Why "one God"?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If superfluous was characteristic of them rather than the set of people necessary to take care of the house, you'd have a case.

I think you're pointing toward a problem with the argument I was responding to: not only does "superfluous" not mean "non-existent" (or even "effectively non-existent"), in order to declare something superfluous, you have to assume a purpose for the thing. For someone to validly say that more than one god would bessuperfluous, they would have to know the entire purpose that a god is supposed to fulfill.

Was there an assertion made to that effect? I didn't see it.

Yes, there was. Levite said that he believed that God had "no physicality".

And even if you didn't bother to read his post, I pointed it out twice in my replies to you.

 

[Willamena]

I think you're pointing toward a problem with the argument I was responding to: not only does "superfluous" not mean "non-existent" (or even "effectively non-existent"), in order to declare something superfluous, you have to assume a purpose for the thing. For someone to validly say that more than one god would bessuperfluous, they would have to know the entire purpose that a god is supposed to fulfill.

Well said. I think everyone who uses the word "god" and intends for it to be meaningful in a sentence does just that.

Yes, there was. Levite said that he believed that God had "no physicality".

And even if you didn't bother to read his post, I pointed it out twice in my replies to you.

An idea, for example, has no physicality, nor does an abstract. Nor does a poetic image like "the name of God that we hold in our hearts." They are what they are without contradicting physicality. It just sounds to me like you're arguing a straw man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well said. I think everyone who uses the word "god" and intends for it to be meaningful in a sentence does just that.

You do? Why?

An idea, for example, has no physicality, nor does an abstract. Nor does a poetic image like "the name of God that we hold in our hearts." It just sounds to me like you're arguing a straw man.

Do you agree that the physical has physicality?

You brought forward the idea that there is "only God". This implies that everything, including physical things are aspects of God. This would imply that God has a physical aspect. This is incompatible with the idea that God has no physicality.

 

[ginaleanne]

There is only "ONE GOD".

why did you accept it? How does this make sense? What are its properties? (volume, weight, mass etc,). What was/is its necessity?

Please post your comments.
Thanking you

It makes me sense to me when I look at the beautiful photos of earth from space. We really aren't that big, in fact we are in space and that space I believe is God. It's impossible to put a face on God.

 

[Willamena]

You brought forward the idea that there is "only God". This implies that everything, including physical things are aspects of God. This would imply that God has a physical aspect. This is incompatible with the idea that God has no physicality.

"Physical" is the body of ideas about the world that express the characteristics and features of its nature. "Non-physical" is the body of ideas that express other features. One needn't be an "aspect" of the other.

You do? Why?

I believe that we do not accidentally use words to express our ideas, but intend instead to impart a very real picture of the world. To use the word "god," a purpose has been assumed and a meaning for the word, and to declare all but god superfluous has similar deliberate meaning.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Why G-d?
History.
Until the recent Age of Stupidity, where one is expected to believe in ONLY "matter; measure; and weight," humankind found that G-d existed.
if one studies the mythology; legends; and theologies of the various religions of Mankind, all roads lead to a single Creator; a single Force; a Singularity.
One G-d.
With the Age of Information came the Age of Stupidity - ie: "Can I feel it; touch it? Smell it? See it? Hear it? Taste it? No? Then it doesn't exist!"
Rav Shimshon Refuel Hirsch wrote, in a commentary written over 150 years ago, on the relationship between the brother's Esav and Yaakov in the Torah that (paraphrasing his words): The struggle of Mankind is the struggle between the different paths of Esav and Yaakov.
Yaakov believes that the things of this world - family life; one's work life; social life; political struggles; are all for the purposes of developing Kindness; morality; Justice; and all other virtues that come from G-d.
Esav believes that the things of this world - family life; etc., are all for the purposes of developing dominance in This World; triumphing over the material world of Life.

These are different paths.
Again, up until the late 20th Century, in spite of the incredible desire and allure of the life of an Esav, it was a given that the path of Yaakov was the preferred path for Mankind.
This has changed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Physical" is the body of ideas about the world that express the characteristics and features of its nature. "Non-physical" is the body of ideas that express other features. One needn't be an "aspect" of the other.

"Physical things" is a subset of "all things". If there is only God (i.e. if God is everything), then all physical things are part of God.

... unless no physical things exist. That's not what you're arguing, is it?

