One God or many gods

[firedragon]

One god does not make any sense in our world and does not represent our world adequately. First of all our universe made the gods and goddesses not the other way around. Why would you only have a god without the goddess since that is unbalanced. The universe sustains itself even though the deities help shape it. There is no text to say there was only one god anyway. Even the bible mentions other gods and goddesses including Asherah whom some Israelites seemed to have also worshiped. A single god sets up the greatest danger of I am greater than which causes discord in our world.

Who said the necessary being has a gender?

And of course, you did not respond to my argument. It's a normal argument made by many. You are making an assertion and a strawman. God has no gender.

 

[Bear Wild]

Who said the necessary being has a gender?

And of course, you did not respond to my argument. It's a normal argument made by many. You are making an assertion and a strawman. God has no gender.

What do you mean god has no gender? Odin has aspects of the male while Freya has aspects of the female. Dagda has aspects of the male and Morrigan has aspects of the female. I am not sure where you come up with no gender.

 

[firedragon]

What do you mean god has no gender? Odin has aspects of the male while Freya has aspects of the female. Dagda has aspects of the male and Morrigan has aspects of the female. I am not sure where you come up with no gender.

I mean God has no gender. And I said many other things. Don't cherry pick from the whole. Read the whole.

Thanks.

 

[Bear Wild]

If there are many Gods will have different wills and is logically improper in order to sustain this universe with such precision. Gods will quarrel or go in different ways.

This is totally inaccurate. Or world is the balance of order and chaos. One god would have to explain why make the chaos. Whys do you even make the statement that gods will quarrel or go in different ways. Did you just made that up to feel better or are you familiar with the other gods and goddesses personally?

 

[firedragon]

This is totally inaccurate. Or world is the balance of order and chaos. One god would have to explain why make the chaos. Whys do you even make the statement that gods will quarrel or go in different ways. Did you just made that up to feel better or are you familiar with the other gods and goddesses personally?

See, I don't believe in arbitrary God concepts. I believe in a necessary being. I think you are just getting angry and are ignoring everything I say.

I think you should just look it up.

 

[Bear Wild]

See, I don't believe in arbitrary God concepts. I believe in a necessary being. I think you are just getting angry and are ignoring everything I say.

I think you should just look it up.

Look up what. I am not angry with you just because I disagree with you. But if I am missing something please direct me so I can better understand. I do not believe in arbitrary god concepts either so do not imply that about me.

 

[firedragon]

Look up what. I am not angry with you just because I disagree with you. But if I am missing something please direct me so I can better understand. I do not believe in arbitrary god concepts either so do not imply that about me.

Necessary being. I think I said it like 5 times.

 

[Bear Wild]

Necessary being. I think I said it like 5 times.

I understand but disagree. It is the combination of the god and the goddess that is necessary in the same way of yin and yang. Without one the other is unbalanced. Many deities explain our world better than a single in my religion.

 

[firedragon]

I understand but disagree.

Why?

 

[Bear Wild]

Why?

Because our universe is not just one thing. It is matter and energy. It is yin and yang, it is chaos and order. When you say god I don't think of the Abrahamic god so my answers are based on my religion. There is no superior god to the others.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you mean god has no gender? Odin has aspects of the male while Freya has aspects of the female. Dagda has aspects of the male and Morrigan has aspects of the female. I am not sure where you come up with no gender.

From my very cursory review of recent posts, it appears his remark is made about God, not the gods. The idea that God has no gender is one of many ways that a monotheistic God is often different from polytheistic gods.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

If you say so. Personally, I have never observed consciousness without a central nervous system. I'd love somebody to demonstrate such a thing to me, but for some mysterious reason, nobody can manage it. (Hint: that's why some of us think it doesn't exist.)

An amoeba is a single cell organism that can change its shape. It moves slow compared to other smaller organism. It uses psuedopods to travel and to capture stationary food. If the prey moves too quick, it surrounds the prey and then the prey finds itself inside the amoeba to be digested. How does the amoeba know to do this?
To state that every particle has consciousness, to me is kind of silly. Inanimate objects do not have consciousness.

We can deduce it. When matter became amiga, it must have had consciousness. If we do not have the apparatus to observe, it does not cease to exist. Panpsychism has a lot of literature on this.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

From my very cursory review of recent posts, it appears his remark is made about God, not the gods. The idea that God has no gender is one of many ways that a monotheistic God is often different from polytheistic gods.

Monotheistic religions have symbols like the cross and kaaba. Hindu religion sees idols as such symbols and calls The God as Brahman. They are the same. In practice though the Hindus have focussed on the idol hence their fall.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Monotheistic religions have symbols like the cross and kaaba. Hindu religion sees idols as such symbols and calls The God as Brahman. They are the same. In practice though the Hindus have focussed on the idol hence their fall.

