Monotheists: why only one god?

[rational experiences]

Human scientists said O earth is one God only. Don't ever use self presence human plus heavens in any O planet thesis.

As O one God planet is self owned in position one cosmic space.

Hence human science was not allowed to use the heavenly support in any thesis. As the thesis would be fake advice.

As O planet was with space zero.

One God.

So science was only meant to invent supportive earth natural sciences with little atmospheric or life change.

Using the earth's machinations wind water thermal etc.

But as those conditions are not money makers in trade they were ignored as rich men care less about anyone but their self idolised life style.

As a fact is a human behaviour warning. Human behaviour greedy man's choice was the taught human destroyer warning.

 

[rational experiences]

It supports the knowledge that God is outside time and space. From what I currently understand, creation is contained, albeit beyond calculations, and God is uncontained.

It is also possible to traverse time and space easily and swiftly.

"......for any movement animated by love moveth from the periphery to the centre, from space to the Day-Star of the universe. Perchance thou deemest this to be difficult, but I tell thee that such cannot be the case, for when the motivating and guiding power is the divine force of magnetism it is possible, by its aid, to traverse time and space easily and swiftly...." Abdul'baha

Regards Tony

As heavens owns space within as the hot dense mass that stretched it into clear cold. Infinity was hence the cold gas.

No space time.

Time to a human is a gas burning. As you count by cycles O. Earth spins and cycles round sun.

But does it spin without a heating cooling heavens? Your Scientists question direct.

O earth by itself was the deity that created the heavens hence no heavenly gas thesis was allowed.

One God exact position O earth only.

 

[KWED]

One can believe whatever they like, and construct arguments to support their case,

Indeed. However, sometimes those argument are demonstrably flawed.

It is important to note that they CAN all be right .. on a core belief .. while they may be right or wrong in the details [ creed ].

..so your slogan is misleading. Surprise, surprise.

So 2+2=5 can be right (in the core belief that adding positive numbers together produces a higher value), just not in the details.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human isn't a planet science in fact is fake.

As earths stone body O owns itself as the planet then in a variable status to O one planet....the heavens as caused own no laws in fact.

Then a moon not even a planet you refer to is also not a law.

You begin to realise O planet earth was one position only and human science fake. As you get nearer to destruction you start arguing whose fault it is.

Pretty basic observed studied human healer advice as not ever science.

Natural human man the most intelligent non destructive thinker first.

Is just a humans advice.

Proven to Inherit by causes maybe the voice of scientists who use the machines. As the human body extensions a machine AI is built controlled by their thinking. So I got to hear their recorded voice as their thoughts know and control the machine.

I heard where they worked was in America.

Hence you don't know until you get taught.

Science wasn't known. It was pre recorded. A human never knew it.

A human was taught by changed evolution of our heavens that altered awareness. Stars fall.

The star mass like earth is its highest position. So it also owns no laws in science.

Science by human choice knowingly taught itself it was wrong. As science was fake a choice only.

You knew it was fake. You taught it was fake. Your ego however is out of control. The teaching was about a humans self destructive personality disorder.

Science telling science that science was wrong.

As you aren't a planet.

 

[leroy]

So you agree that positing one god contravenes Occam's Razor.

Yes if everything else is equal or equivalent the "no_ god" hypothesis should be preferred.

 

[leroy]

Good point.
How do monotheists know there is only one god? Because their god tells them there is. There might be other gods doing the same elsewhere in the universe. Perhaps their power is not sufficient to overcome the other gods? Perhaps they have come to a power-sharing agreement where they each keep to their agreed turf.
If those other gods do not make themselves known to us, how could we know they exist?

That is like asking ...

How do you know that abiogenesis happened once.....why not 2 or 5 or 10 times?


The answer
You dont know it....... but if one abiogenesis event is enough to explain the data we have, why adding extra events? (Okams razor)

The guy who claims that abiogenesis occured 10 times has the burden proof and has o explain why his 10 times hypothesis is better

 

[KWED]

It supports the knowledge that God is outside time and space.

It is entirely possible that there is no "outside space and time". Therefore if god resides there, he does not exist. QED.

From what I currently understand, creation is contained, albeit beyond calculations, and God is uncontained.

That is not "understanding". That is just speculation.

It is also possible to traverse time and space easily and swiftly.
"......for any movement animated by love moveth from the periphery to the centre, from space to the Day-Star of the universe. Perchance thou deemest this to be difficult, but I tell thee that such cannot be the case, for when the motivating and guiding power is the divine force of magnetism it is possible, by its aid, to traverse time and space easily and swiftly...." Abdul'baha

Regards Tony

Science fiction stories aren't necessarily true.

 

[KWED]

Yes if everything else is equal or equivalent the "no_ god" hypothesis should be preferred.

