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

[Smart_Guy]

I have found that most people have a definition of god that leads to more problems than it solves.
But only when said definition is put to the test.
I have found that most people refuse to put their definition of god to the test.

Yeah, this does create confusions, unfortunately.

 

[Thief]

So the concept of a tie doesn't exist on your planet?

or God's universe

 

[Aupmanyav]

A god creates, and they are not people to begin with. A god is higher than that. But that's my definition of God who unless is really divine, almighty, supreme and unique compared to people to not need spouses, for example, I see unworthy of calling God, IMO.

Vishnu, Shiva and Mother Goddess, all three create and rule. The people who so believe in Hinduism are known, as you know, Vaishnavas, Shaivas and Shaktas respectively. We have no problem with people having different views. People, that was only a matter of saying. Why should Gods be alone and not married? All our Gods are married except for the monkey God Hanuman. Even there some people say that he is married. Actually it is not the human kind of marriage. The spouses represent the power of the Gods and are inseparable from Gods of whom they are part and parcel.Well, that is the general Hindu belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no idea what "existence being a source unto itself" is supposed to mean.

Existence isn't an attribute or a thing that exists on its own, so I'm not sure it's the sort of thing that needs a source at all... even "itself" (whatever you mean by that).

I believe it is a way of saying that there must be a God because anything else would need a creator.

I don't think that makes sense, but there are people who do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your argument is actually very good. That's where the paradox lies really; if there are other gods (supposedly), then God won't be God or supreme being to begin with. I would not follow Him then and consider Him unworthy to be God (yet I believe he is).

Hmm, I guess definition of God is the problem after all.

In a manner of speaking. If unquestioned supremacy is what defines a God, then some people (myself included) would have to wonder why even have the concept, and one would almost be driven into agreeing with the Roman worship of the Caesars back in the day.

I suppose such a criterium would also make the Abrahamic Faiths considerably more sensible in their claims, leaving aside the matter of the actual existence of God.

At the end of the day, that is an all around unworkable definition of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, this does create confusions, unfortunately.

It does?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Vishnu, Shiva and Mother Goddess, all three create and rule. The people who so believe in Hinduism are known, as you know, Vaishnavas, Shaivas and Shaktas respectively. We have no problem with people having different views. People, that was only a matter of saying. Why should Gods be alone and not married? All our Gods are married except for the monkey God Hanuman. Even there some people say that he is married. Actually it is not the human kind of marriage. The spouses represent the power of the Gods and are inseparable from Gods of whom they are part and parcel.Well, that is the general Hindu belief.

That's a good read. Than you for the input.

 

[Smart_Guy]

In a manner of speaking. If unquestioned supremacy is what defines a God, then some people (myself included) would have to wonder why even have the concept, and one would almost be driven into agreeing with the Roman worship of the Caesars back in the day.

I suppose such a criterium would also make the Abrahamic Faiths considerably more sensible in their claims, leaving aside the matter of the actual existence of God.

At the end of the day, that is an all around unworkable definition of God.

Yes. Universally, the definition of God is unworkable and never agreed on. I personally am puzzled at how the word god can be used at some circumstances, but that's just a wondering point that does not make me disrespect those views.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It does?

To a clearer view, what is it that you're asking about here, in your own words. No quoting please.

 

[LuisDantas]

To a clearer view, what is it that you're asking about here, in your own words. No quoting please.

Sure. But first, I feel the need to express that I really appreciate your openness. I am all too aware of how rare it is and how frequently people prefer avoidance.

Bonus points for asking me not to use quotations. I find it very much helpful when people make a point of using their own words. It is refreshing and encouraged that you seem to feel likewise.

Spoilers for the preliminary argument.

Spoiler

We were talking about the understanding that a God (or at least a strictly monotheistic God that does not have rivals, complementary Gods, avatars, aspects or true relatives/siblings) is defined by its supremacy.

I found that understanding unworkable and self-contradictory (which is much of the reason why I have little reason to hesitate in rejecting the entire Abrahamic family of faiths as entirely unworkable - a bit of an irony since many of them make such a point of claiming to be Supreme Truth, even hurting their ability to actually function as religions).

Then we came to the statement from Mestemia (which I quite agree with) that most definitions of God are problematic when questioned.

I somewhat disagree with him when he then states that most people refuse to put those up for questioning, though. I think definitions of God are not supposed to be bluntly "true" or "false" in the first place. I said as much on various threads around here on occasion.

Gods have various constructive uses. But one of them, far as the reality of facts gives witness, is certainly not acquiring the attribute of "truth". That very consistently and very regrettably spoils and poisons them when it is attempted. Their strictly personal nature and use should be recognized and respected, and we should no longer hurt ourselves by imposing expectations of being "true" (except for one's own personal practice) upon them.

But I suspect you had a somewhat different reading of Mestemia's post, because you then mentioned confusion. That surprised me. It seemed to have little connection to what he had said. So I attempted to ask why you thought so.

 

[Sonofason]

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?

Well, as you have phrased your question, I would suggest that it depends on how one defines what a god is. If you accept that a god is a powerful ruler, then I would suggest there would be many gods, and there would be no grounds to claim that there is only one god. But there can only be one God.
The definition itself of what "God" is repudiates the possibility for there being more than one.

