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

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus was a man. He was a material being. The Spirit of Christ (Jesus) is Love. God is Love. God is the Spirit of Christ. Jesus is the physical manifestation of God. The body is a manifestation of the Spirit. We do that which our Spirit inclines us to do. Christ did the only thing He is capable of doing...Love.

Christ is a man and has a spirit just as each of us do. Everyone has an individual spirit. The same as my ancestral spirits and my loved ones love and protect me is the same as Christ giving you love and so forth. Both are spirit.

Christ isn't god. He has the spirit of god in him and, because he does, everything he does is that of god. I don't understand how trinity believers see what they do because to me its so common sense. Maybe because its so personal its hard to make god an actual human.

However, I haven't mentioned Christ. I just don't understand how there can only be one god. We have so many different characteristics in life that if gods/entities exist, we would be a reflection of them not of one person.

 

[George-ananda]

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

The question implies a dualistic school of thought (God and creation are two). But the spiritual adepts I have most come to respect tell us that reality is actually non-dual (God and creation are not-two) and that all this is part of One/God/Brahman.

So my answer is the teachings of those who I consider the highest masters in their field, just as I accept the teachings of the best chemists, physicists in their fields.

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

There can be unlimited gods as the universe has a myriad of living entities as parts of the One/God/Brahman.

I hope the BONUS PRIZE is a gift certificate to Starbucks! I'm addicted to English breakfast tea with an added shot of espresso every afternoon.

 

[Smart_Guy]

May I interrupt...

No disrespect, and, wouldn't one god be just as be able to mess things up as more than one god?

How does the number of gods make one more organized than many? Especially if they all work together?

Of course, you're one of those I take honor of their interrupting me (not sarcastic). Believe me, I like it when you discuss things with me.

Luis and I had an extended talk about this. By my definition of God, having equal gods means they are not qualified or worthy to be gods. God does not need other gods to work with Him, or He would not be a god and I won't consider Him worthy to follow (with all due respect to other definitions of God).

Also, if God makes a mess, then we can only imagine what having more of beings like Him could cause. If we look at it anyway, we humans are the ones making the mess, but that's a different subject.

Again, that's according to my definition of God. That's what caused all this confusion to begin with really.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
So, in general and logically speaking, a team is stronger to sustain creation than just one person.

That as maybe, but a team needs a leader .. more than one leader is not sustainable.
Almighty God created angels as well as mankind. The angels are the "team", as you call it..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That as maybe, but a team needs a leader .. more than one leader is not sustainable.
Almighty God created angels as well as mankind. The angels are the "team", as you call it..

Not all teams need a leader. Communities have roles but no role is "supreme" over another. If the team "depends" on the leader without say of his own, thats not a team. If a leader is one of many leaders who take roles in whatever part of creation they govern, there is no mix up.

If you make everyone supreme, that, to me, sounds more ego and self centered. If youre working as a team, everyone should be leaders in their own right.

Example. Im an ESL teacher. I teach adult students. In a "monotheistic" classroom, all students will depend on me. They will also look down on their classmates in favorbof my knowledge in English. Its not healthy for learning nor spirituality.

In a "polytheistic" classroom (I follow), I Guide students. I dont own the closeroom. The students do and they learn from each other. They realize they dont Need a leader because they are all leaders and contribute to the "same material" I have. Im providing them structure but as the class continues, students start developing their own structure that works for them.

After awhile, Im not a leader anymore. Thats a healthy classroom and spiritual community. If there is only one god and everyone looks up to him, they dont learn about themselves unless its through that god.

If there are multiple gods, its a community. Each teammate learns from each other and providing their own way of spiritual living with the guidence of their mate.

Its a community.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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?

It would be a mis-reading of the Bible to claim that there is only one god.
It is said there is only one TRUE God.
(he may or may not be a Scotsman)

I take the concept 'God' quite analytically.
In this sense, it is synonymous with 'Truth'.

So there is only one TRUTH, but there are numerous claims to what is TRUE.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmmm. Interesting.

God does not need other gods to work with Him, or He would not be a god and I won't consider Him worthy to follow (with all due respect to other definitions of God).

