While there are a number of arguments for the existence of a divine being, none of them require that there be only one divine being. Why should we think there is only one God, then?
The simplest reason to think there is only one God is the principle of parsimony: Do not multiply entities beyond what is needed to adequately explain the effect in question. Since only one God is needed to explain the origin of the universe, there is no reason to believe there is more than one God. The burden of proof would be on anyone wanting to postulate the existence of more than one God to explain why we should think there is more than one God.
While the principle of parsimony is instructive, it is not conclusive. It is based on probability, not logical necessity. It’s one thing to say no more than one God is necessary to explain reality, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is only one God. After all, only one human is needed to explain how a house got built, but the fact of the matter is that more than one human was involved. So are there any logical arguments that would logically require the existence of only one God?
Some have argued for monotheism on the basis of divine omnipotence. Theists ascribe omnipotence to God because God is the greatest being possible. As the greatest being, He must possess the greatest amount of power possible. How could the divine attribute of omnipotence argue for monotheism, then? Some have argued that omnipotence cannot belong to more than one being because omnipotence entails having “all power.” If there was more than one God – and thus more than one omnipotent being – no one God would have all power. Power would have to be distributed among them.
The problem with this argument is that it falsely construes power as a substance. Power is not a substance that can be divided up and distributed. Power is simply the ability do some particular thing. Indeed, if power is a substance, and God has all power, then no one else could have any power whatsoever, including human beings. But clearly we have a limited amount of power. To say a being is omnipotent is only to say that such a being possesses the ability to do anything that is logically possible to do.
It’s possible to construe an argument for monotheism based on omnipotence in another way, however, that does not involve construing power as a substance. Any being who possesses the property of omnipotence must possess the ability to destroy other beings. What would happen, then, if there were two omnipotent beings? Let’s call them Omnipotent Being A (OBA) and Omnipotent Being B (OBB). Could OBA destroy OBB (or vice-versa)? No, because OBB has the power to sustain His own existence. OBA, then, would lack the ability to destroy OBB. Since omnipotence requires that one be able to do all things that are logically possible, and it’s logically possible to destroy OBB, OBA must not be omnipotent after all. The same would be true of OBB, leaving us without a being that is truly omnipotent. And yet, if God is a metaphysically necessary being and omnipotence is a divine property, then omnipotence is a metaphysically necessary property. Since the property of omnipotence can only obtain in a world in which a single being possesses such a property, there can only be one divine being.
The problem with this argument is that it fails to take into consideration the metaphysical necessity of OBA and OBB. A divine being is not only omnipotent, but metaphysically necessary, meaning he must exist. He cannot not exist. Since it is logically impossible for an eternal, metaphysically necessary being to cease to exist, then it would be logically impossible for OBA to destroy OBB. Omnipotence entails the ability to do anything that is logically possible to do, and since it is not logically possible to destroy a metaphysically necessary being, the fact that OBA could not destroy OBB does not count against OBA’s omnipotence. This argument fails as well.
But perhaps there is still an argument to be made for monotheism from omnipotence. Rather than focusing specifically on the power to destroy other beings, this argument focuses on volition more generally. An omnipotent being (OB) has power over everything. For any X that comes into being, it is either caused to exist by OB or passively allowed to come into being by OB. For example, OB may actively cause the creation of human beings, but passively allow human beings to create other things like cars and computers. So let’s say there were two omnipotent beings: Omnipotent Being A (OBA) and Omnipotent Being B (OBB). If OBA wanted to exercise his power to cause X, OBB would have to allow OBA to cause X for X to obtain in the actual world. But what if OBB was not willing for OBA to cause X? There are only two possibilities: (1) OBA would be unable to cause X, or (2) OBA would cause X. Both scenarios are impossible, however, for a truly omnipotent being. If OBA was prohibited by OBB from causing X, then OBA is not truly omnipotent because he was unable to do something that was logically possible for Him to do. If OBA was able to cause X despite the fact that OBB did not want Him to, then clearly OBB did not have the power to stop OBA, demonstrating that OBB is not omnipotent. It seems, then, that it is not possible for more than one being to possess omnipotence, and thus there can only be one God.