I believe that we do not accidentally use words to express our ideas, but intend instead to impart a very real picture of the world. To use the word "god," a purpose has been assumed and a meaning for the word, and to declare all but god superfluous has similar deliberate meaning.

It has an important difference: declaring something superfluous doesn't only imply that you've assumed a purpose for the thing; it also implies that it can have no purpose other than the ones you've identified. That's where the problem lies: many (most?) theists maintain that they DON'T know God's entire purpose. "God works in mysterious ways" and all that.

 

[JustWondering]

In re-incarnation virtually no one has any knowledge of their past life, and only a hand full have (theoretically) some vague and fragmentary glimpses of a past life. So the idea that I am to be reborn until I can morally progress enough until I am enlightened is betray by the fact I can learn nothing from my past life. Take me and you, we have no memory of our past lives nor of what we previously did wrong or right so how in the world can we improve on them. And if a chicken or gopher in a past life how much moral reasoning am I capable of especially since they would have no memory of a past life either.

I came to the same conclusion about reincarnation. Learning requires memory, simple as that. The main point I meant to demonstrate by asking this question was to show how critical thinking, when applied objectively can reveal flaws in the claims of supernatural belief systems. I applied the same level of scrutiny to Christianity's claims and decided Christianity was another man-made religion. One thought I have about a creator god is that it wouldn't need to directly intervene in humanities business to get what it wanted. A true creator god would have programmed our DNA to ensure that we demonstrated the behaviors it wanted from us. No scriptures, prophets, or other unnecessary nonsense required, we would be and act as we were intended to. A true creator wouldn't need to push a religion on us. That's just my two cents on the topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why G-d?
History.
Until the recent Age of Stupidity, where one is expected to believe in ONLY "matter; measure; and weight," humankind found that G-d existed.
if one studies the mythology; legends; and theologies of the various religions of Mankind, all roads lead to a single Creator; a single Force; a Singularity.
One G-d.
With the Age of Information came the Age of Stupidity - ie: "Can I feel it; touch it? Smell it? See it? Hear it? Taste it? No? Then it doesn't exist!"
Rav Shimshon Refuel Hirsch wrote, in a commentary written over 150 years ago, on the relationship between the brother's Esav and Yaakov in the Torah that (paraphrasing his words): The struggle of Mankind is the struggle between the different paths of Esav and Yaakov.
Yaakov believes that the things of this world - family life; one's work life; social life; political struggles; are all for the purposes of developing Kindness; morality; Justice; and all other virtues that come from G-d.
Esav believes that the things of this world - family life; etc., are all for the purposes of developing dominance in This World; triumphing over the material world of Life.

These are different paths.
Again, up until the late 20th Century, in spite of the incredible desire and allure of the life of an Esav, it was a given that the path of Yaakov was the preferred path for Mankind.
This has changed.

Not so fast. You don't get to claim kindness as the exclusive domain of religion.


Questions about how many of a given type of supernatural entity exist really don't have anything to do with questions of virtue, ethics, or morality.

 

[Willamena]

"Physical things" is a subset of "all things". If there is only God (i.e. if God is everything), then all physical things are part of God.

... unless no physical things exist. That's not what you're arguing, is it?

I really don't follow you. I much prefer my way of looking at physical simply as one set of ideas about the world.

It has an important difference: declaring something superfluous doesn't only imply that you've assumed a purpose for the thing; it also implies that it can have no purpose other than the ones you've identified. That's where the problem lies: many (most?) theists maintain that they DON'T know God's entire purpose. "God works in mysterious ways" and all that.

Many theists hold God to be unknowable, yes, or even the unknowable--but that doesn't defy or deny 'entire purpose,' as its entire purpose is embodied in the meaning that is being conveyed by their use of the word, including, presumably, its implications and all it entails: the unknowable.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Not so fast. You don't get to claim kindness as the exclusive domain of religion.


Questions about how many of a given type of supernatural entity exist really don't have anything to do with questions of virtue, ethics, or morality.

There are no "virtue, ethics, or morality" without G-d.
Today's virtues are tomorrow's perversions without G-d.
And yesterday's perversions are today's virtues without G-d.

Nonetheless, I was pointing out that Purpose is what has mattered for the last several thousand years.
The purpose of your belief or non belief in "how many of a given type of supernatural entity... [and] questions of virtue, ethics, or morality" is to excel in This World; this material existence.
Which is fine. You should live and be well.

