Why a singular god?

[Jimmy Higgins]

If one deity can exist without being created, why aren't there multiple deities?

[wwatts]

Today @ 04:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104445#post104445)
Jimmy Higgins:

If one deity can exist without being created, why aren't there multiple deities?

Occam's Razor. No need to posit more then one cause unless you have reason to.

[mickiel]

Today @ 04:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104445#post104445)
Jimmy Higgins:

If one deity can exist without being created, why aren't there multiple deities?

A fair question, without the use of a good spirit world poloriod camera, do you have sany suggestions as to where we can begin to prove or disprove your query?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104761#post104761)
wwatts:
Occam's Razor. No need to posit more then one cause unless you have reason to. Actually, the irony of your answer is funny. My question is the most simplified case. You want to posit that somehow a single being is able to exist without creation and that no other being can. That is a restrained condition.

However, my situation is unrestrained. It says that if one being can exist without creation, then an infiinite number of beings can exist without creation.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104953#post104953)
mickiel:
A fair question, without the use of a good spirit world poloriod camera, do you have sany suggestions as to where we can begin to prove or disprove your query? Yeah, just as soon as someone can prove a single god exists.

[mickiel]

Today @ 01:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105105#post105105)
Jimmy Higgins:

Yeah, just as soon as someone can prove a single god exists.

Can you prove that they do not?

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy,

The thing your question neglects to deal with is the Christian position that the One True and Only God has revealed the truth about Himself and the world He created. In other words, we know that only one God exists because He has revealed it.

[mickiel]

Today @ 05:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105232#post105232)
TheFiveSolas:

Jimmy,

The thing your question neglects to deal with is the Christian position that the One True and Only God has revealed the truth about Himself and the world He created. In other words, we know that only one God exists because He has revealed it.

Yes thats true, but looking at it from his point of view, it has not been revealed to him, so he is requiring evidence, which i think is a fair question. It may be quite easy to prove God exist to a believer, but to those who have no eye for spiritual reality, its very different. I wanted to show him that he cannot prove that God does not exist. Many people view religion as the opiate of the people, and to me , that makes all the sense in the world. Because of religion, many people are just way out there in left feild somewhere, there are many weird religions in this world. If men themselves were the only thing that proves the existance of God, i couldnot blame anyone for not believing, men are always bad examples.

The bible is the only physical evidence that the natural mind can consider, and most will not accept whats writtened within. Most will not consider that creation demands creator, prefering evolution over the marvels of Gods mind. God himself says that there are no other gods BEFORE HIM, meaning their ARE other gods, satan is one of them. But God ordained these other gods, only God can make a god, one reason i believe he made satan, then placed him as the god of the earth. Only a God can make a god. Onlu a human can begot a human, a dog - a dog, and so on. God begot Jesus, Jesus is a God. He is the actual son of a God. One could argue that the twenty four elders that are always with God, are Gods themselves, i don't see that as far fecthed. They are not angels, and they are certainly very wise or old, to hold such exalted positions. So now lets see, God-1, Jesus-2, satan-3, 24 elders- thats 27, some would count the Holy Spirit in this equation(not me myself) so thats a possible 27 of them right there, but still God created them all. John 3:3, nothing that exist, does so on its own. Jesus created all things that have come into being, clear evidence that Jesus created the 24 elders, and satan, so Christ is above them all, and greater than them all.

Even these things cannot be seen if God does not open the human to see them. Ultimately if God has not opened a mind to see him, there is nothing a human being can do to show another human that cannot see.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 10:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105195#post105195)
mickiel:
Can you prove that they do not? Of course not.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105232#post105232)
TheFiveSolas:

Jimmy,

The thing your question neglects to deal with is the Christian position that the One True and Only God has revealed the truth about Himself and the world He created. In other words, we know that only one God exists because He has revealed it. And that is called circular reasoning. It amazes me how some people accept such things. That would be like having a court session. Witness 1 testifies. Then the prosecution asks is it true. The witness answers, well yeah, because I said so. *Jury hushes with awe*

The clear point I'm trying to make is the singularity of a god seems to be contradictory, or atlest conflicting.

[wwatts]

Actually, the irony of your answer is funny. My question is the most simplified case. You want to posit that somehow a single being is able to exist without creation and that no other being can. That is a restrained condition.

Well your first question was

why aren't there multiple deities

I don't think I said that no other uncreated being can exist.

My position is that there is at least one necessary being.

However, my situation is unrestrained. It says that if one being can exist without creation, then an infiinite number of beings can exist without creation.

Depends on your premises. I don't believe in actual infinites so an actual infinite amount of Gods is out of the question for me. But if you are simply saying that more then one God is logically possible, then maybe that is true -- depending on your definitition of God. But plenty of things are logically possible. Which is why we use occam's razor.