The only way to escape the logic of this argument is to argue that there could never be a conflict of will between OBA and OBB or to argue that all conflicts of will would always be resolvable. I have never encountered an argument for either of these propositions, however, and I find it difficult to conceive how such an argument could be made. In the absence of any argument for either assertion, it stands to reason that the inevitable conflict of wills between two omnipotent beings makes it logically impossible for there to be more than one omnipotent being, and thus logically impossible for there to be more than one God.
July 10, 2017 at 11:25 pm
“logical” and “illogical” are terms so subjective as to reasonably eliminate such terms from debate.
In mythology it was logical to assume it required various Gods to cover the many tasks that only one particular God could be overseer of. This according to the limitations of man of course. So logic and illogic survive only according the generation that decides on what is logical or illogical according to the traditions of the society of the time.
This is not complicated………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 11, 2017 at 11:16 am
I fail to see the reason for this post. Surely it can’t be to argue the superiority of monotheism over ancient Greco-Roman polytheism. That brand of polytheism died 1700 years ago when Rome converted to Christianity under Emperor Constantine. Is it an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of Abrahamic monotheism when compared to the Hindu sects that adhere to a polytheistic interpretation of Hinduism? Where is this discussion going? My religion is better than yours? Or is this just an interesting thought exercise?
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 11, 2017 at 1:14 pm
It’s not “ONE GOD” as “only, only one, solitary” God is it? Isn’t the Christian idea “ONE” is about unity? God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit – isn’t that three Gods?
LikeLike
July 11, 2017 at 2:06 pm
Paul V, the definition of “one” (“numerically one” versus “one in unity”) is the essence of the Godhead debate. I believe that issue is put to rest work Isaiah declaring the name (identity) of the coming Messiah to be the Everlasting Father. All other arguments are philosophical, which I don’t personally give much credence. To each his own.
LikeLike
July 11, 2017 at 2:11 pm
While there are a number of arguments for the existence of a divine being, none of them require that there be only one divine being. Why should we think there is only one God, then?
This is woefully inaccurate. The tightly woven argumentation offered by Aquinas explicitly defends monotheism. Your piece doesn’t even approximate an engagement of his arguments.
I suggest as a primer: Aquinas (Edward Feser)
LikeLike
July 11, 2017 at 5:13 pm
Paul, I believe they settled that issue at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Historians of that time describe a very vigorous debate over the nature of the Holy Trinity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 12, 2017 at 7:25 am
Johnboy, unless the phrase “Everlasting Father” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Aren’t there any bible verses that indicate Jesus is not the Father?
LikeLike
July 12, 2017 at 7:29 am
Bob, was the issue settled or was a settlement imposed? You can’t use a religion to unite your empire if everyone doesn’t agree.
LikeLike
July 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Paul, when you’re the Emperor, you can indeed use religion to unite a country, or an empire in this case. If I recall my history correctly, Constantine got tired of the incessant bickering amongst the various factions of Christianity. Each faction preached their own version of the divinity of Jesus, which on occasion lead to violent confrontations. The leaders of the various churches were ordered to assemble at Nicaea and work out their differences, one would assume under threat of losing their positions of authority if they didn’t do as ordered. And one would presume under threat of loss of authority, and maybe even their lives, if their preaching deviated afterward from the final compromise solution, the Nicene Creed. In effect, Christianity is what it is today because of Constantine’s desire for peace within the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 12, 2017 at 10:21 pm
Dear Jason,
May I remind you of the challenge for the one omnipotent God to create an object that God cannot move? If God can’t move it God is not omnipotent; if God can move it then God has failed to create an object that God cannot move.
I think we have created a problem with the concept of omnipotence. If God is an amazing scientist, incapable of doing anything supernatural, this could explain much; God could be subject to natural laws and maybe the genesis factor that gives life to all living things. This might explain the existence of some of the weird parasites like the one below:
https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombie-fungus-picky-about-ant-brains.html
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
July 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm
Leo, Is it objectively logical to say that logical and illogical are subjective terms?
LikeLike
July 18, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Logic and illogic is always subjective because it is arrived at by reasoning.
LikeLike
July 19, 2017 at 12:30 am
Dinos, the challenge about God creating a rock so big He cannot lift it is an example of a logical absurdity, and no definition of omnipotence includes being able to do logical absurdities.
LikeLike
July 19, 2017 at 12:31 am
Bob, the reason for the post is to provide a philosophical rationale for thinking that there is only one divine being as opposed to many (a question that has both historical and modern importance). What I would like to know is the reason for your comment. I don’t see much point to it.