My point still remains that this fixation on This material World to the exclusion of G-d is a very recent phenomenon.
Or, to put it is modern terms - Belief in the material world of the senses to the exclusion of the non material world that cannot be proved by science, is an extremely young, and therefore untested and theoretical "scientific" belief.

 

[rrosskopf]

One thought I have about a creator god is that it wouldn't need to directly intervene in humanities business to get what it wanted. A true creator god would have programmed our DNA to ensure that we demonstrated the behaviors it wanted from us.

That assumes that every part of a man is created, and that no part of a man is eternal. The Jews believed that the spirits of men were separate, and came from a spirit world.

 

[1robin]

I came to the same conclusion about reincarnation. Learning requires memory, simple as that. The main point I meant to demonstrate by asking this question was to show how critical thinking, when applied objectively can reveal flaws in the claims of supernatural belief systems. I applied the same level of scrutiny to Christianity's claims and decided Christianity was another man-made religion. One thought I have about a creator god is that it wouldn't need to directly intervene in humanities business to get what it wanted. A true creator god would have programmed our DNA to ensure that we demonstrated the behaviors it wanted from us. No scriptures, prophets, or other unnecessary nonsense required, we would be and act as we were intended to. A true creator wouldn't need to push a religion on us. That's just my two cents on the topic.

You need to quit showing so many recent signs of being thoughtful. It's throwing me off.

Your right that prior memory would be the primary pre-requisite for any rational idea of re-incarnation and you asked me for my personal opinions about it free from scripture but mountains of reasons exists to relegate Hinduism to the trash heap of man made religions that justify Christianity that I did not add to my post.

I would also agree that critical thinking dooms most religions. Most are in fact so fatally flawed from the get go as to never rise to be a going concern. And even most of the rest die with any intense study but using the same tests the same thinking that dooms other faiths has only increased my confidence in Christianity.

You might be interested to know that many Cabalist and even Hebrew theories on Genesis (which came long before any science to bend to) allowed for evolution (evolution actually appears in the bible for the first time in history) and long ages. The reason so many mistakenly think that evolution and a relatively older universe contradicts the bible is only one and narrow interpretation of a few verses in Genesis came to dominate all others (the Catholics hindered Christianity as much as they helped it) and they are ignorant of the verses about evolution. It in fact is no only not a threat but perfectly consistent.

I will differ with you about one possibility. He may have done so but I see no need for him to have created DNA specifically, he only needs to have created initial conditions that eventually produced what he ultimately desired. The only question that remains is a weak one. Why did he wait so long or use such a wasteful process but that only applies if he was limited by time and had promised efficiency, neither of which he did or is. It is compared to his being a painter who enjoyed creation instead of an assembly line producing products as fast and efficiently as possible.

One last comment. God would need to occasionally intervene in humanity if humanity had freewill but God had specific goals. If he promised miracles and prophecy or the prevailing of Israel in the end times then he must act at times to ensure they come about but he not need do so just to ensure we came about in nature. Initial conditions is where so many astronomically precise conditions must occur and exactly where they are found.

I am now starting to enjoy your posts. Good job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are no "virtue, ethics, or morality" without G-d.

Then there are no virtue, ethics, or morality with God, either.

The commands and pronouncements of a god, if moral, would point to an external morality that would be accessible without the god.

OTOH, if the commands and pronouncements of a god aren't based on anything other than his own whims, then how can they be said to be moral at all?

Today's virtues are tomorrow's perversions without G-d.
And yesterday's perversions are today's virtues without G-d.

Every culture's views on morality have changed over time, regardless of whether that culture is religious or not.

Nonetheless, I was pointing out that Purpose is what has mattered for the last several thousand years.
The purpose of your belief or non belief in "how many of a given type of supernatural entity... [and] questions of virtue, ethics, or morality" is to excel in This World; this material existence.
Which is fine. You should live and be well.

Don't presume to tell me what my purpose is.

My point still remains that this fixation on This material World to the exclusion of G-d is a very recent phenomenon.
Or, to put it is modern terms - Belief in the material world of the senses to the exclusion of the non material world that cannot be proved by science, is an extremely young, and therefore untested and theoretical "scientific" belief.

You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody believes that things outside the scope of science don't exist.

The closest thing that people actually believe is the view that for a belief to be reasonable, it should have a rational justification... and what's wrong with that, exactly?

It's not that things that aren't scientific don't exist; it's that if you don't have a rational basis for your claims, you're making stuff up. Could you coincidentally stumble on the right answer without any rational basis for your position? Maybe - a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all - but I'm not putting money on it.

