Monotheists: why only one god?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I asked this a few years ago and didn't get much of a response, so I figured I'd ask again:

Those of you who are monotheists: how do you justify your position that two or more gods do not exist?

I mean, we've seen all the threads here directed at atheists about burden of proof and the like, and plenty of theists - often monotheists, ironically - have gone on at length about the problems they see with the conclusion that no gods exist.

... but here's the thing: if these problems are problems at all, they don't just apply to atheism. All the objections along the lines of "well, what if there's some god out there that you haven't noticed?" work just as well for a second god to a monotheist as a first god for an atheist.

So these objections to atheists saying "there are no gods" can really be seen as expressions of a larger idea: if you think only a specific number of gods exist and no more than that - whether it's 0, 1, 3, or 94 - how do you know there aren't more gods than that?

A lot of the responses to this question I've seen from atheists have been some form of argument that gods are impossible in general... but of course these arguments aren't available to a monotheist.

So monotheists: what gives? Why not two gods? Why not 10?

 

[F1fan]

I think it's interesting that the Hebrew God was derived from a polytheistic system.

Does anyone have any current info on this research? Why did the sift out other gods? Could it have been to make the authority of leadership a more efficient system?

 

[Link]

Good question. This thread we had a debate on monotheism vs polytheism (one on one).

Me vs. Link: One God vs. many gods

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good question. This thread we had a debate on monotheism vs polytheism (one on one).

Me vs. Link: One God vs. many gods

Is there any point in me reading beyond this?

Oneness of God for me is intuitive

 

[Link]

Is there any point in me reading beyond this?

Up to you. If you want to just score points and argue, not really.

 

[Rival]

I'm quite tired but I will try addressing this. I'm not really interested in a debate so I'm just going to put this here then go, I think.

1. One issue seems to be that Gods within historic polytheism have been part of the creation, rather than outside of it. This means these Gods have a maker (in a theistic belief) or still doesn't account for where they came from or why. The idea of a supreme head God who is infinite, outside of time, etc. has often been put forward as an ultimate explanation. This is the case in Kemeticism (Egyptian polytheism), where various Gods are given the status of supreme creator God who is responsible for the other Gods, and within the Cult of Amun, Amun became the only God with others only as manifestations/emanations etc. Dharmic faiths do something similar, though not quite the same, and Zoroastrianism is also related to Dharmic faiths. Within European thinking, one has the idea of the Monad of Pythagorean thought, or the Unmoved Mover of Aristotelian thought. It ultimately seems to come down to the one final source, which seems to be almost inevitably, even in polytheistic systems, perceived as a unity or singular phenomenon.

2. Monotheism makes unity. Most monotheistic religions have come to dominate because they unify people groups. They bring one law, one moral system, one code, whatever it may be. Ethical Monotheism is the right term for this, broadly, as the God in question is almost inevitably a law-giver in the way few polytheistic Gods are. Instead of creating disparate little cults, as happened in Greece and Rome for instance, having one God and one form of worship unifies folks and in one instance, gave birth to a new conceptual continent - Europe. Without Christianity, 'Europe' as we understand it would not be.

3. Historically, monotheism, especially Christianity and Islam, (Judaism just being for one people group I don't include it here but it does count) has broken barriers that existed within highly differentiated polytheistic societies. One reason Christianity attracted so many followers is because it made no distinction in the worth of peoples based on sex, occupation, etc. Slave or free, one was considered equal as a brother in a way that was completely unheard of in Antiquity. Having everything in common was also novel for many of these people. The Orthodox Patriarch is called 'The First Among Equals' and the Pope is called 'Servus Servorum Dei' ('Servant of the Servants of God'). You get the point. Before this, societies were rigid and everyone was highly controlled in a way fascists can only dream of these days. The idea that your life has worth, even if you're a slave or a woman or a poor man, was revolutionary, in essence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm quite tired but I will try addressing this. I'm not really interested in a debate so I'm just going to put this here then go, I think.

