Monotheists: why only one god?

[leroy]

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.

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

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.

Well I'll ask the same question that the OP

Why one UCA? Why not 2 or 3 or 10? Why one evolutionary tree for all life and not 2 or 3 or 10?

My suggestion is OR but you disagreed , so perhaps you have a better answer

 

[1213]

Why not, if they have godlike attributes?

Do you call all humans gods also, because they have godlike attributes?

 

[KWED]

Well I'll ask the same question that the OP

Why one UCA? Why not 2 or 3 or 10? Why one evolutionary tree for all life and not 2 or 3 or 10?

My suggestion is OR but you disagreed , so perhaps you have a better answer

Occam's razor does not apply because a multiplicity of the same thing does not add extra complexity.

If more than one instance of abiogenesis had existed and survived, there would simply be species with different universal ancestors. The explanatory power would not be altered or compromised.

 

[KWED]

Do you call all humans gods also, because they have godlike attributes?

What godlike attributes do humans have?

 

[KWED]

Meaningless to some, the greatest wisdom for others,

Hence "platitude".

such is the quandary of relative knowledge.

What quandary? Either something is known or it isn't.
By "relative knowledge" I assume you are referring to opinion and assertion?

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

Circular reasoning. By what independent measure do you grade Bahaullah's writings as "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

If knowledge has been increased, how can those increasing it be labelled "foolish"?

". 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

Obvious nonsense. A huge amount of knowledge is gained through observation, experiment, evidence, rational thought and critical analysis. In fact, pretty much every practical advance has been made through this method. I'm struggling to think of any major advancement of human knowledge that has been gained through prayer and worship.
With all dues respect, your man sounds like he was making it up as he went along.

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

More question begging. If you could be a little more open minded and look beyond your narrow "Abdulbaha is best at everything in the world and I love him!" paradigm, you might gain some genuine knowledge.

". 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

Considering that the majority of the population of the planet worships a god of some sort, your man would seem to be wrong again. Perhaps he just wasn't that "well-read" after all?

Yes, I know, meaningless platitudes to you

As you said earlier, some people find wisdom in meaningless platitudes. But they probably aren't using the standard definition of "wisdom" though.

 

[KWED]

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

Not necessarily. If its scriptures admit that they contain errors it isn't such a deal breaker.

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

Not so. The hard evidence for natural explanations and processes is all around us. Pretty much everything we do relies on them.
There is no such evidence for a universe that relies on the supernatural. Thought that was pretty obvious.

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

For god to be a better explanation than a natural process for any given event, we would need to have existing evidence of god being responsible for events.
Do you have any such evidence?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What quandary? Either something is known or it isn't.
By "relative knowledge" I assume you are referring to opinion and assertion?

Philosophy
the theory that all knowledge is relative to the mind, or that things can be known only through their effects on the mind, and that consequently there can be no knowledge of reality as it is in itself

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

Occam's razor does not apply because a multiplicity of the same thing does not add extra complexity.

Sure it does, winning the lottery once is more parsimonious than winning the lottery twice.

If more than one instance of abiogenesis had existed and survived, there would simply be species with different universal ancestors. The explanatory power would not be altered or compromised.

You didn’t answer my question , why do you (or scientists) claim that there is a universal common ancestor and not 2 or 3 or 10 ?

 

[leroy]

Not necessarily. If its scriptures admit that they contain errors it isn't such a deal breaker.

Not so. The hard evidence for natural explanations and processes is all around us. Pretty much everything we do relies on them.
There is no such evidence for a universe that relies on the supernatural. Thought that was pretty obvious.

For god to be a better explanation than a natural process for any given event, we would need to have existing evidence of god being responsible for events.
Do you have any such evidence?

All I am saying is that demanding for conclusive evidence is raising the bar unrealistically to high.

For god to be a better explanation than a natural process for any given event, we would need to have existing evidence of god being responsible for events.

Can’t you note the circularity of that reasoning?....... you are demanding prior evidnece for God before accepting any evidence for God.

 

[KWED]

Sure it does, winning the lottery once is more parsimonious than winning the lottery twice.

That's not really "extra complexity" or even another "unsupported assumption" - People win the lottery every week, so someone else winning the lottery doesn't really add anything difficult to explain.
But even by your flawed interpretation, multiple gods is still a very strong possibility as people do win the lottery twice.

You didn’t answer my question , why do you (or scientists) claim that there is a universal common ancestor and not 2 or 3 or 10 ?

You didn't ask that question. You asked "why only one UCA?", not "why do you believe there is only one UCA?"

Because there is evidence for one common ancestor, and no evidence for any more. Therefore it is reasonable to accept one and unreasonable to insist on two.
There is the same amount of evidence for one god as there is for two gods (none). So both claims occupy the same level of probability (unlikely).