 

[jreedmx]

I do not know about God so I do not know the nature of God unless I use the principle of resemblance to try to clarify the relationship. All things appear to resemble one another so I would think that the world resembles the creator in some way. If that is so by understanding this world i can understand God. I think everything exists and interacts in relationship to one another. So then God may also exist in relationship to us - or more specifically me, and each one of us individually in a unique way. Just as we relate to one another then I would think that God relates to each of us. So God is a being that interacts with me, and I with God. The more I interact then the greater the relationship and the greater the development of both. Just as in human relationships. So that would mean that God may be absolute or not I do not know but definitely God may be affected by relative situations in relationship to another. Then God may be changeable. Everything is changing all the time so why not God. Fundamentally, though I believe that God is a caring ultimate parent. Our parents created us and so also that makes God a parent - the ultimate and original parent. So just as our parents may love us then God may also. If that is correct then God is an emotional being, a sensitive being who is affected by our behavior. In other words there are consequences of our behavior as individuals that affect God, just as our behavior affects our parents. I had a vision of God once. I saw an old man with a heavy load on his back weary and persevering along the path. God is not something distinct and distant but within each one of us - within and without all. If we are the temple of God and God's spirit dwells in us then each one of us is a substantiation or embodiment of God in development. God may share our experience with us whether we think about God or not, whatever we believe, and whatever ideas we have about God. I think it all comes down to loving your neighbor and through that we will experience God.

 

[joshua3886]

This is a comic book style debate over which something that can never be proved. First prove that there is a God to begin with and then maybe you should try arguing whether there is one or two or ten. It's like arguing whether Superman is better than the X-Men. Sure Superman has all the powers on his own, but combined the X-Men have more abilities and can be in several places at once. This debate is nice, but these characters have yet to be proven to exist so debating them is simply based on each individuals perception of the stories. One God, 3 Gods or 20 Gods, it doesn't matter because they have yet to reveal themselves to exist.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is a comic book style debate over which something that can never be proved. First prove that there is a God to begin with and then maybe you should try arguing whether there is one or two or ten. It's like arguing whether Superman is better than the X-Men. Sure Superman has all the powers on his own, but combined the X-Men have more abilities and can be in several places at once. This debate is nice, but these characters have yet to be proven to exist so debating them is simply based on each individuals perception of the stories. One God, 3 Gods or 20 Gods, it doesn't matter because they have yet to reveal themselves to exist.

When people say stuff like this I wonder why. Obviously you have not felt the love of Cthulhu and let him guide you to bliss. If you actually sat back and let the tentacles of The Dark Ones one penetrate your soul then perhaps you would see the light and be endowed with the wisdom that sparks from the Black Flame

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe monotheism also became popular in Europe due to the poor water systems. Water was generally filthy and beer became a more common beverage in England. Since everyone was obviously inebriated most of the day it was more simpler to have one god and give him the most generic name possible, God. So the god of England was God.

If you look at the Germanic tribes and early Anglo-Saxons you will see that Odin has many names like Wotan, Woden, Wotin, Wodin. Much of these names came about because of the fact people kept forgetting the original name and when they to got drunk which most of them did, they began mispronouncing their gods names.

Eventually all of these people settled for a more unified and simpler god.

 

[mystic64]

"Physical things" is a subset of "all things". If there is only God (i.e. if God is everything), then all physical things are part of God.

... unless no physical things exist. That's not what you're arguing, is it?


It has an important difference: declaring something superfluous doesn't only imply that you've assumed a purpose for the thing; it also implies that it can have no purpose other than the ones you've identified. That's where the problem lies: many (most?) theists maintain that they DON'T know God's entire purpose. "God works in mysterious ways" and all that.

If God is everything, then the physical would be God's body. Which would then mean that our bodies are composed of the body of God.

And why does God have to have a purpose? And if you are trying to maintain a strawman, then what makes you any different that anybody else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And why does God have to have a purpose? And if you are trying to maintain a strawman, then what makes you any different that anybody else.

I'm not saying that God has to have a purpose; I'm saying that you need to know a thing's purpose to say that it's superfluous.

When something is "superfluous", this means that the thing's purpose will be achieved without it. This means that to declare more than one god "superfluous", you need to knkw the purpose of God.

I recognize that it's ridiculous for a human to know the purpose of God; that was part of the point I was making.