assume existence come from zero sources? Then its a matter of whether you think such a source is god or not.

I'm not sure what you mean, or whether existence has to "come from" anything. I get the sense that talking about "the source of existence" might be a nonsensical statement like "the colour of the Cuban Missile Crisis" or "the width of time."