Do you feel that team members need each other? If they do, how do you feel that is a weakness to work together?

I was raised single parent and we had a lot of bumps a two parent family would have. However, Id have to admit that having two parents would have helped a lot. They dont depend on each other as if one is weak but depend as in work together i supporting their child and environment.

I guess I have greater respect for more than one god. It means not thinking of himself and mirrors how we are as people of various traits. Mirroing the gods make more sense than mirroring one god. I dont know if Islam uses that terminology, but thats my rap.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also, if God makes a mess, ..

Gods do make a mess. They are not all that efficient. For example, he had to send a deluge to wipe out what creation did not fit his fancy. He had to destroy many cities by fire, brim stones or pestilence. Then he had to send prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, and mahdis to correct the anomalies. It has been like a car sent to a garage managed by inept mechanics. Had there been a few more Gods and Goddesses to consult, perhaps there would not have been so many problems.

The angels are the "team", as you call it..

You mean the angels advice God?

We have had leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Duvalier, Idi Amin, Mugabe and Kim Jong-un. Do you think they have helped their people? A dictatorship in hardly ever good.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
I take the concept 'God' quite analytically.
In this sense, it is synonymous with 'Truth'.

I agree .. the reason why the Abrahamic God claims to be "a jealous god" in OT is due to the consequences in believing in "many gods" ie. it leads to misbelief and idol worhip

In other words, it leads to following something other than truth

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hmmm. Interesting.

Do you feel that team members need each other? If they do, how do you feel that is a weakness to work together?

I was raised single parent and we had a lot of bumps a two parent family would have. However, Id have to admit that having two parents would have helped a lot. They dont depend on each other as if one is weak but depend as in work together i supporting their child and environment.

I guess I have greater respect for more than one god. It means not thinking of himself and mirrors how we are as people of various traits. Mirroing the gods make more sense than mirroring one god. I dont know if Islam uses that terminology, but thats my rap.

Does a boxer, as just one example, have team members? No, because that role is not done by a team. There can't be more than one ruler for a country or that country would have "things", one minister for a ministry too, and so are some other roles.

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. But in my understanding for the nature of God, I see that Him accepting other gods with him means He's got sever weaknesses that needs other gods, and in my belief God does not have such a weakness. If He does, I wouldn't follow Him.

It is just the nature of God that I have in the definition is all. I explained it in previous posts.

 

[McBell]

I honestly don't see the point in multiple, omniscient, omnipotent supreme gods, when only one is necessary to accomplish the work that all of them could do working together.

And take your point one god further....

 

[Smart_Guy]

Gods do make a mess. They are not all that efficient. For example, he had to send a deluge to wipe out what creation did not fit his fancy. He had to destroy many cities by fire, brim stones or pestilence. Then he had to send prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, and mahdis to correct the anomalies. It has been like a car sent to a garage managed by inept mechanics. Had there been a few more Gods and Goddesses to consult, perhaps there would not have been so many problems.You mean the angels advice God?

We have had leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Duvalier, Idi Amin, Mugabe and Kim Jong-un. Do you think they have helped their people? A dictatorship in hardly ever good.

That's how you see it; as mess, and I perfectly respect this view. Same with the gods you explained about before, they did fight as you told, but you say their fights end with reconciliation, but is that real reconciliation, since they "sometimes" (plural) fight, which means they did it more than once, come up with no mess at all? (I'm not implying anything, I'm just using it to compare with my point). Also, you're clearly saying gods do make mess, and that only implies your definition of gods. I don't, and I believe what others say is mess made by God, is not mess. Also, all those examples, if I didn't mess them all, involve humans again as I mentioned before. You chose that it was God's mess, I choose that it is humans' mess.

I don't mean any disrespect by that. I'm only using available information to clarify my point.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The fight between Krishna (Vishnu) and Shiva was only a mock war to illustrate to people that they should not fight for their individual Gods and that there is no discord between them. When a God wants only himself to be worshiped, then it leads to violence and cruelty. That is how Hindus were able to avoid such a situation.

