Monotheists: why only one god?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what he said.
You asked him about multiple gods, and he said that 'one' is a better explanation [ occams razor]

Right: one god, doing all the things attributed to gods, is a "better" explanation in the same sense that one criminal, doing all the things attributed to criminals, is a "better" explanation.

(i.e. it's an awful, ridiculous explanation that violates Occam’s Razor and would need some pretty serious support to be a reasonable conclusion)

 

[leroy]

Let me put it this way: do you think that Occam's Razor suggests that all unsolved crimes were commited by one individual super-criminal? After all, there are fewer "entities" that way.

If one criminal is enough to explain all crimes OR says that you should prefer the 1 criminal hypothesis over the 2 or 3 or 10 criminal hypothesis (unless additional evidence is provided in support of the many criminal hypothesis)

It violates Occam’s Razor to assert a whole new class of thing (e.g. an omnipotent god or an international super-criminal) when it isn't necessary.

What I said is that on the basis of Occam's Razor, it is better to assert an omnipotent God rather than 2 or 3 or 10 or 1000 omnipotent gods (answering to the OP)

Do you still think that I am abususing Occam's Razor? Or are you willing to admit that I am correctly this principle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If one criminal is enough to explain all crimes OR says that you should prefer the 1 criminal hypothesis over the 2 or 3 or 10 criminal hypothesis (unless additional evidence is provided in support of the many criminal hypothesis)

So you do think that - in the absence of other evidence - it's reasonable to credit all unsolved crimes to a single unknown super-criminal than it is to assume they were dome by many different unknown criminals?

This is insane.

What I said is that on the basis of Occam's Razor, it is better to assert an omnipotent God rather than 2 or 3 or 10 or 1000 omnipotent gods (answering to the OP)

Do you still think that I am abususing Occam's Razor? Or are you willing to admit that I am correctly this principle.

Of course you're abusing Occam’s Razor.

To get to theism at all, we'd need to assume the existence of all the things gods would need to be possible and to do what they're purported to do.

For monotheism, on top of all that, we'd also need to assume whatever mechanism that would be needed to limit the number of gods to one. Can you even say what such a mechanism could be?

Let's set aside for a moment whether it would be reasonable to assume that such a mechanism might exist; can you even coherently express what it would take to stop a god from existing?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Right: one god, doing all the things attributed to gods, is a "better" explanation in the same sense that one criminal, doing all the things attributed to criminals, is a "better" explanation..

No .. Many people are KNOWN to exist.
Many gods are not known to exist.

"simpler hypotheses are generally better than the complex ones"

What is "a god"?
Is it not something we attribute authority to?

It is much simpler to imagine One authority, rather than multiple ones. If there were multiple gods, then which god makes the final decisions etc.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God is jealous of other Gods. God's love sends atheists to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity. (Love hurts). God's love allows pain, disease, hunger, and suffering. (Love hurts).

lol when Egypt played with monotheism, it was all about money.

 

[Nakosis]

I think I asked this a few years ago and didn't get much of a response, so I figured I'd ask again:

Those of you who are monotheists: how do you justify your position that two or more gods do not exist?

I mean, we've seen all the threads here directed at atheists about burden of proof and the like, and plenty of theists - often monotheists, ironically - have gone on at length about the problems they see with the conclusion that no gods exist.

... but here's the thing: if these problems are problems at all, they don't just apply to atheism. All the objections along the lines of "well, what if there's some god out there that you haven't noticed?" work just as well for a second god to a monotheist as a first god for an atheist.

So these objections to atheists saying "there are no gods" can really be seen as expressions of a larger idea: if you think only a specific number of gods exist and no more than that - whether it's 0, 1, 3, or 94 - how do you know there aren't more gods than that?

A lot of the responses to this question I've seen from atheists have been some form of argument that gods are impossible in general... but of course these arguments aren't available to a monotheist.

So monotheists: what gives? Why not two gods? Why not 10?

Easier to control the belief/people if you insist everyone follow the same God.

Christianity was developed into a state religion to control the masses. You define the God. You define the requirements of the belief for the benefit of the state.

We it comes to modern religion, you taught it in childhood. It gets embedded into your subconscious and consciously monotheism feels right to you.

The only benefit I can see is as a means to excert control over people via their beliefs.

I'm sure people will come up with a million ways to justify it because it feels right to them. No logic to it really. Just their subconscious telling them it is how it ought to be.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans first. I'm human. You're human. Your conscious aware first the human only about self survival.

Then you believe in practicing human only science.

You get told by family geez you're ignorant arrogant and not correct. As we own those observed reviews of all things first. And it's about others as human first just behaviours. Behaviours that first destroyed all life. Machine and human artefacts found instant snap frozen inside fused mass.

Behaviours that attacked all life leaving it sick and mutated. Moses

Behaviours that did it again. Numbered as three times said the review...Jesus.

Now we are at number four. As major attack isn't activated yet. As it's after the fact the story.

So men a world family community said let's practice religion instead. It didn't stop him.