But of course, everything else is not equal. There is evidence and argument against the existence of specific gods of religion. Therefore "no god" is far more likely than god, yes?

 

[KWED]

That is like asking ...
How do you know that abiogenesis happened once.....why not 2 or 5 or 10 times?

It is entirely likely that it did happen more than once.

The answer
You dont know it....... but if one abiogenesis event is enough to explain the data we have, why adding extra events? (Okams razor)

Incorrect use of Occam's Razor (note spelling).
The same event happening twice is not an extra layer of convexity and the event had been explained. That would be like saying that there should only be one of everything.

The guy who claims that abiogenesis occured 10 times has the burden proof and has o explain why his 10 times hypothesis is better

Abiogenesis happening is a better explanation than it not happening because it explains the origin of life with the fewest unsupported assumptions. If it is possible, then it is possible. Happening twice does not make it less possible.

I think you misunderstand how Occam's razor works. It doesn't mean that the same thing should only happen once. It means that an explanation that requires fewer assumptions is better. Abiogenesis happening more than once is not an assumption about the possibility of abiogenesis happening in the first place.

 

[syo]

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

In christianity, one God is enough. He only does miracles.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

It is entirely likely that it did happen more than once.

Incorrect use of Occam's Razor (note spelling).
The same event happening twice is not an extra layer of convexity and the event had been explained. That would be like saying that there should only be one of everything.

Abiogenesis happening is a better explanation than it not happening because it explains the origin of life with the fewest unsupported assumptions. If it is possible, then it is possible. Happening twice does not make it less possible.

I think you misunderstand how Occam's razor works. It doesn't mean that the same thing should only happen once. It means that an explanation that requires fewer assumptions is better. Abiogenesis happening more than once is not an assumption about the possibility of abiogenesis happening in the first place.

Occam's razor is also spelled Ockham's and Ocham's, known as the Law of Parsimony according to wikipedia.

Have you come across Sir Roger Penrose's "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" (CCC) theory?

If so, do you give it any credence? Think it has any plausibility?​

Your explanation of Occam's and repetition got me thinking of it...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In christianity, one God is enough. He only does miracles.

"Enough" for what?

 

[syo]

"Enough" for what?

Enough for a miracle doer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Enough for a miracle doer.

Implying what?

If you're God is "enough" for everything, well, why would this preclude the existence of other gods any more than it precludes the existence of anything else?

I mean, is God "enough" without you? Yet here you are.

 

[1213]

...
Perhaps the universe has different gods of equivalent rank in their own galaxies (for example). ...

Why call them gods? What would that mean?

 

[1213]

...So, even with religions that have multiple Gods, it seems like most have on main, dominate God. So, really... how different are they?

To me the difference comes from what they say.

 

[leroy]

But of course, everything else is not equal. There is evidence and argument against the existence of specific gods of religion. Therefore "no god" is far more likely than god, yes?

Each God stands or falls under his own merits. Disproving one God (say the Wind God) doesn’t disprove any other God.

If you have evidence against the specific God of Christianity and assumign we dont have evidence againts naturalism, then naturalism would win.

 

[leroy]

It is entirely likely that it did happen more than once.

Incorrect use of Occam's Razor (note spelling).
The same event happening twice is not an extra layer of convexity and the event had been explained. That would be like saying that there should only be one of everything.

Abiogenesis happening is a better explanation than it not happening because it explains the origin of life with the fewest unsupported assumptions. If it is possible, then it is possible. Happening twice does not make it less possible.

I think you misunderstand how Occam's razor works. It doesn't mean that the same thing should only happen once. It means that an explanation that requires fewer assumptions is better. Abiogenesis happening more than once is not an assumption about the possibility of abiogenesis happening in the first place.

Then why do scientists claim that there is a universal common ancestor (an ancestor of all life) ? why not 2 or 10 or 100 ancestors?

O.R. Simply states that you shouldn’t add stuff beyond necessity, if one universal common ancestor is enough to explain all the data, then we shouldn’t postulate 2 ancestors (unless you have an argument for preferring 2 over 1)

it doesn't mean that the same thing should only happen once

“Should” is a very strong Word. I never said that it most always be that way, just that “once” should be preferred over “twice” if once is enough to explain the data. (and twice doesn’t add any value to the hypothesis)

If you live 2 USD in your desk and then you can´t find them….then the hypothesis: “1 person stole the money” is more parsimonious than “2 people stole your money” (1 usd each)

 

[KW]

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?

Ultimately, there is only one. You can keep kicking the can back up the road but creation starts with a single entity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is not "understanding". That is just speculation.

Unless one has embrace God's Messengers, then it can be a sound understanding, just as sound and valid as scientific knowledge, as all knowledge is relative.

Regards Tony