LikeLike
July 19, 2017 at 12:31 am
Paul, I am referring to one solitary being/person. I am not a Trinitarian, but even Trinitarians believe in one divine being. They merely think that within that one divine being there are three persons. In other words, there is one divine WHAT and three divine WHOS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 19, 2017 at 12:32 am
Scalia, are you referring to the argument that God must be simple?
LikeLike
July 19, 2017 at 5:14 am
There are indeed a number of relevant historic and modern day issues worthy of consideration in any discussion of monotheism, none of which are addressed in the original post. What we are left with instead is an elaborate thought exercise about OBs that is devoid of any scholastic underpinnings. However, all is not lost. For those wishing to explore the historical and geopolitical origins of monotheism, Karen Armstrong’s book The Great Transformation is a good place to start. And Ramdas Lamb provides a good summary discussion of the monotheistic and polytheistic sects of Hinduism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ramdas-lamb/polytheism-and-monotheism_b_841905.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 19, 2017 at 11:33 am
Scalia, are you referring to the argument that God must be simple?
No.
LikeLike
July 19, 2017 at 11:36 am
Here is the philosophical rationale…the Gods were created by man who believed that
“there is that beyond which a greater cannot be thought”
In the beginning then, there was such a God for everything and for the same reason whether it was for rain or sun or the planets, for love, for water, for fish and the rocks in the deep blue sea.
As man evolved he guru and guru and in reasoning powered continued to think the thought that
“there is that beyond which a greater can not be thought”
But in man’s evolution he thought that that need not be many but would apply to one as well and so…….I suppose Abraham was the first to arrive at this concept according to the bible record and from him sprang the 3 big religions which accounts for man’s diversity but which canNOT explain the three different ideas of Absolute Certainty…………enter EGO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 20, 2017 at 12:17 am
Jason,
It’s my understanding that the nature of logic is first to realise that there is more than one possible explanation for observable phenomena and that the number of possible explanations is limited by preconceptions, fixed beliefs and lack of imagination to name some.
I mentioned the challenge for God to create a rock that God cannot lift and you described it as a logical absurdity. People can build houses they cannot lift so it is at least possible that God is constrained by the Laws of Physics just as lawmakers are subject to the laws they pass. Whether this constitutes a breach of the definition of Omnipotence is a philosophical issue but to deny God the right to be subject to the natural laws seems a bit dogmatic to me.
Also, It’s quite possible that if God exists we have assigned to God attributes that God does not have, like male gender and Omnibenevolence. It is insufficient for me to think that God has good reason to produce parasites like the one that takes control of only two known species of carpenter ants causing them to climb plants, destroy their brains then disperse their spores to the rest of the colony in a shower from above them. The link is repeated below:
https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombie-fungus-picky-about-ant-brains.html
You could say that it is absurd for an Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent Being to create such an organism or ask if God has a propensity to create as many species of organisms as can be imagined and sustained on this planet.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
August 19, 2017 at 3:23 pm
Excellent post…well thought-out and clearly written.
LikeLike
August 20, 2017 at 10:54 am
THINE FUTURE KINGDOM COME, MADE MANIFEST IN THE OPEN, THINE WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.
The Testimony of the Son of Man and the Beginning of The Millennial Generation
What will it be like? Here are some hints being manifested around the world.
For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. IN HIS DAY……….
The Exponential Age?
Just a few things for us all to ponder, especially the younger ones amongst us.
Did you think back in 1998 that 3 years later you would never take pictures on film again?
In 1998 Kodak had 170,000 employees and sold 85 % photo paper worldwide. Within just a few years their business model disappeared and they went bankrupt. What happened to Kodak will happen in a lot of industries in the next 10 years and, most people won’t see it coming.
Yet digital cameras were invented in 1975. The first ones only had 10,000 pixels, but followed Moore’s law. So as with all exponential technologies, it was a disappointment for a time, before it became way superior and became mainstream in only a few short years. It will now happen again with Artificial Intelligence, health, autonomous and electric cars, education, 3D printing, agriculture and jobs. Welcome to the 4th Industrial Revolution. Welcome to the Exponential Age.
Software will disrupt most traditional industries in the next 5-10 years.
Uber is just a software tool, they don’t own any cars, and are now the biggest taxi company in the world.
Airbnb is now the biggest hotel company in the world, although they don’t own any properties.