Now if god is the greatest conceivable being, and if there can't be more then one 'greatest' of anything, then no, there can be only one God. It all depends on what you mean by 'God' and other premises that you hold. Regardless, use Occam's razor and you will be OK.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimmy,

I think you are confused as to what constitutes circular reasoning. My point was a simple one. Only the revelation of an all-knowing God can answer a question such as the one you posed. The Christian asserts that God has done so, and has given proof of this (in the world He created, in history, in Scripture, in man's conscience, and in the person of Christ).

Of course, any such assertion is ruled out a priori by your system of thought (human autonomy).

One such proof for God is that without Him, and his revelation, you are unable to rationally account for an objective and universally binding system of logic. Yet, you, as an atheist, wish to affirm the laws of logic. This shows the internal inconsistency of your chosen worldview.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105486#post105486)
wwatts:
Actually, the irony of your answer is funny. My question is the most simplified case. You want to posit that somehow a single being is able to exist without creation and that no other being can. That is a restrained condition.
Well your first question was No it wasn't. There is no restraint. The condition states that something can exist without creation. The rule applies throughout and is not limited. One single condition. You ask for a condition to be added where as once something can exist without creation, that it alone can only exist.
why aren't there multiple deities
I don't think I said that no other uncreated being can exist.That would be the case if you say there is only one god.
My position is that there is at least one necessary being.If one can exist, why can't two exist?
However, my situation is unrestrained. It says that if one being can exist without creation, then an infiinite number of beings can exist without creation. Depends on your premises. I don't believe in actual infinites so an actual infinite amount of Gods is out of the question for me. But if you are simply saying that more then one God is logically possible, then maybe that is true -- depending on your definitition of God. But plenty of things are logically possible. Which is why we use occam's razor. Fine, it wouldn't be an infinite, but a numberless amount of gods. If one can exist, then any number will exist.

What I'm saying is that more than one god is more likely, if something can exist without creation. In fact, it seems quite plausible and most logical.
Now if god is the greatest conceivable being, and if there can't be more then one 'greatest' of anything, then no, there can be only one God. It all depends on what you mean by 'God' and other premises that you hold. Regardless, use Occam's razor and you will be OK. But you just said you were against infinities! Then you claim that god is literally infinity. So which is it?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105749#post105749)
TheFiveSolas:
I think you are confused as to what constitutes circular reasoning. My point was a simple one. Only the revelation of an all-knowing God can answer a question such as the one you posed.Says who? Any god could answer the question. We of course can not, because it is not within our realm of observation. But then again, to say that only a god can answer the question doesn't mean that a god has to exist. It means we are incapable of observing the answer.
The Christian asserts that God has done so, and has given proof of this (in the world He created, in history, in Scripture, in man's conscience, and in the person of Christ).This has nothing to do with scriptures, but on "logic".
Of course, any such assertion is ruled out a priori by your system of thought (human autonomy).No it isn't. I have raised an issue. If there can be one thing that can exist without creation, why not an infinite number of things? This is irregardless to my own beliefs. I'm asking whether it is logical to say only one thing can exist without creation. I pushing the envelope in the opposite direction of my beliefs.
One such proof for God is that without Him, and his revelation, you are unable to rationally account for an objective and universally binding system of logic. Yet, you, as an atheist, wish to affirm the laws of logic. This shows the internal inconsistency of your chosen worldview. I don't see what this has to do with much. The question is what prohibits something else from existing without creation if one singular thing can exist without creation. And to say that the bible states that there is only one god is not an acceptable answer.

[wwatts]

No it wasn't. There is no restraint. The condition states that something can exist without creation. The rule applies throughout and is not limited. One single condition. You ask for a condition to be added where as once something can exist without creation, that it alone can only exist.

I know I'm losing something here. Are you saying this:

1) If one A can exist, more then one A can exist
2) A exists
3) Therefore more then one A exists?

I don't see how (3) follows from (2). Maybe you should change this argument to what you are saying. You must be saying something else ...


I don't think I said that no other uncreated being can exist.That would be the case if you say there is only one god.


Define God for me?

Depends on your premises. I don't believe in actual infinites so an actual infinite amount of Gods is out of the question for me. But if you are simply saying that more then one God is logically possible, then maybe that is true -- depending on your definitition of God. But plenty of things are logically possible. Which is why we use occam's razor.
Fine, it wouldn't be an infinite, but a numberless amount of gods. If one can exist, then any number will exist.



You must be holding some premises that I don't know about yet. Do you believe that all things that are possible, are actual? AKA the Actual world is the only possible world? Do you deny that there are such things as possibilities?

What I'm saying is that more than one god is more likely, if something can exist without creation. In fact, it seems quite plausible and most logical.


