Your arguments for monotheism

[NulliuSINverba]

I feel like there's some fundamental disconnect between what I think I'm trying to discuss and what you think I'm trying to argue ...

Perhaps. However, I'll maintain that the fundamental disconnect is between what you're trying to discuss and the theme of the thread.

But never mind.

... I feel like the fact that you didn't reach this conclusion until the end of your response does not amount to a failure on my part.

If I'd stated the conclusion anywhere aside from the end of my response, it wouldn't have been much of a conclusion. Perhaps I erred by not making the conclusion the introduction? I'll take your feedback under advisement. Thanks.

However, I'm not trying so much to dismantle the question as to suggest that the question involves presuppositions which will lead to misunderstandings, if one is attempting to look objectively at later arguments for monotheism.

Perhaps I've missed something here. Did the OP invite a lengthy, tangential digression into the nature of monotheism ... or was it an invitation to present an argument for monotheism?

I just think the topic is philosophically interesting and worth a more nuanced take.

When you've polished off the nuance and are ready to move along to the actual meat-'n-potatoes topic of the thread, let me know.

Obviously, we understand that the OP is made by an atheist and has a particular rhetorical goal, i.e to challenge theism by specifically exploring logical failures of monotheism.

Shall I take that as a concession that you have no argument in favor of monotheism?

But if the form of the question entails a misunderstanding of the philosophy behind monotheism and its arguments, that is also interesting.

Forgive me for mistaking all of this rhetorical bobbing and weaving as just an excuse to avoid accepting the OP's invitation. It's just the wrong thread.

Perhaps it would be clearer if, rather than saying that "monotheism is tautological", I said that all the arguments for monotheism are stated as tautologies. What I mean by that is that the arguments depend upon defining God in certain ways, where then the arguments are purely deductive conclusions drawn from the definitions.

I think you're perhaps making an argument about theism in general that's quite informative. How strange it is that an allegedly omnipotent being would be so utterly reliant upon humanity's subjective definitions to limn its allegedly objective existence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know about arguments for monotheism, but monotheism is the only one that has personally made sense to me. I guess my mind is most attuned to it. Because even if there are multiple Divine beings, to my mind, it stands to reason that there must be a Source of all things. Polytheism just never jived with me, even when I tried it. Plus, I love the underlying imagery of unity/brother/sisterhood of creation that monotheism creates.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... it stands to reason that there must be a Source of all things.

Except for God, of course!

It may stand to reason that there must be a source to all things, but it does not stand to reason that God must have a source.

Correct?

Plus, I love the underlying imagery of unity/brother/sisterhood of creation that monotheism creates.

Yes. May I cite the Crusades and the persecution of the Jews as shining examples of that underlying "imagery of unity" that monotheism creates?

...

I feel so cozy I just may puke.

 

[Xenosaga Dragonzord]

Al-Ikhlas (The Sincerity) from Holy Quran

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem
Qul Huw-Allahu Ahad
Allah-us-Samad
Lam yalid wl lam yulad
Wa lam yakul lahu kufuwan ahad

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.

 

[Pocongsetengahsalmon]

Assalamualaikum...
Peace upon you

I am a 17 years old muslim , who would like to give an argument.

The most fundamental teaching of Islam is to believe in the Oneness of God, in the sense of His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief is not enough. Many of the idolaters knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this and yet they associated other gods with Him. Therefore, one must acknowledge the fact that it is God alone who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstain from worshipping any other thing or being. Likewise, Muslims believe that God has no father or mother, no son or daughter. None is equal to Him. He is God of all humankind, not of a special tribe or race.

To the worshippers of heavenly bodies the Quran cites the story of Abraham: “When the night grew dark over him he saw a star and said, ‘This is my Lord,’ but when it set, he said, ‘I do not like things that set.’ And when he saw the moon rising he said, ‘This is my Lord,’ but when it too set, he said, ‘If my Lord does not guide me, I shall be one of those who go astray.’ Then he saw the sun rising and cried, ‘This is my Lord! This is greater.’ But when the sun set, he said, ‘My people, I disown all that you worship beside God. I have turned my face as a true believer towards Him who created the heavens and the earth. I am not one of the polytheists.’” (6:76-79)

 

[Emi]

Those who believe in exactly one god: why?

What are your arguments for why people should not only believe that at least one god exists, but also believe that no more than one god exists?

I think that's a rather broad statement that depends a lot on prospective. I have yet to see a modern religion that is purely monotheistic other than Sikhism.
However, I do think that's an interesting question to propose. I myself am not monotheistic per say, but it seems like monotheistic religions tend to have a god that encompasses all instead of encompasses some.

 

[lovemuffin]

Shall I take that as a concession that you have no argument in favor of monotheism?

I find the level of sarcasm throughout your responses to me amusing considering I said in post #6 that I wasn't a monotheist, and have repeated at least twice that I would rather criticize monotheism than argue for it. But I'll be even clearer: There are no good persuasive arguments for monotheism. Or even for theism in the sense of an anthropomorphic and omnipotent creator of the world. This is hardly a concession. It was actually part of my original point.

As to the rest, the topic of the thread is about arguments for monotheism. Surely besides people presenting arguments it's reasonable to expect people to discuss the history and failures of those same arguments. Also it's not as if this thread has been terribly active anyway. I apologize if you aren't interested in what I've posted, but mostly all of you've done is misunderstand me in your enthusiasm to be hostile towards someone you take to be an opponent.

Anyway, there really are only two kinds of arguments that might be offered. The first are as I said: tautologically dependent on definitions. Post #12 is an example. It is a briefer version of an argument from the SEP page I linked. The other class of arguments are appeals to revelation in sacred texts, as we also see here. Those can be fun to argue about but they reduce to other topics, like the possibility of authority and evidence for revelation or whatever. They are also of course not persuasive. So because the two kinds of arguments that might be offered seem boring to me I decided instead to respond to the question in a way that I think is more interesting.