Monotheists: why only one god?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

"There is only one original god" <> "there is only one god"

As has been pointed out a few times now, there are plenty of polytheistic religions that believe that one original creator-god created a whole pantheon of other gods.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

But in some creation myths, the cosmos creates the gods, not vice versa.

 

[syo]

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.

In christianity, other gods simply don't exist. There's no reason for other gods to exist.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In christianity, other gods simply don't exist. There's no reason for other gods to exist.

Well, Yahweh can’t bring John the Baptist back to life but Isis pieced Her Husband together after getting chopped into fish bait and He was fine.

 

[KWED]

Why call them gods? What would that mean?

Why not, if they have godlike attributes?

 

[KWED]

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

Which is what I said.

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

The Bible makes claims by/about god that are wrong.
There is no evidence against naturalism.
Therefore we can dismiss god in favour of natural explanations (which is what we actually do in almost every case).

 

[leroy]

Which is what I said.

The Bible makes claims by/about god that are wrong.
There is no evidence against naturalism.
Therefore we can dismiss god in favour of natural explanations (which is what we actually do in almost every case).

Sure if you can support those claims naturalism would win

 

[KWED]

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?

Because all the other instances became extinct before producing their own evolutionary tree that survived long enough to leave physical remains?
Science does not claim that the LUA was the first life on earth.

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)

Not claiming 2 or more ancestors. Only that abiogenesis may well have happened more than once.

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)

But the best explanation is that "your money was stolen by person or persons unknown" (which is why that is the legal terminology). Making guesses about specifically how many people were involved does not add to the explanation but increases the chance of it being wrong.

 

[KWED]

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

Nope, that is still just speculation. And confirmation bias.
Without evidence for said god, you cannot claim any "knowledge" of it. Therefore any subsequent claims about "messengers" are similarly speculation.

Look, I understand that you really believe in the stuff you believe in, but that doesn't make it factual. It is basically an opinion.

 

[KWED]

Sure if you can support those claims naturalism would win

Well, there are certainly things in the Bible that are wrong. The great flood, for example. Never happened.
And my claim about naturalism holds true until someone presents conclusive evidence against it. Which no one has thus far in human history.

So I guess we agree that naturalism triumphs over god.
(This is where you simply deny the evidence and fall back on faith and dogma)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Look, I understand that you really believe in the stuff you believe in, but that doesn't make it factual. It is basically an opinion

It is more than an individual opinion. Is is proven and demonstrated by a Messenger of God. To even consider this as so, one needs to consider that there is more to life than material senses, which to many is as evident as the noon day sun.

So to me it is more factual than science. Science is a relative understanding bound to creation, that is only possible because of the Spiritual creation of God. So factual, that one would prefer death over the rejection of faith.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

Humans living all born babies living now as adults lie.

Lie by human indoctrinated nation all categories of false preaching. The past. Self idolise self a human through a brothers ideas of the sciences.

And how a natural living human survived life's attack by nuclear fallout. An event. An event life survived but continues to be sacrificed.

Ignored. You keep self idolising ignoring reality natural life now.

As the Jesus oh so holy return seen many times stigmata of a humans body whilst the dying actual sacrificed family die why you all go oooh and ahhhh...phenomena. About stigmata.

Thinking self special.

Yet a victim innocent of human family science machine theists ownership. Science claiming a machine they mind control to act out destructive attacks to one first God planet earth false preach and self idolising. Is holy.

And in your self idolising human blindness of your message by mind blindness you ignore why a human teaching was taught. About natural.spiritual hu man family owned consciousness.

It is human consciousness natural humans. Natural human owned spiritual consciousness healthy life.

Human.

A false preaching is the Christ consciousness. It's human consciousness actually.

CH wisdom is about hot burning gases like methane that changes burns poisons life living biology from earth mass released. Burnt above us out of immaculate.

CH evaluations all done by a human theist thinker human scientist only.

Ignored ...anti Christ wasn't about holy Christ anti Christ was the changed body the holy Immaculate back to a burning spirit. By human Satanists scientists.

Who time shifted immaculate evolved space gas body into burning themselves. Losing lifes ground protection.

Ignored relativity about first position is human consciousness human teaching.

Who claimed I warned them... don't believe in old wrong science Egyptian teaching Muslim mind inherited. Star preaching.

Don't let the belief of an unholy life burning shroud Turin attack fool you. Star burning returned changed the natural mind.

Chemical human brain effects is a drug induced euphoria. Only asserted upon the victims biologies biological human owned bio chemistry the warning.

Ignored totally as you continue to human idolise science.