 

[KWED]

Philosophy
the theory that all knowledge is relative to the mind, or that things can be known only through their effects on the mind, and that consequently there can be no knowledge of reality as it is in itself

Regards Tony

Well, that's obvious nonsense because some facts are independent of the perception of the observer.
However, it is interesting to see that you don't claim any absolute truth in your beliefs, only that they appear true to you. Which I would tend to agree with.

Also, "philosophy"? Pfft!

 

[KWED]

All I am saying is that demanding for conclusive evidence is raising the bar unrealistically to high.

Only if you are unable to provide any evidence for your claims. It is certainly not an unrealistic standard in many practical fields.

Can’t you note the circularity of that reasoning?....... you are demanding prior evidnece for God before accepting any evidence for God.

Not at all.
I am demanding evidence for the existence of god before you use the existence of god as part of an explanation for an observation.
That is critical thinking 101.

 

[leroy]

That's not really "extra complexity" or even another "unsupported assumption" - People win the lottery every week, so someone else winning the lottery doesn't really add anything difficult to explain.
But even by your flawed interpretation, ssibility as people do win the lottery twice.

If you bought a new car and the money that corresponds to one lottery is enough to buy that car, then the explanation.

1 you bought the car because you won the lottery once

Would be more parsimonious and preferred over

2 you bought the car because you won the lottery twice.

If one lottery is enough to explain the evidence there is no need to postulate 2 loterries unless you have additional evidence in favor of the 2 lottery hypothesis.

multiple gods is still a very strong possibility

For example (related to the Kalam cosmological argument)

If a single timeless spaceless inmaterial personal God is enough to explain the origin of the universe, why adding 2 or 3 or 30 extra Gods? (this is O.R.)

Plus the fact that there are theological reasons for why we claim 1 God and not 2, 3 or 30 Gods

You didn't ask that question. You asked "why only one UCA?", not "why do you believe there is only one UCA?"

Because there is evidence for one common ancestor, and no evidence for any more. Therefore it is reasonable to accept one and unreasonable to insist on two.
There is the same amount of evidence for one god as there is for two gods (none). So both claims occupy the same level of probability (unlikely).

What is the evidence for a UCA that would refute the possibility of 2 or 3 or 10 UCAs?

please do not ignore the red letters in your response.

 

[leroy]

Only if you are unable to provide any evidence for your claims. It is certainly not an unrealistic standard in many practical fields.

Well what can I say, I can’t provide conclusive evidence for God and I don’t think conclusive evidence is required to hold a rational view.

I don’t have conclusive evidence that my alleged mother really is my mother ether (I haven’t done any DNA tests) but it is still rational to hold the view that she is my mother…….

Not at all.
I am demanding evidence for the existence of god before you use the existence of god as part of an explanation for an observation.
That is critical thinking 101.

Well any evidence for God that is theoretically possible would be an observation (in the general sense of the word)…………… So that is circular reasoning.

I won’t accept any evidence for evolution (common ancestry) until you show that evolution is true on the first place. Cant you see the circularity of that logic?

 

[ppp]

I don’t have conclusive evidence that my alleged mother really is my mother ether (I haven’t done any DNA tests) but it is still rational to hold the view that she is my mother…….

It's not analogous. We have lots of evidence that humans exist. We have lots of evidence that mothers exist. We have lots of evidence that you exist. You don't have that for a god.

 

[leroy]

It's not analogous. We have lots of evidence that humans exist. We have lots of evidence that mothers exist. We have lots of evidence that you exist. You don't have that for a god.

If you are going to refute a comment, you are expected to deal with the actual point made in such comment.

My point being “demanding conclusive evidence for God is raising the bar unrealistically to high” one doesn’t need conclusive evidence to justify a rational view.

So ether agree with this point or refute the point.

 

[ppp]

If you are going to refute a comment, you are expected to deal with the actual point made in such comment.

You didn't make a point. Your comparison was disanalogous.

My point being “demanding conclusive evidence for God is raising the bar unrealistically to high” one doesn’t need conclusive evidence to justify a rational view.

"Unrealistically too high" is such fuzzy language. What makes it unrealistically too high? Where is the line of "realistically high"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I'll ask the same question that the OP

Why one UCA? Why not 2 or 3 or 10? Why one evolutionary tree for all life and not 2 or 3 or 10?

My suggestion is OR but you disagreed , so perhaps you have a better answer

That all just comes down to evidence.

There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says it would be impossible for abiogenesis to happen multiple times on the same planet, or for life to be seeded on a planet from somewhere else multiple times. It's just that the evidence tells us that this isn't what happened on Earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are going to refute a comment, you are expected to deal with the actual point made in such comment.

Well, no.

You don't become entitled to someone else's time and effort just because you made a crappy argument and someone pointed this out.

 

[leroy]

That all just comes down to evidence.

There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says it would be impossible for abiogenesis to happen multiple times on the same planet, or for life to be seeded on a planet from somewhere else multiple times. It's just that the evidence tells us that this isn't what happened on Earth.

Where is the evidence that abiogenesis only happened once? (besides Occam’s Razor)