1. One issue seems to be that Gods within historic polytheism have been part of the creation, rather than outside of it. This means these Gods have a maker (in a theistic belief) or still doesn't account for where they came from or why. The idea of a supreme head God who is infinite, outside of time, etc. has often been put forward as an ultimate explanation. This is the case in Kemeticism (Egyptian polytheism), where various Gods are given the status of supreme creator God who is responsible for the other Gods, and within the Cult of Amun, Amun became the only God with others only as manifestations/emanations etc. Dharmic faiths do something similar, though not quite the same, and Zoroastrianism is also related to Dharmic faiths. Within European thinking, one has the idea of the Monad of Pythagorean thought, or the Unmoved Mover of Aristotelian thought. It ultimately seems to come down to the one final source, which seems to be almost inevitably, even in polytheistic systems, perceived as a unity or singular phenomenon.

As you point out, there are plenty of polytheistic religions that include both a "prime mover" and a pantheon of gods, so I'm not sure why believing in a prime mover would imply rejecting polytheism.

2. Monotheism makes unity. Most monotheistic religions have come to dominate because they unify people groups. They bring one law, one moral system, one code, whatever it may be. Ethical Monotheism is the right term for this, broadly, as the God in question is almost inevitably a law-giver in the way few polytheistic Gods are. Instead of creating disparate little cults, as happened in Greece and Rome for instance, having one God and one form of worship unifies folks and in one instance, gave birth to a new conceptual continent - Europe. Without Christianity, 'Europe' as we understand it would not be.

3. Historically, monotheism, especially Christianity and Islam, (Judaism just being for one people group I don't include it here but it does count) has broken barriers that existed within highly differentiated polytheistic societies. One reason Christianity attracted so many followers is because it made no distinction in the worth of peoples based on sex, occupation, etc. Slave or free, one was considered equal as a brother in a way that was completely unheard of in Antiquity. Having everything in common was also novel for many of these people. The Orthodox Patriarch is called 'The First Among Equals' and the Pope is called 'Servus Servorum Dei' ('Servant of the Servants of God'). You get the point. Before this, societies were rigid and everyone was highly controlled in a way fascists can only dream of these days. The idea that your life has worth, even if you're a slave or a woman or a poor man, was revolutionary, in essence.

These two points seem to speak more to the consequences of monotheism than justification for monotheism in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Up to you. If you want to just score points and argue, not really.

I'm interested in learning, but not in getting sent down rabbit holes.

Just looking at the first few posts in that thread, it seems like this is the bit that's especially relevant:

3. His chosen ones should not be called "gods"

Although they have incredible powers and are with every soul ruling through his chair and are the light revealed, their is a vast difference between them and the Creator, the former is limited, changing, created, the latter unlimited, absolute, and eternal.

As such our reverence should not come anywhere be at par with others with God. We should have a word that expresses our love and exaltation of God above all others.

This makes it seem like your argument comes down to semantics: nothing but God (large "g") could meet your definition of "god" (small "g").

I can't find anything in the thread that explains why you settled on the particular definition of "god" that you did.

 

[Link]

I'm interested in learning, but not in getting sent down rabbit holes.

Just looking at the first few posts in that thread, it seems like this is the bit that's especially relevant:


This makes it seem like your argument comes down to semantics: nothing but God (large "g") could meet your definition of "god" (small "g").

I can't find anything in the thread that explains why you settled on the particular definition of "god" that you did.

It's because God is way beyond everything in terms of exaltedness. Exalted ones are way higher then believers that are great but not chosen by God. God is exalted, but the other exalted ones don't compare to his status.

Since Glorification in this sense is about comparing, and God has no equals, it makes we reserve a word in language for the level of reverence we have for him over others.

Same reason why we reserve word exalted for his chosen and not regular believers no matter how good they are.

 

[The Hammer]

Like a monoculture crop, monotheism is heavily susceptible to fracturing (sect creation), and disease (bad ideas). This is talking politics, but it applies to Religion as well imo.

"Diverse ecosystems, in nature and in politics, are always more resilient than monocultures. Monocultures in agriculture are enormously
susceptible to disease — one virus or germ can wipe out an entire crop. Monocultures in politics are enormously susceptible to diseased
ideas." (Friedman, T.; How We Broke The World; New York Times; 5/30/2020)

 

[Link]

Semantics is half or even more, of the battle between truth and falsehood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's because God is way beyond everything in terms of exaltedness. Exalted ones are way higher then believers that are great but not chosen by God. God is exalted, but the other exalted ones don't compare to his status.

Since Glorification in this sense is about comparing, and God has no equals, it makes we reserve a word in language for the level of reverence we have for him over others.