Artificial Intelligence: Computers become exponentially better in understanding the world. This year, a computer beat the best Go-player in the world, 10 years earlier than expected.
In the US , young lawyers already don’t get jobs. Because of IBM’s Watson you can get legal advice (so far for more or less basic stuff) within seconds. With 90% accuracy compared with 70% accuracy when done by humans.
So if you study law, stop immediately. There will be 90 % less lawyers in the future. Only specialists will remain.
Watson already helps nurses diagnosing cancer, which is 4 times more accurate than human nurses.
Facebook now has a pattern recognition software that can recognize faces better than humans. In 2030 computers will become more intelligent than humans. (NEVER says Albert)
Autonomous cars: In 2018 the first self driving cars will appear for the public. Around 2020 the complete industry will start to be disrupted. You won’t want to own a car anymore. You will call a car with your phone, it will show up at your location and drive you to your destination. You will not need to park it, you only pay for the driven distance and can be productive while being driven.
Our kids will never need to get a driver’s license and will never own a car.
It will change the cities, because we will need 90-95% less cars for that. We can transform former parking spaces into parks.
1.2 million people die each year in car accidents worldwide. We now have one accident every 60,000 miles ( 100,000 km), with autonomous driving that will drop to 1 accident in 6 million miles (10 million km). That will save a million lives each year.
Most car companies will probably become bankrupt. Traditional car companies try the evolutionary approach and just build a better car, while tech companies like Tesla, Apple, Google will do the revolutionary approach and build a computer on wheels.
Many engineers from Volkswagen and Audi are completely terrified of Tesla.
Insurance companies will have massive trouble because without accidents, the insurance will become 100x cheaper. Their car insurance business model will disappear.
Real Estate will change. Because if you can work while you commute, people will move further away to live in a more beautiful neighbourhood.
Electric cars will become mainstream about 2020. Cities will be less noisy because all new cars will run on electricity.
Electricity will become incredibly cheap and clean. Solar production has been on an exponential curve for 30 years, but you can now see the burgeoning impact.
Last year, more solar energy was installed worldwide than fossil. Energy companies are desperately trying to limit access to the grid to prevent competition from home solar installations, but that can’t last. Technology will take care of that strategy.
With cheap electricity comes cheap and abundant water. Desalination of salt water now only needs 2k Wh per cubic meter at 0.25 cents). We don’t have scarce water in most places, we only have scarce drinking water. Imagine what will be possible if anyone can have as much clean water as he wants, for nearly no cost.
Health: The Tricorder X price will be announced this year. There are companies who will build a medical device (called the ” Tricorder ” from Star Trek) that works with your phone, which takes your retina scan, your blood sample and you simply breath into it.
It then analyses 54 bio-markers that will identify nearly any disease. It will be cheap, so in a few years everyone on this planet will have access to world class medical analysis, nearly for free. Goodbye medical establishments.
3 D printing: The price of the cheapest 3D printer came down from $18,000 to $400 within 10 years. In the same time, it became 100 times faster. All major shoe companies have already started 3D printing shoes.
Some spare airplane parts are already 3D printed in remote airports. The space station now has a printer that eliminates the need for the large amount of spare parts they used to have in the past.
At the end of this year, new smart phones will have 3D scanning possibilities. You can then 3D scan your feet and print your perfect shoe at home.
In China they have already 3D printed and built a complete 6 storey office building. By 2027 10% of everything that’s being produced will be 3D printed.
Business Opportunities: If you think of a niche you want to go in, first ask yourself, “In the future, do I think we will have that?” If the answer is yes, how can you make that happen sooner? If it doesn’t work with your phone, forget the idea. And any idea designed for success in the 20th century is doomed to failure in the 21st century.
Work: 70-80 % of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years. There will be a lot of new jobs, but it is not clear if there will be enough new jobs in such a short time. This will require a rethink on wealth distribution.
Agriculture: There will be a $100 agricultural robot in the future. Farmers in 3rd world countries can then become managers of their field instead of working all day on their fields.
Aeroponics: Will need much less water. The first Petri dish produced veal, is now available and will be cheaper than cow produced veal in 2018. Right now, 30 % of all agricultural surfaces is used for cows. Imagine if we don’t need that space anymore.
The Times They Are A Changing !
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 20, 2017 at 11:06 am
P.S.
