Monotheists, where is your evidence?

[Willamena]

Why do you think multiple all-powerful gods would pose a problem?

Because "all-powerful" is "all", as in everything. If there's two, it's like trying to add infinity to infinity... you just get infinity.

Plenty of religions have a dualist theology with two opposite but equal gods. How do you exclude this possibility?

But monotheism doesn't describe that situation.

 

[Willamena]

Monotheists typically believe in one omnimax God. But how can they know that there are no other gods? Isn't it impossible to know for sure that no other gods exist? Wouldn't an honest monotheist admit the possibility of other gods?

And how can one possibly know that God is an omnimax God? It's impossible for any human to experience omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence, so how can they claim to perceive these qualities in God?

I would, rather, say that monotheists believe in the "only God"*; that would be why there's "no other Gods," because God is only. It speaks to the image of "God" that the monotheistic person holds, ideally a monistic image. (The image of "God" is not God, but that's another story).

"Omnimax" refers to omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence, which are one image. It can be seen as a metaphor for the image of "God" that is, in each moment, creator of all things, present in all things, and aware of all things.


* dictionaries reflect this

 

[Duck]

It's kind of hard to know. The commandment "Thou shalt have no Gods before me" can actually suggest there are other Gods. It can also suggest that you can look at an object and call it God, too (idolatry). But I don't have the answer. I assume there is but one God.

But along with the commandment to not have other Gods before Yahweh, wasn't there also a commandment about making graven images?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because "all-powerful" is "all", as in everything. If there's two, it's like trying to add infinity to infinity... you just get infinity.

The sum is still twice as much as the two smaller infinities. Infinity is a concept, not a number.

And being all-powerful is only the potential to do anything. It doesn't mean that the god in question is doing everything.

A thought just popped into my head: even though some religions believe that God is omnipresent, I still exist as a person. Apparently, omnipresence allows different personalities to occupy the same space. Why then couldn't two or more omnipresent personalities occupy the same space as well?

But monotheism doesn't describe that situation.

I know; that was my point. Plenty of people have come to a position where they say that two equally powerful gods are possible. However, we've had monotheists in this thread claim that two equally powerful gods are impossible. I'm just curious about the rationale they used to come to this conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

The sum is still twice as much as the two smaller infinities. Infinity is a concept, not a number.

Then it's like trying to add a number infinity to a number infinity. You just get a number infinity.

And being all-powerful is only the potential to do anything. It doesn't mean that the god in question is doing everything.

If you say so. The word means whatever you intend to express as its meaning/definition. I've defined it differently, though; it means something different than that to me.

I know; that was my point. Plenty of people have come to a position where they say that two equally powerful gods are possible. However, we've had monotheists in this thread claim that two equally powerful gods are impossible. I'm just curious about the rationale they used to come to this conclusion.

Dualism isn't monism.

 

[McBell]

or it could mean that He doesnt want us humans to make up gods and start worshipping them....

Yeah, one made up god is more than enough

 

[McBell]

The false gods have no evidence for their godship.

So they are ALL false, right?
I mean if you are going to start talking about evidence.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then it's like trying to add a number infinity to a number infinity. You just get a number infinity.

But by the same token, if you take infinity and divide it up into any number of equal parts, every part will be infinity as well.

If you say so. The word means whatever you intend to express as its meaning/definition. I've defined it differently, though; it means something different than that to me.

What does it mean to you?

Dualism isn't monism.

Umm... I know. I'm trying to find out why someone would choose one over the other. And I'm getting the sense that we're talking past each other here.

 

[Willamena]

But by the same token, if you take infinity and divide it up into any number of equal parts, every part will be infinity as well.

Just so! Everything is "god".

What does it mean to you?

The being(-ness) of everything. The power of creation.

 

[Willamena]

I'm trying to find out why someone would choose one over the other. And I'm getting the sense that we're talking past each other here.

People don't "choose" a god; they hold an "image of god" and (if you choose to look at it in terms of "choice") the "choice" is made. Understanding monism is simply acquiring an "image of god."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just so! Everything is "god".

But it works equally well as "everything is 'a god'" as it does "everything is 'god'". One is arguably monotheist, but the other is not.

If this over here is God in his entirety, and that other thing over there is God in his entirety, then don't we have two Gods?

Let's try another way of looking at it: what defines a God? I'd argue that it would be a single personality. IOW, monotheism is the position that this "everything" that you call "god" is a single individual.

The being(-ness) of everything. The power of creation.

I don't know what "the being(-ness) of everything" means.

 

[Willamena]

But it works equally well as "everything is 'a god'" as it does "everything is 'god'". One is arguably monotheist, but the other is not.