Science terms that only human's in human presence theories about as present living history man's.

Science became the branch of rich man's portion of his criminal activity. To invent a trade so he could become richer as just a human.

Science today says you know just a human owns the thesis thought first as science.

Yes I know you brother caused all of life's problems by your false preaching. Thanks for agreeing with humans life murder.







Science.

 

[KWED]

It is more than an individual opinion. Is is proven and demonstrated by a Messenger of God.

*sigh* Not this again.
It has not been "proven" or "demonstrated" at all. You merely believe it. You accept anecdote and assertion as "evidence". It is a common flaw amongst apologists.
You cannot even "prove" or "demonstrate" that there is a god at all, let alone that a particular person was their "messenger".

To even consider this as so, one needs to consider that there is more to life than material senses, which to many is as evident as the noon day sun.

Of course there is. There is a whole universe that exists at sub-atomic and quantum levels, undetectable by our natural senses, but that doesn't make it supernatural.

If you are claiming that there is a supernatural level to life, you will need to produce some evidence or rational argument rather than just belief and opinion. Good luck with that, because people have been trying and failing for millennia.

So to me it is more factual than science.

Oh dear god! How do you expect your claims to be taken seriously when you say things like that? Perhaps you don't?

Science is a relative understanding bound to creation, that is only possible because of the Spiritual creation of God. So factual, that one would prefer death over the rejection of faith.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh dear god! How do you expect your claims to be taken seriously when you say things like that? Perhaps you don't?

Yes I really do not give a hoot as to how you see what was offered, your choice.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

Yes I really do not give a hoot as to how you see what was offered, your choice.

Regards Tony

You claimed that your feelings about how the universe should be are "more factual than science". That perfectly illustrates the lack of reason or critical thinking employed for you to arrive at such a conclusion.
You basically refute your own position.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You claimed that your feelings about how the universe should be are "more factual than science". That perfectly illustrates the lack of reason or critical thinking employed for you to arrive at such a conclusion.
You basically refute your own position.

When we understand where all knowledge comes from, it is amusing that we consider we have any intelligence.

Regards Tony

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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

Maybe, as a starting point, you may want to have them define or clarify what a god is and what it is not in their beleif system.

Having them define, in their religion, what their word means and what it doesn't mean will make it easier for you to figure out why some say there can only be one vs. someone who says there are many.

i.e. a god being a deity vs. a source from which everything comes from can easily be two completely different concepts in some ancient cultures. Thus, one culture may call something a god, in their language, that another culture, in their language, may called said same thing an aspect of nature or an element of how the natural world works, irregardless if someone worships it or not.

 

[KWED]

When we understand where all knowledge comes from, it is amusing that we consider we have any intelligence.

Still going hard with the meaningless platitudes, I see (although I agree that it is amusing to see how some people abuse their own intelligence).

The problem you have is that you consider "opinion" and "belief" to be "knowledge". They are not the same thing.
Knowledge is when we have evidence and rational argument to support opinion or belief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Still going hard with the meaningless platitudes, I see (although I agree that it is amusing to see how some people abuse their own intelligence).

The problem you have is that you consider "opinion" and "belief" to be "knowledge". They are not the same thing.
Knowledge is when we have evidence and rational argument to support opinion or belief.

Meaningless to some, the greatest wisdom for others, such is the quandary of relative knowledge.

Baha'u'llah has given some interesting meditations on Knowledge, that I see is the highest possible standard of knowledge.

"..Knowledge is one point, which the foolish have multiplied...Bahá’u’lláh, The Ki tab-i-Ian, p. 183

". The source of all learning is the knowledge of God, exalted be His Glory, and this cannot be attained save through the knowledge of His Divine Manifestation..." Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 156

Abdul'baha, to me, gives us the best of thoughts, it is up to us to embrace, or not.

". Is it not astonishing that although man has been created for the knowledge and love of God, for the virtues of the human world, for spirituality, heavenly illumination and life eternal, nevertheless he continues ignorant and negligent of all this? Consider how he seeks knowledge of everything except knowledge of God..." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 64

Yes, I know, meaningless platitudes to you

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

Well, there are certainly things in the Bible that are wrong. The great flood, for example. Never happened.

Ok so any religion that is dependent on the truth of the global flood is wrong

And my claim about naturalism holds true until someone presents conclusive evidence against it. Which no one has thus far in human history.

You are raising the bar unrealistically to high........why not the other way arround ? Theism holds true until you present conclusive evidence against it?

Or a better idea , why not setting the bar at a realistic level , "if God is a better explanation than nature, for a specific phenomenon / observation / event " theism