Son of Man already drives a fully Electric Vehicle (BEV) buys no fuel, has no emissions, no engine, noise, no oil changes and energy charges are completely free at all City Hall Public Charging Stations and local Malls and Banks as a customer service.
Tell me what it’s like to leave the ICE Cars(Internal Combustion Engine) in your rear view mirror at the traffic light intersection with full torque at the get go….heavenly.
If you’re not living in the Kingdom, you’re just not there yet, I’m afraid. Listening to the Preacher’s scriptural interpretations instead of living them yourself perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 10, 2018 at 11:23 am
@dinoconstant
Dino writes:
May I remind you of the challenge for the one omnipotent God to create an object that God cannot move? If God can’t move it God is not omnipotent; if God can move it then God has failed to create an object that God cannot move.
This has nothing to do with the post. Jason is discussing arguments for monotheism, not skeptical arguments against God’s existence or His attributes.
Moreover, since no theist asserts that God can do logically contradictory things, your “challenge” hangs irrelevantly in midair. God, defined, exists essentially as a necessary being. As such, He cannot not exist. It is impossible for Him go to out of existence. So, to modify your challange, one could say, “If God can is omnipotent, can he make himself go out of existence? If so, he’s not God. If not, he’s not omnipotent. So, he cannot be God in either case.” God cannot go out of existence, lie or do anything contrary to His nature. That’s not what is meant by omnipotent. Being omnipotent simply means that God is not finite.
The problem Jason is having with the argument from omnipotence is metaphysical. Since his underlying metaphysical apparatus is off, he cannot get to monotheism
LikeLike
February 10, 2018 at 11:34 am
@dinoconstant
Dino writes:
It’s my understanding that the nature of logic is first to realise that there is more than one possible explanation for observable phenomena and that the number of possible explanations is limited by preconceptions, fixed beliefs and lack of imagination to name some.
The nature of logic shows us that logical inversions are untrue, full stop.
People can build houses they cannot lift so it is at least possible that God is constrained by the Laws of Physics just as lawmakers are subject to the laws they pass. Whether this constitutes a breach of the definition of Omnipotence is a philosophical issue but to deny God the right to be subject to the natural laws seems a bit dogmatic to me.
???
That makes your “challenge” even more nonsensical. If God takes a human mode of existence that subjects that mode to the laws of physics (e.g. Jesus of Nazareth), then said mode will not be able to lift rocks above a certain weight. So, in that sense, God can make a rock too heavy for Him (His human mode of existence) to lift. What kind of challenge is that? So, your challenge is irrelevant either because it claims that logical inversions must be true or that a human mode of existence somehow counts against God’s omnipotence.
Again, what has that to do with monotheism??
LikeLike
February 12, 2018 at 11:50 am
@Jason Dulle
Brother Dulle writes:
But perhaps there is still an argument to be made for monotheism from omnipotence. Rather than focusing specifically on the power to destroy other beings, this argument focuses on volition more generally.
We’ve discussed this. Do you not recall my Post 14 of your Omnipotence and Monotheism thread? Here’s what I wrote, in part:
You write above:
The only way to escape the logic of this argument is to argue that there could never be a conflict of will between OBA and OBB or to argue that all conflicts of will would always be resolvable.
You made a similar observation is the above-reference thread, to which I replied:
This is a convenient “street” defense of monotheism. There are of course metaphysical reasons why it is not possible to have more than one God, as Aquinas demonstrated.
LikeLike
February 12, 2018 at 11:56 am
Mea Culpa
I wrote in Post 24:
The problem Jason is having with the argument from omnipotence is metaphysical. Since his underlying metaphysical apparatus is off, he cannot get to monotheism.
I had failed to read the last part of his post wherein he plausibly defends monotheism from omnipotence. As stated above, though I think this is a practical defense, the metaphysical argument is much better.
LikeLike
February 13, 2018 at 9:05 pm
Hi All!
I would like to reveal that my fascination with this website is that the contributors have a wide spectrum of views and I am pleased that it includes Fundamentalist Christians, Dogmatist Christians and Atheists as well as conflicted people like myself. This enables me to explore my own views often by playing the Devil’s Advocate and one day, my opinions may coalesce.
My reminder of the stone paradox was just that. I cannot claim an 800-year-old paradox as my own and never did!