God is defined as: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(https://www.google.com/#q=God+def)

God is "the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes."
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god)

God is "the creator and ruler of the universe; Supreme Being."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god

There can only be one "Supreme Being". If it could be imagined that there could be two Supreme beings, we could simply ask ourselves which one is more supreme. How could one being differ from another and yet remain equally supreme to the other? It can't happen. If they are equally supreme, we have somewhat of a conundrum. If they are equally supreme, and equal rulers of the universe, and play equal roles in creation, how would we distinguish one from the other? We couldn't. The two would by necessity have to be one.

These definitions do not suggest that God is "a" creator, but "the" one and only creator of the universe. Anyone can be a god, but there can be only one God.

 

[The Old One]

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

Well, according to the bible, God is a jealous god, therefore there must be multiple gods otherwise there would be no one to be jealous of.

Of course, that only applies if you believe there is a god...

 

[Sonofason]

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

Well, according to the bible, God is a jealous god, therefore there must be multiple gods otherwise there would be no one to be jealous of.

Of course, that only applies if you believe there is a god...

God is not jealous of other gods, as if they were more powerful, or more supreme, or as if they had created something better than what God Himself has created. He is jealous that we offer our love, our affection, and our devotion to other things, and other entities above and beyond that which we offer to Him.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, as you have phrased your question, I would suggest that it depends on how one defines what a god is. If you accept that a god is a powerful ruler, then I would suggest there would be many gods, and there would be no grounds to claim that there is only one god. But there can only be one God.
The definition itself of what "God" is repudiates the possibility for there being more than one.

God is defined as: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(https://www.google.com/#q=God+def)

God is "the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes."
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god)

God is "the creator and ruler of the universe; Supreme Being."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god

There can only be on "Supreme Being". If it could be imagined that there could be two Supreme beings, we could simply ask ourselves which one is more supreme. How could one being differ from another and yet remain equally supreme to the other? It can't happen. If they are equally supreme, we have somewhat of a conundrum. If they are equally supreme, and equal rulers of the universe, and play equal roles in creation, how would we distinguish one from the other? We couldn't. The two would by necessity have to be one.

These definitions do not suggest that God is "a" creator, but "the" one and only creator of the universe. Anyone can be a god, but there can be only one God.

I really wish some of the trinitarian Christians would respond to this. In one thread about the Holy Spirit, I asked why would a God, the Father, who is spirit, need another God that is the Holy Spirit? And, then a third God, Jesus, that is equal to the other two?

 

[CG Didymus]

Vishnu, Shiva and Mother Goddess, all three create and rule. The people who so believe in Hinduism are known, as you know, Vaishnavas, Shaivas and Shaktas respectively. We have no problem with people having different views. People, that was only a matter of saying. Why should Gods be alone and not married? All our Gods are married except for the monkey God Hanuman. Even there some people say that he is married. Actually it is not the human kind of marriage. The spouses represent the power of the Gods and are inseparable from Gods of whom they are part and parcel.Well, that is the general Hindu belief.

Another wish. Can one of the Baha'is answer this... The Baha'i Faith claims that all religion believe in one God, so how do you explain Hindu beliefs about God?

 

[Sonofason]

I really wish some of the trinitarian Christians would respond to this. In one thread about the Holy Spirit, I asked why would a God, the Father, who is spirit, need another God that is the Holy Spirit? And, then a third God, Jesus, that is equal to the other two?

Do you believe there is any such thing as spirit? Do you have a spirit? We know you have a body, but do you have a spirit? And if you do, what is it's purpose?

 

[McBell]

I somewhat disagree with him when he then states that most people refuse to put those up for questioning, though. I think definitions of God are not supposed to be bluntly "true" or "false" in the first place. I said as much on various threads around here on occasion.

Just for clarification....
for one example:

people who claim there is nothing god cannot do, then limit god in some way.

He cannot interfere with free will
he cannot lie​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure. But first, I feel the need to express that I really appreciate your openness.

^^^ Ditto. It is so rare in his milieu. And he lives, his people have always lived, right at the center of the storm. Haha

 

[Aupmanyav]

If they are equally supreme, and equal rulers of the universe, and play equal roles in creation, how would we distinguish one from the other? We couldn't. The two would by necessity have to be one.

Haha. By their form.

Shiva will be dancing (on a prostrate human ego), clad in elephant skin, will have a rattle and a glob of fire in his hands. Vishnu will be dark, will wear yellow clothes, will have the Conch shell, Mace, Discus and a lotus in his hands; and a five-headed cobra for a canopy (actually the cobra, Sheshanaga, has a thousand hoods, but that is a bit excessive to picturise). So simple, so obvious.

The Baha'i Faith claims that all religion believe in one God, so how do you explain Hindu beliefs about God?

That should be a question to Bahais. We do not believe that there is just one God. We have so many Gods (and Goddesses) that no one ever has made a count of them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Haha. By their form.

Shiva will be dancing, clad in elephant skin, will have a rattle and a glob of fire in his hands. Vishnu will be dark, will wear yellow clothes, will have the Conch shell, Mace, Discus and a lotus in his hands, and a five-headed cobra for a canopy (actually the cobra, Sheshanaga, has a thousand hoods, but that is a bit excessive to picturise). So simple, so obvious.

That should be a question to Bahais. We do not believe that there is just one God. We have so many Gods (and Goddesses) that no one ever has made a count of them.

Yes, I worded that wrong. I meant it for the Baha'is. One of them claimed that all religions support the belief that there's only one God and that all the beliefs contrary to that are misinterpretations by the people in that religion.