I agree .. the reason why the Abrahamic God claims to be "a jealous god" in OT is due to the consequences in believing in "many gods" ie. it leads to misbelief and idol worship.

It is not a consequence but is the beginning of the conflict. The conflict has not ended even now after so many centuries. IMHO, one God is the greatest incorrect belief.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Uniformity of design , Harmonious and systematic functioning and sustaining of the universe (Except in those limited domains where free will has momentarily dismantled ) , , I think is a valid proof that there is a only One God running the universe.
These two beautiful verses from The Quran have excellent arguments at to why there could be only one Supreme God .

"No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!" (Surah Al-Mumenoon 23/91)

"If there were in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been ruin in both! But glory to Allah the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him! "(Surah Al-Anbiya 21/22)

None of those things require any gods. They only require that

By countering / challenging all notions of separation.
If God is understood as "not me" and there is me and God, then separation will be plausible.
Yet if God includes me / us, then distinction is plausible while separation among God is implausible, arguably impossible.



I'd go with similar rationale to what is stated above. If certain characteristics of what makes for deity exist among multiple beings, and they are deemed inherently separate, then multiple gods would co-exist. I find it understandable for anyone that understands own (higher) self is God, to think this must mean there are multiple gods, co-existing. Theologically, I have disagreement with this, but feel our (mutual) Creator can sort that out perhaps better than I may ever be able to.

So everything that is not personally "you" is god? The gum on the bottom of your shoe is god? Hitler was god?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does a boxer, as just one example, have team members? No, because that role is not done by a team. There can't be more than one ruler for a country or that country would have "things", one minister for a ministry too, and so are some other roles.

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. But in my understanding for the nature of God, I see that Him accepting other gods with him means He's got sever weaknesses that needs other gods, and in my belief God does not have such a weakness. If He does, I wouldn't follow Him.

It is just the nature of God that I have in the definition is all. I explained it in previous posts.

Hmm. Maybe if your god took up football or basket ball, he may have a change of mind when it comes to team work? (Halfa pun intended)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does a boxer, as just one example, have team members? No, because that role is not done by a team. There can't be more than one ruler for a country or that country would have "things", one minister for a ministry too, and so are some other roles.

At one time, the Roman Empire was ruled by a group of three co-equal emperors (the Triumvirate). At other times, it was ruled by four emperors: 2 senior and 2 junior.

And in many countries, the "ruler" is still accountable to some body like a congress or parliament. Here in Canada, the Prime Minister is in many respects just one member of a body with many members.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Its funny even if you do have one; even know it; they still call us heathens. And so I giggle again. You don't even act that way and still getting that and then you cant even be yourself a little. I don't chase around a bush what they don't even know about one superior god because they're hurt by that. So I giggle again.
But yeah...
no yeah buts to the forest.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
If there are multiple gods, its a community. Each teammate learns from each other and providing their own way of spiritual living with the guidence of their mate.

Its a community.

You make it sound as though you want there to be 'multiple gods' .. truth isn't about what we want or prefer..
However, if you've looked sincerely for truth, and found it to be 'multiple gods', then fine
..but doesn't it still boil down to the same thing? Who is reponsible for our existence? Who is behind evolution?
Is the answer 'multiple gods', and how do you know this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You make it sound as though you want there to be 'multiple gods' .. truth isn't about what we want or prefer..
However, if you've looked sincerely for truth, and found it to be 'multiple gods', then fine
..but doesn't it still boil down to the same thing? Who is reponsible for our existence? Who is behind evolution?
Is the answer 'multiple gods', and how do you know this?

It seems to me that if you've somehow concluded that it wasn't a godless process, then you're at the position "not 'no gods'". Another way to express "not 'no gods'" is "some number of gods."

From here, it's YOUR job to narrow it down to "exactly one god".

 

[The_Fisher_King]

When a God wants only himself to be worshiped, then it leads to violence and cruelty. That is how Hindus were able to avoid such a situation.

This sounds (to me) like you are saying that Hindus have been able to avoid violence and cruelty by having multiple deities (at least some of) who are happy/okay with not being worshipped - is that what you are saying?