It seemed to me that Jason Dulle (aka TR) had presented a rather complex case for Monotheism as a necessary attribute of one Sovereign God by considering the paradox of two Omnipotent Beings (OBA and OBB) existing.
I meant no offence to anyone when I brought up the more familiar paradox of the [infinitely] massive stone, willed into existence by the Omnipotent God, that contained so much matter that even He could not lift [move] it. How simple it would have been for those who ardently believe in the Omnipotent One to counter that He had already moved everything from a massive quantity of matter within a tiny singularity into our enormous, observable universe and possible multiverses by way of what is referred to as The Big Bang?
Peace and love to all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLike
February 13, 2018 at 9:46 pm
Hi All!
My limited understanding of Monotheism suggests that it may have started with Abraham who was a Polytheist until God revealed Himself to him as the one and only God.
Bob Mason posed some interesting questions in post #17 and opined that the original article was devoid of scholastic underpinnings [his words] and suggests by implication that only the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were relevant [my words from ‘and suggests’]. I wonder how many people opened and fully-read the link to an article on Hinduism which also has a claim to an Omnipotent Being?
Below is the link Bob provided and an extract from it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ramdas-lamb/polytheism-and-monotheism_b_841905.html
‘The merging of polytheistic and monotheistic concepts in this way is unique to Hinduism. It allows people to believe in and pray to their own conceptualizations of the divine in whatever form they choose, while at the same time elevating all of them to their ultimate reality, which is the singular omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient divinity, who demands no allegiance, punishes no one for lack of belief, yet provides wisdom, comfort, compassion, and freedom to those who seek it. All they need to do is look within.’
Peace and love to all humanity,
Dinos
LikeLike
February 13, 2018 at 10:11 pm
@dinoconstant
Dino writes:
I meant no offence to anyone when I brought up the more familiar paradox of the [infinitely] massive stone, willed into existence by the Omnipotent God…
It’s not a matter of offense; it’s a matter of relevance. Jason started a thread about arguments defending monotheism. Your “challenge” simply has nothing to do with the subject.
LikeLike
February 13, 2018 at 10:43 pm
Scalia,
You seem to have some very fixed notions of what’s relevant on TR’s website.
Jason was arguing the case for monotheism on the basis that the God concerned is necessarily Omnipotent and it was a complex argument involving several different philosophical concepts. The 800-year-old paradox was relevant because there are some Unitarians that I know in Cambridge, England, who have expressed their view that God is extremely powerful but not Omnipotent. Should we brand them as heretics?
Please do not ‘moderate’ Jason’s website with your own judgements.
Peace and love to all humanity (my prayer).
Dinos
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 13, 2018 at 11:28 pm
@dinoconstant
Dino writes:
You seem to have some very fixed notions of what’s relevant on TR’s website.
And you seem to be fixated on fitting a square peg in a round hole.
The 800-year-old paradox was relevant because there are some Unitarians that I know in Cambridge, England, who have expressed their view that God is extremely powerful but not Omnipotent. Should we brand them as heretics?
It’s not at all relevant because that’s not the definition of God Jason was working with. As far as Jason is concerned (and, yes, I know this) if God isn’t omnipotent, then He isn’t God. That makes any argument about monotheism superfluous. You made no case for or against monotheism, and that renders your comments off-topic.
Please do not ‘moderate’ Jason’s website with your own judgements.
A pity you don’t really believe that I shouldn’t do so. If you’re serious, then quit moderating my comments. You’re not the arbiter of what I write. If you can lecture me on what you consider moderation, I can certainly lecture you on what’s off-topic.
I have every right to call comments off-topic if I’m able to show why they’re off-topic. Jason’s the only moderator here, meaning of course that he alone can demand that posters cease dialog along certain lines. Moreover, he alone has the authority to delete posts. I’m merely expressing an opinion on relevance. Really, Dino, you’re a tad tweaked because you know you’re off-topic, and you don’t like that being pointed out.
Even conceding arguendo that Cambridge unitarianism is somehow relevant to the dialog, it is incumbent on you to then show how they defend monotheism. You don’t just throw out extremely aberrant beliefs just for the sake of it.
LikeLike
February 14, 2018 at 7:38 am
Scalia Alito:
You are not the supreme court.
Monotheism and Theism generally:
“belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.” And for you to keep regurgitating about deleting posts is not because Jason has that right but you believe if you keeping harping on it, your hope is that Jason will side with you and start deleting posts according to your editorializing.