After you define God, please define to me what you believe Occams razor is. Also is Occams razor one of your criterion for truth?

My definition of Occams razor is the belief that one should not complicate an answer more then it needs to be.

IE More then one necessary being is more complicated then one necessary being.


Now if god is the greatest conceivable being, and if there can't be more then one 'greatest' of anything, then no, there can be only one God. It all depends on what you mean by 'God' and other premises that you hold. Regardless, use Occam's razor and you will be OK.
But you just said you were against infinities! Then you claim that god is literally infinity. So which is it?


Where did I say that God is an actual inifinite? I don't believe God is made up an infinite amount of finite parts. Also, what does it matter? Your argument is that if there can be one God, there is necessarily more then one God, which you really need to explain. Right now I'm looking at one red cup by my computer, there could possibly be 2 or more red cups by my computer and I'm just having an illusion of seeing only one red cup, but the best explanation is there is only one.

[markporter]

For God to be all-powerful by definition there can only be one of him. I don't think that there would be anyway of distinguishing between multiple divine beings. My having more than one God you are creating relations which I don't think fall into the same uncaused catergory as God.

Of course there are still the relations within the Trinity, but these are necessary for God to exist as an uncaused being and have the attributes which he requires.

Hope there's some sense in there somewhere.....

[Jimmy Higgins]

05-23-2003 @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105914#post105914)
wwatts:
I know I'm losing something here. Are you saying this:

1) If one A can exist, more then one A can exist
2) A exists
3) Therefore more then one A exists?

I don't see how (3) follows from (2). Maybe you should change this argument to what you are saying. You must be saying something else ...Well, I think you oversimplified it.
1) If A can exist without creation, then more than one A will exist without creation.
2) Assume A exists.
3) Therefore more than one A can exist, and most likely does.
Define God for me?
The ole definition of God defense. I define as something that exists. To say anymore really sets up the argument to go anyway you want. So by saying God is something that exists is truthful and simplistic and fills the purpose.
You must be holding some premises that I don't know about yet. Do you believe that all things that are possible, are actual? AKA the Actual world is the only possible world? Do you deny that there are such things as possibilities?All things aren't possible in our existence in this universe, but your god seems to indicate that at some level, all things can become possible. As for our world being the only possible world, that is possible. The original big bang could have forecasted this entire universe from the beginning. But that seems irrelevent.
After you define God, please define to me what you believe Occams razor is. Also is Occams razor one of your criterion for truth? Isn't it something like not adding extra fluff to an idea. The simplified form will tend to be the correct one because it contains less determinants or conditions. It will applicable to most if not all situations. Occam's razor teaches that the solution should be able to be applied throughout and not into an individual situation or what can be a larger problem.
IE More then one necessary being is more complicated then one necessary being.But it isn't. You aren't looking at the condition being used here. The condition is not of how many deities exist. The condition is how they come to exist! Christianity states that God did not need to be created to exist. Therefore they say the condition is that "creation is not necessary for existence"!

Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that if the rule exists, it applies wholly. If one thing can exist without creation, an infinite number will exist without creation because there is no restraint between existence and cause.

[wwatts]

Well, I think you oversimplified it.
1) If A can exist without creation, then more than one A will exist without creation.
2) Assume A exists.
3) Therefore more than one A can exist, and most likely does.


Well I think that (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). What I'm saying is that, while (3) could be true, even if (1) and (2) are true, (3) is not necessarily true. In order for you to make an argument like this one I think it would have to be this:

1) If A can exist without creation, then more than one A will exist without creation.
2) A exists without creation.
3) Therefore more than one A will exist without creation

This is a valid argument. But I deny (1). Lets look at your support for (1)


But it isn't. You aren't looking at the condition being used here. The condition is not of how many deities exist. The condition is how they come to exist! Christianity states that God did not need to be created to exist. Therefore they say the condition is that "creation is not necessary for existence"!

Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that if the rule exists, it applies wholly. If one thing can exist without creation, an infinite number will exist without creation because there is no restraint between existence and cause.


So, it seems to me, that your support for (1) is that theists hold:

p1) Creation is not necessary for existence

Then you say


If one thing can exist without creation, an infinite number will exist without creation because there is no restraint between existence and cause


This seems like this argument

3) If there is no restraint between creation and existance then any possible existance will happen
4) There is no restraint between creation and existance
5) Therefore any possible existance happens

I don't think this argument supports (1). I also deny (3).

Let me say that christians hold this premise:

p2) Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Christians may hold this premise

p1) Creation is not necessary for existence

On the grounds that infinite regresses do not exist

But that does not support (1) I think. I think you need to give more support for (1)

www.dictionary.com

Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmz)
n.
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

I think this is my support for denial of (1)