If this over here is God in his entirety, and that other thing over there is God in his entirety, then don't we have two Gods?

The image of infinity broken down into 'bits' called god is not the same as the image of infinity as god that is meaningless to attempt to break down (because you just get more god). That's a significant distinction. Both are monotheism, as it is represented today, but the latter is monistic and the former dualistic (God vs. The World).

Let's try another way of looking at it: what defines a God? I'd argue that it would be a single personality. IOW, monotheism is the position that this "everything" that you call "god" is a single individual.

God is my left toe.

We don't define god, or a god, we just look at images of god. "Creator" is a monistic image of a substance for everything that is.

Personality is one thing that is.

I don't know what "the being(-ness) of everything" means.

Everything is. It has beingness about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The image of infinity broken down into 'bits' called god is not the same as the image of infinity as god that is meaningless to attempt to break down (because you just get more god).

Why's that meaningless?

I see this as effectively saying "we can't break down what we call 'God' into smaller pieces, because then we'd be polytheists." So? What's wrong with being a polytheist?

God is my left toe.

We don't define god, or a god, we just look at images of god. "Creator" is a monistic image of a substance for everything that is.

Personality is one thing that is.

So then God does not have just one personality?

Then it seems to me that God cannot be called one god. IMO, in the situation you describe, it would be more appropriate to say that there are an infinite number of gods... or that god is not quantified at all.

IMO, monotheism implies that God is quantifiable, and that the quantity of God is exactly 1. It seems to me that you're implying that God is not quantifiable, which would mean that the label "monotheism" would not apply.

Everything is. It has beingness about it.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I can only interpret this description as a deepity.

 

[waitasec]

Isn't that in fact a claim that there are other gods? If there were none there would be no point in that request (or order, or whatever).

Besides, IIRC the OT was written with the Jewish people in mind, so the most natural interpretation of that verse would be that YHWY wants dibs on that people, yet recognizes that other gods do exist and will be adopted by other people.

As for Corinthians, well, what I see is a statement of fear of God's power. That is hardly any sort of evidence about the existence of other gods.

or that WE become our own god...

 

[Willamena]

Why's that meaningless?

At least in my opinion, it is meaningless to "break it down" when the concept of "breaking it down" nets you what you began with.

So then God does not have just one personality?

"God" doesn't "have", which implies ownership, which implies a 'bit' (an agency of ownership). "God" is ownership. With conscious experience, we bit-ify the world, and while we can bitify god, it ends up being meaningless. (I use "God" in quotes to refer to the image of God.)

As you can see, I favour the monistic image. It makes more sense to me.

Then it seems to me that God cannot be called one god. IMO, in the situation you describe, it would be more appropriate to say that there are an infinite number of gods... or that god is not quantified at all.

IMO, monotheism implies that God is quantifiable, and that the quantity of God is exactly 1. It seems to me that you're implying that God is not quantifiable, which would mean that the label "monotheism" would not apply.

Monism is a tricky thing to grasp. Suffice it to say the god cannot be said to be either quantifiable or not quantifiable.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I can only interpret this description as a deepity.

Nope, it's just plain English.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At least in my opinion, it is meaningless to "break it down" when the concept of "breaking it down" nets you what you began with.

That doesn't make it meaningless. It might make it pointless, but that doesn't mean that a person couldn't do precisely that.

"God" doesn't "have", which implies ownership, which implies a 'bit' (an agency of ownership). "God" is ownership. With conscious experience, we bit-ify the world, and while we can bitify god, it ends up being meaningless. (I use "God" in quotes to refer to the image of God.)

If God doesn't "have" in general, then God doesn't "have" a single personality or a single identity. This would imply that the label "monotheism" would be incorrect.

As you can see, I favour the monistic image. It makes more sense to me.

But to others, a polytheistic view of God/pantheon makes more sense to them. Is your monist view of God only a matter of personal preference? If so, can it be disregarded as such?

Monism is a tricky thing to grasp. Suffice it to say the god cannot be said to be either quantifiable or not quantifiable.

So describing it as monotheism is sometimes inappropriate?

Nope, it's just plain English.

In plain English, I read your statement as a tautology that didn't actually explain what it purported to explain.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't make it meaningless. It might make it pointless, but that doesn't mean that a person couldn't do precisely that.

When what we're breaking down (everything) is essentially linguistic in nature, I think "meaningless" is an entirely appropriate descriptor.

If God doesn't "have" in general, then God doesn't "have" a single personality or a single identity. This would imply that the label "monotheism" would be incorrect.

Right. Not a "single" identity --that would be a 'bit'-god, and we already covered that. I favour the monistic image in my monotheism, over the dualistic.