What Dino and everybody else on this thread has a right to do is express their views as they see fit, not you, period! We’ll let Jason decide if that is so and to date for the most part Jason allows diversion because diversion is the essence of humanity.
I believe that religious belief itself is a form of mental illness which has outstayed its welcome on this planet and should now be relegated back to the realm of tarot cards and crystal balls where it belongs; if you have to worship something try worshiping something real like the planet that gave you life because it’s the best friend that you ever have and I believe it’s the only friend you will, ever have.
I live in a society where everyone’s beliefs are respected, as long as they believe in god. But, despite that there are still some good reasons to be an atheist. Personally, I like the hours, 24/7. I find they suit me very well indeed.
Now people often ask me about being an atheist and certain questions crop up all the time. For example, how can you know good from evil without religion to guide you? Well that’s just the point isn’t it, religion does guide me. Most of the things I see religion do, I think are evil. And I find that’s a pretty useful benchmark. If religion is involved I know evil won’t be too far away.
Another question is, isn’t atheism itself just another religion? Well, I suppose atheism is a religion in the same way that creationism is a science or Islam is a religion of peace; in other words, when language no longer really means anything. How can atheism be a religion? Who do we worship and who’s going to kill us if we don’t? Atheism doesn’t demand absolute unquestioning obedience or make threats about eternal damnation nor does it take childish offense over trifles. It doesn’t treat women like livestock.
In a way it’s a shame it’s not a religion because we might be able to get a few tax breaks out of it but no; atheism doesn’t get any special privileges, there are no schools teaching atheism to children as a belief system, paid for with public money. Nor does atheism require anyone to tithe part of their income to keep a few cynical con-men in luxury so you see it doesn’t begin to qualify as a religion worthy of the name.
Atheism is another word for reality, it means not seeing any need to apologize for being human. And to be happy to live the life we have and not just wish it away on some celestial wingnut that tells me heaven is right there waiting and all you’ve got to do, is DIE. That’s some price to pay for admission to a place that is likely to be full of clergymen, born again christians which I reckon makes it a fate worse than death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 14, 2018 at 6:06 pm
Dino I take comfort in the words of Thomas Jefferson when he speaks of religion; when he speaks of religion.
Of Jesus he said: “………we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought …… will do away with…..artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors……….”
Of Religion and Theism, monotheism or otherwise:
Man once surrendering his reason,(for belief) has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.
AND
OF RELIGION AND MONOTHEISM:
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which (religious zealots, clergy and believers) monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man (of humanity’s right of freedom from religion and monkish ignorance).
The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Wightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
And the Clergy, preachers, priests, pastors and popes who are booted and spurred to ride the masses by the grace of God to the end of their reign; we can, thank god, if there was one, that that end is on the horizon and soon shall they flee to their monasteries and debate their caricature concepts in academic nirvana among themselves.
And the Mass of Mankind said
AMEN
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 14, 2018 at 11:02 pm
Up to the time of the 6th century BCE Neo-Babylonian Exile, the vast majority of Israelites and Judahites were henotheists/monolatrists. Their original God was EL (hence “IsraEL”) along with his wife Asherah, their son Ba’al and a few others. But over time the gods were assimilated into Yahweh, who had been brought from the south by a group headed by Moses. He received Yahweh from his father-in-law.
Later, a small minority of elite wanted to have just one God and have him located at their place, Jerusalem. They had partial success with Hezekiah and with Josiah. But the polytheism continued to be the main belief system.
The return of the Exiles from Babylon provided these monotheists with the opportunity to push their program, particularly under the auspices of Ezra.
The bulk of the Hebrew Scriptures as we know it came from this post-exilic period. Chapters 40ff are a prime example of the monotheism that this minority group was pushing.
Monotheism, however, produced for them a consequence. Now that they had only one God, how could they account for evil, for wars, for sin, for disasters? To cope with that difficulty, they created a counter-entity, who became known as Satan. That is the reason they wrote the Book of Job at that time. The people who emerged from the Babylonian Exile became known as Jews.
There was great disagreement among the Christians as they were confronted by the High Christology pushed by the sect of the Johannine Christians. The Roman Emperor stepped in to settle the disputes, coming in on the side of the Trinitarians. In so doing, the Christians have reverted to the henotheist/monolatrist ideas of the Israelites and Judahites.