Men who took over his science temple and used it for ceremony only. Not science.

As it's the machine not the building...practice of science. He just builds machines elsewhere.

So my holy brother who said hierarchy is my wrong has to now be loyal and just in behaviours only. Legal.

Stating no man is God. The greatest highest creator term is any or all presence. One not many.

Many of God meant why highest law allowed to exist. Why it's legal said men.

So today greedy men who want all things...control of all things. . Bio mind and bio body by machines...computers satellites signals transmitters as mind contact mind coercion. Claim I want God.

By machines I want control of everything I see and name.

I want biology to be part machine as my god is the machine. My contacts by machine and my control a machine as a machine.

Reason why men said no man is God. He's not conscious with us anymore.

Therefore wanting to control everything he sees...claiming science is first only human observation. Means it's why you aren't God.

He looks sees everything.

Said it's all god. Yet everything isn't God. It exists as it's owned self. Any thing.

So his brother said one word by cojoined letters are as symbols. As science explaining is O presence first body type origin by G spin spiral O DD.

As he is after all just a man walking on a planets mass first O. Body O. Created but creating and still reacting hence creator by review.

Reacting means no end. Why science lied as all things are still transitioning by interactive reactions.

O has core heat all bodies I as O...DD. planet type. Cooling above moves the same ways. Observed. To realise. To teach.

DD remains as O as reacting being why a creator is creating and remains cooling. So is saving too. Creator creating saving protecting by cooling.

The review.

GOD hence the creator type is still cooling all things

So what isn't a cell is like dusts that don't own a natural core heat. As it was destroyed. To be dusts.

So man realised he could access it as not God and react convert it.

Why no man is God.

As our biology temperature is moderated itself. It's to keep biology stable as cells need cell health and blood bone by temperature. We depend on ice saviour and cooled water and cooled heavens spirits gases.

A teaching only. Right now is the human. Past origin human as now dusts isn't observation...science by it's laws...human.

So Christ gases immaculate history was cooled and only owned by mother space womb. Laws of the past.

Men causes by sciences non control of the heavens mass. Heavens cannot be stopped changing was for sun mass UFO to cross over. Spirit mass outs immaculate protection fell burning. Our gases. Sacrificed life.

So men said Jesus saved the Christ gases above. Now not the word G O D.

Explanation letters sent...owned causes. Meant men calculated design by angles. Calculated O with angles were letters. Letters given a numerical calculated value. The sciences by man.

So you O use a circle in science as GOD body held above cooling flow release.

Inside O you Angle J E S U S. It regarded how the cell function above then cooled. Not acting as G O D had...as inheritor G O D is G O D. The highest so it's natural.

Changed life was sacrificed from above stated men in review. As cells no longer functioned as coldest type.

Caused by temple pyramid science. Fall out. Nuclear above.

Man changed the symbolic angles of gas mass intertwined above in clouds mass body presence. So jESUS the body movement spirit gases above then saved.

JESUS science said now is acting on behalf of GOD above. Motion changed so cooling saving changed by less body mass present...pressures and is a less stated body mass. Up until the heavens remasses in a proposed non nuclear future. Their rich man's hypocrite promise.

Science is now taking the saviour away. They already said they will as they knew. And it's their minds that correlated the advice. Life conscious aware in science says it will give it to new machines reacting until the human population on earth is eradicated.

We aren't needed anymore as future thesis of men claim machines now will serve them. Men claiming by status as I'll be part machine only. All theories in just a humans mind is our warning.

Their beliefs their answers their reasoning.

As science brothers in many places make all the assessments themselves. As a natural human first once just a baby is of no control...mutual life position.

Now Predict it's occurrence only because science is a controlled human only practice.

Why they predict..I must now build underground. Sciences assessment a prediction. I must collect seeds. A science prediction. Population should be lessened. Introducing illness. All just by humans ...control of a human.

As they are in control of it happening.

Men of science stated predicted our life on earth this planet may be at its end. Laws hasn't ended it. Where does his thought come from? His own human assessment of human behaviour and science...just a humans chosen practice.

As God kills us with man's very own hands.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Easier to control the belief/people if you insist everyone follow the same God.

I've known plenty of monotheists in my life, Jews, Christians, a smattering of Muslims.... I have yet to meet a single one of them that was interested in controlling other people with religion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

For those whose god is a creator, it seems awkward to picture different gods creating different things, IMO.

It’s like Elon Musk claiming to create things when he is just watching other people do it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Polytheistic societies were destroyed by their absence in morals indirectly caused by their liberalness in deities. They had nothing strong to hold on to, other than eventually Caesar who acted as a god in himself which brought death to him and his corrupted republic.

Weird how polytheistic society usually has more millennia under its belt than any monotheistic society.

 

[Nakosis]

I've known plenty of monotheists in my life, Jews, Christians, a smattering of Muslims.... I have yet to meet a single one of them that was interested in controlling other people with religion.

I wasn't referring to the sheep.