You often repeat this. I have replied to it before, showing your error. Symbols are not idols. And idol is a sculpture of a deity that is worshiped. If its not worshiped as a deity, its not an idol. I have no wish to repeat this particular conversation.

I do agree that if we loosen up our definition of God, one could make the argument that Brahman is God. However, there certainly are some differences between the Hindu notion of Brahman, and the monotheistic notion of God.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Many gods or polytheism came first and this evolved over time, into one God; two upgrades for consciousness.

Many gods were connected to specialization, like we do in science; science is like rational polytheism. In polytheism, we had a goddess for love and a god for war. These are two specialty skills, that do not exactly connect to each other. Specialization was also reflected early culture, in the sense of jobs; carpenter or farmer. Each got good at what they did; passed from father to son, and traded.

The main problem with this, was making the big decisions, that needed lot of experts, in many different areas, that do not exactly overlap. How do you get the goddess of love and the god of war to agree on a new bridge? Nothing big ever gets done. Experts in each field have earned their prestige; they are important, so they need to defend that prestige; importance, in the gray areas, they do not know; political gridlock.

Monotheism solved this egocentric politics problem; pride, by having an all knowing executive, at the top, to make the big decisions. God is assumed to be omniscience, or he knows all the sciences, and therefore can blend and integrate; plan, create and even engineer. The biggest jobs now can get done. This needed integral thinking in 3-D; out of the many, one. (e pluribus unum).

In science, the Physicists may not know what the biologist is doing; their new frontiers, and vice versa. These two experts may have the data needed to connect life at the quantum level. But in the land of specialty gods, this will never get done. This would need the generalist who dabbles in both of these fields and can figure out how to merge the two; e pluribus unum

If you look at Evolution versus Creation, Evolution is only about the life aspect of the universal changes. It does not address and connect the cosmological aspects. We have two science gods, that each have their own niche, separated by a gap. Creation is more in the style of cradle to grave; BB to earth and sun, to life, to human consciousness and beyond; connected omniscience by one God.

I prefer the omniscience approach; Generalist. It is way harder to do, even for less prestige, which is why people specialize. There is less prestige being half baked in everything; rational monotheism, compared to fully baked in one thing; rational polytheism and politics.

Whether consciousness came first or matter is a chicken and egg problem. The vedas say matter was father of brahman and became it's son.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

John 14: 6 I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Only those that acknowledge their sinfulness, repent of their sins, believe and trust in Jesus' death for the forgiveness of sins, and get baptized with the Holy Spirit will have access to the Father. We become the temple of Christ, who is the temple of the Father. They are not within everybody.

This is true but applicable to that space and time ONLY.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Symbols are not idols. And idol is a sculpture of a deity that is worshiped

The very fact that worship of angels is prohibited means that it exists. The hindu idols are infused with angelic power. So, correctly, idols when infused with angels are worshipped in hinduism. They exist. The difference is that monotheistic religions prohibit it while hinduism accepts it. This is a difference in practice, not in theory.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The very fact that worship of angels is prohibited means that it exists. The hindu idols are infused with angelic power. So, correctly, idols when infused with angels are worshipped in hinduism. They exist. The difference is that monotheistic religions prohibit it while hinduism accepts it. This is a difference in practice, not in theory.

I disagree with your premise. Prohibition is not evidence of existence. For example, Witchcraft is forbidden. But Witchcraft doesn't work -- it is a fraud.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I disagree with your premise. Prohibition is not evidence of existence. For example, Witchcraft is forbidden. But Witchcraft doesn't work -- it is a fraud.

You changed the discussion. We are talking about existence not whether it works or not. Prohibition of witchcraft certainly means it exists. We don't go around prohibiting what does not exist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Prohibition of witchcraft certainly means it exists.

Let me clarify, since I think I can pinpoint where our misunderstanding occurred. After examining this closely, I think this is a case where we both are right.

Witchcraft is forbidden, because some people believe in it and attempt to use it, and I can fully understand you pointing to this and saying "See, it does exist." But its claims are false. Casting a spell accomplishes absolutely nothing. The only thing an amulet does is make you feel good. In this respect, a working Witchcraft does not exist, which is what I was pointing out.

In the identical way, the prohibitions against idolatry and other gods are there because people BELIEVE in these false gods and worship them. So yes, the PRACTICE of idolatry exists, which I believe is your point. But their belief does not mean that these gods actually exist, nor does the prohibition of idolatry mean that these false gods exist, which is the point I was trying to make.

Consider this a case of "we are both right" and kind of were talking past each other at first.