Further, one group installed a woman, “Mary, the Mother of God”. She thus replaced the senior Israelite Goddess, Asherah.
The Jewish monotheists had said what they thought about Asherah when they wrote the story of the “Garden of Eden”, with her symbols all over it.
Doug
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 15, 2018 at 12:47 am
Hi Doug!
I appreciate the work you must have done before you were able to explain the history of how we arrived at our current position of what we refer to as Monotheism.
Can you supply any weblinks for further reading?
I looked at how Unitarians view monotheism and I see the appeal of their humanitarian values.It reminded me of the respectful way we should interact with one another after I read Leo’s article on Order of World Reverence on the web.
The Unitarians consider themselves as monotheists, mostly, and I have enjoyed attending some Sunday services at a Unitarian Church in Cambridge, England. Below is a link that gives answers to FAQs about them for anyone who may be interested:
https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/frequently-asked-questions-faq
We could easily be dismissive towards the Unitarians but I’m inclined to reflect on the scriptural message –
Matthew 7:1-6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Judging Others
7 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and [a]by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
February 15, 2018 at 2:29 pm
Hi Dinos,
Material relevant to the theology of the Israelites and Judahites is included in my Draft Study at: http://www.jwstudies.com/Revolutions_Part_1__Israelite_Judahite_Salvations.pdf
Material relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity is provided in my Draft Study at: http://www.jwstudies.com/Revolutions_Part_3__Christian_Salvations.pdf
Search the latter document with the word: Trinity
Detailed information on the Footnote References is provided towards the rear of the latter document.
Doug
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 15, 2018 at 4:57 pm
Thank you, Doug!
I’ll explore the links to gain an appreciation of how the historical aspects of what we refer to as Monotheism affected our current view.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
May 28, 2019 at 1:06 pm
Jason asks whether Thomas’ defense of monotheism rests on the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) to which I replied that it does not. That’s not entirely accurate.
I had in mind the previous arguments we’ve had as encapsulated in Post 26. One doesn’t necessarily have to appeal to the DDS in order to argue that two divine beings must differ in some respect in order to be distinguished. That means, of course, that one being must have something the other lacks. Any divine-making quality a being lacks undeifies that being ipso facto. Since God, by definition, cannot lack any perfection, there cannot be more than one God.
Now, the aforesaid approach is sufficient to defend monotheism “on the street,” but as I imply, that’s not the whole story. The logical ground for that approach is rooted in the DDS, and the fact that God is the only simple being shows conclusively that there cannot be more than one God. In other words, it is a metaphysical impossibility for there to be more than one God.
This has been defended extensively by Thomist philosophers for centuries. Again, I find it curious that Brother Jason is unaware of that.
LikeLike
May 30, 2019 at 12:08 pm
And for anybody interested, my Post 25 in the Omnipotence and Monotheism II thread briefly encapsulates the monotheistic argument from divine simplicity.
LikeLike
June 12, 2019 at 7:47 am
A person calling herself “kimberly” posted off-topic matters in Jason’s recent Euthyphro’s Dilemma and Why God Could not Create the Good thread. In Post 21 of that thread, she writes:
She’s arguing in favor of polytheism and offers no support for that notion other than her citation of Psalm 136:2 in Post 25 of the same thread.
The Bible repeatedly states that there is one God:
Mark 12:32
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:8
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
There is no contradiction when the Bible refers to other “gods.” It is simply acknowledging the fact that people worship other gods, but the Scriptures are explicit that they are not in themselves gods:
Galatians 4:8
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Jeremiah 2:11
Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.
In the previous thread, kimberly argued that there are other beings (e.g. angels) which exist necessarily. That is, they are non-contingent. If that is the case, then there’s no way her “God” can be superior to them (her citation of the verse which says that he is God of gods), for if they exist necessarily, there is no metaphysical principle that would make one god superior to the other god. If a being is truly independent (non-contingent), then no external force can determine its existence or be superior in any way.
A necessary existence is necessarily and absolutely simple with no composition of being. Once that is realized, it is clear that there cannot be more than one necessary being, for one being would have to differ from the other in order to be distinct, but since they cannot differ in a perfection, they have to differ in an imperfection. But a necessary existence cannot have an imperfection, for that would make it dependent in some fashion. Consequently, it is impossible for there to be more than one necessary being.
LikeLike