Same reason why we reserve word exalted for his chosen and not regular believers no matter how good they are.

I didn't say "God;" I said "god."

Why couldn't you say that God has no equals while also acknowledging other, lesser gods?

Edit: but do you reserve the word "god" just for God, though? I mean, wouldn't you say that polytheistic religions worship multiple gods?

 

[Rival]

As you point out, there are plenty of polytheistic religions that include both a "prime mover" and a pantheon of gods, so I'm not sure why believing in a prime mover would imply rejecting polytheism.

It's more or less getting to the heart and saying 'If there's one omnimax God, why any others?' it makes others redundant in the eyes of monotheists. It also depends on how one is defining 'god' as a word and what one considers a god. Mostly though, once you reach the omnimax god, others start falling away. A big problem is that a lot of polytheistic Gods are associated with certain places, and in certain places it was polite to worship local Gods - the omnimax over-all God makes this redundant since he's local to the whole universe. It tends just to be a matter of time.

These two points seem to speak more to the consequences of monotheism than justification for monotheism in the first place.

I'd consider them justificaitons.

 

[Kenny]

I think I asked this a few years ago and didn't get much of a response, so I figured I'd ask again:

Those of you who are monotheists: how do you justify your position that two or more gods do not exist?

I mean, we've seen all the threads here directed at atheists about burden of proof and the like, and plenty of theists - often monotheists, ironically - have gone on at length about the problems they see with the conclusion that no gods exist.

... but here's the thing: if these problems are problems at all, they don't just apply to atheism. All the objections along the lines of "well, what if there's some god out there that you haven't noticed?" work just as well for a second god to a monotheist as a first god for an atheist.

So these objections to atheists saying "there are no gods" can really be seen as expressions of a larger idea: if you think only a specific number of gods exist and no more than that - whether it's 0, 1, 3, or 94 - how do you know there aren't more gods than that?

A lot of the responses to this question I've seen from atheists have been some form of argument that gods are impossible in general... but of course these arguments aren't available to a monotheist.

So monotheists: what gives? Why not two gods? Why not 10?

I think it is a matter of definition.

Even I would say there are many gods... just one true God - God above all gods.

I would say that even men are gods (but with a different definition). Gods in that men can be the master of their own soul and destiny. Autonomous. Creative. Self willed.

But only God is the God of all Creation and ultimately is the true God. In the Christian view.

 

[Link]

I didn't say "God;" I said "god."

Why couldn't you say that God has no equals while also acknowledging other, lesser gods?

I explained, we use the term exalted ones for his chosen, who if anyone would be "gods", would be them. But since God is much exalted over them, we reserve a word for glorifying God which is worship. That which deserves to be worshiped is one. The whole thing comes down to, if we reserve a word of love and respect for God over others, that is unique to him. Since he is way beyond, we don't use the word "lesser gods", since we want to say God is a realm of exaltedness way above exalted ones. We use the word exalted for his chosen (who you would call lesser gods), and we use the word great and honorable for believers. But they aren't chosen exalted ones, but are guided by the exalted ones and honored by God through the exalted ones and they are redeemed through the exalted ones and seeing God way beyond them in exaltedness (and hence reserving a world of love and reverence for God) (worship).

 

[Link]

God is Exalted, and that which is Exalted is Great but not all great ones are exalted, and no exalted one is divine except God, that is he is whole realm of greatness way above.

 

[Link]

If we begin to call all great ones, exalted, and all exalted chosen ones gods, we are diluting the comparison in rank words. They lose their purpose in this case. Exalted is above great, Godhood above exalted, and godhood being the highest reverence, we should reserve it for the Creator since nothing comes near his status. Keeps things clear so as not to confuse people.

 

[stvdv]

So monotheists: what gives?

Monotheists: why only one god?

Out of curiosity "why do you ask this question being Atheist?"
a) Genuinely interest to hear our different views?
b) Trying to understand more about God, Theism?
c) Trying to debate our views as to strengthen Atheist view?
d) Some other...

 

[ppp]

Monotheists: why only one god?

Out of curiosity "why do you ask this question being Atheist?"

The OP explains that pretty clearly.

 

[1213]

...
Those of you who are monotheists: how do you justify your position that two or more gods do not exist?
...

To me God means the highest. There can be only one highest.

And as it is said in the Bible:

….For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6