But to others, a polytheistic view of God/pantheon makes more sense to them. Is your monist view of God only a matter of personal preference? If so, can it be disregarded as such?

Can you unlearn something once you've learned it? Apart from learning something else that supercedes it, I mean. Once an image of god is acquired, it defines your "-ism".

So describing it as monotheism is sometimes inappropriate?

Say again? Describing what? I haven't intentionally indicated or implied anything as inappropriate.

In plain English, I read your statement as a tautology that didn't actually explain what it purported to explain.

How about, "The power of creation"? Was that tautology too?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When what we're breaking down (everything) is essentially linguistic in nature, I think "meaningless" is an entirely appropriate descriptor.

If all language is meaningless, then we can reject terms like "monotheism", "monism" and "god" as meaningless as well.

Right. Not a "single" identity --that would be a 'bit'-god, and we already covered that. I favour the monistic image in my monotheism, over the dualistic.

But again: if your "monotheism" includes a notion of godhood that doesn't consist of a single identity, then it's not actually monotheism.

Can you unlearn something once you've learned it? Apart from learning something else that supercedes it, I mean. Once an image of god is acquired, it defines your "-ism".

So it's not your position that a monotheistic view is correct?

Say again? Describing what? I haven't intentionally indicated or implied anything as inappropriate.

Describing monism.

You said "Suffice it to say the god cannot be said to be either quantifiable or not quantifiable."

To the extent that you cannot describe God as quantifiable, you cannot call monotheism applicable. Monotheism inherently implies that God is quantifiable. It says that God has the quantity of 1 - that's the whole essence of the term.

How about, "The power of creation"?

That leaves us back with what I said before: "power" implies potential. Potential to do something does not necessarily imply actually doing that thing... but you objected to this for some reason.

 

[Willamena]

If all language is meaningless, then we can reject terms like "monotheism", "monism" and "god" as meaningless as well.

All language is not meaningless. That's nothing I said.

But again: if your "monotheism" includes a notion of godhood that doesn't consist of a single identity, then it's not actually monotheism.

And we're back to the beginning, where I specified monotheism as belief in the only god. The monistic image is valid for "monotheism".

So it's not your position that a monotheistic view is correct?

"Correct" is irrelevant. Monotheism describes the image of God that I've acquired.

Describing monism.

You said "Suffice it to say the god cannot be said to be either quantifiable or not quantifiable."

To the extent that you cannot describe God as quantifiable, you cannot call monotheism applicable. Monotheism inherently implies that God is quantifiable. It says that God has the quantity of 1 - that's the whole essence of the term.

Oh, I see. I don't accept that monotheism implies that God is quantifiable. I prefer the monistic image of god. I cannot describe god at all, any more than I could describe everything; and monotheism is applicable because it applies to the image of god that I hold.

Hope that helps.

That leaves us back with what I said before: "power" implies potential. Potential to do something does not necessarily imply actually doing that thing... but you objected to this for some reason.

I don't object to it --it's a lovely image. I was asked for my image, and it's just not the same image. Potential is a type of power, the before-actualization power. Creation is an image of after-actualization power. Both can describe god, depending (I think) on one's image of conscious self as occuring post-universe vs. present- or pre-universe. I've seen both done well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All language is not meaningless. That's nothing I said.

Then what did you mean?

And we're back to the beginning, where I specified monotheism as belief in the only god. The monistic image is valid for "monotheism".

But then you went on to expand on this in ways that would be inconsistent with monotheism.

"Correct" is irrelevant. Monotheism describes the image of God that I've acquired.

Ah - so this has all been off-topic?

Oh, I see. I don't accept that monotheism implies that God is quantifiable.

"Mono" implies "one". "One" is a quantity. The distinction between monotheism and polytheism is entirely a matter of quantity. If God is not quantifiable, then monotheism and polytheism are indistinguishable from each other.

Also, quantity is implicit in that word "only" that you like to use.

I prefer the monistic image of god. I cannot describe god at all, any more than I could describe everything; and monotheism is applicable because it applies to the image of god that I hold.

Hope that helps.

So none of what you've said has actually been about god (i.e. the subject of the thread), but only about your image of god?

I don't object to it --it's a lovely image. I was asked for my image, and it's just not the same image. Potential is a type of power, the before-actualization power. Creation is an image of after-actualization power. Both can describe god, depending (I think) on one's image of conscious self as occuring post-universe vs. present- or pre-universe. I've seen both done well.

I don't see how what you describe works. If your form of "all-powerful" implies that everything has been "actualized"... i.e. that there is nothing that hasn't happened, yet there are plenty of things that haven't happened.