polytheism vs monotheism

i come across a lot of people who suggest that monotheism is a logical improvement over polytheism. this is a thread for anyone on either side to present their ideas on why one makes sense over the other. this isn't a thread to discuss whether an existence with no creator makes more sense to some people. we already have enough threads like that. rather i'd like to assume for the purpose of argument that a creator/creators do exist, and delve into the logical arguments for why there can or cannot only be one.

the reason i bring this up is because i think i do understand the basic position of the monotheist - that god must be all powerful, all knowing, and all good. naturally for god to meet these criteria he cannot share his power with any other deities or gods. what i do not understand is why these criteria are necessary for whoever engineered our existence in the first place. how can one justify pinning god down to a monotheistic definition as an argument in favor of monotheism? i want to hear the whys behind these criteria.

naturally the problem of omnipotence coexisting with omni-benevolence in an autonomous creator has lead to problems with the god concept which atheists and skeptics have traditionally used to question it's validity. it occurs to me that these same arguments could be used to justify polytheism over monotheism. whence cometh evil? maybe from another deity. maybe there are many gods, each of which is responsible for the conflicting aspects of existence that would be hard to justify as coming from a single source.

Then again, what if it is all made up

Originally posted by red g jacks
i come across a lot of people who suggest that monotheism is a logical improvement over polytheism. this is a thread for anyone on either side to present their ideas on why one makes sense over the other. this isn't a thread to discuss whether an existence with no creator makes more sense to some people. we already have enough threads like that. rather i'd like to assume for the purpose of argument that a creator/creators do exist, and delve into the logical arguments for why there can or cannot only be one.

One school of thought holds that polytheism preceded monotheism because ancient peoples could conceive of a limited god, or even a number of limited gods, more easily than conceiving a fully infinite god, especially one without form. The latter was later able to take hold as humanity's ability to think abstractly strengthened.

Another states that transcendent reality is "stratified," and that mystical exploration enables awareness of lower-level archetypal entites prior to becoming conscious of (or becoming "one with"😉 the Source archetype, this preceding awareness of the Source Void. Over time, as more advanced and able mystics (shaman, etc) communicated this to existing societies, religion evolved from poly to mono.

Still another might say that what some "Eastern" religions call multiple gods, the West simply relabled into "angels."

Its difficult to find a "true" polytheistic religion currently. Most religions we label as such, actually are monotheist when their teachings are examined. Haha, from what i've read, mormonism is actually the closest thing to true polytheism around.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Haha, from what i've read, mormonism is actually the closest thing to true polytheism around.

Gods in polytheist systems were limited. Thus, they went out of style as out knowledge of the universe expanded and, say, making lightning was no longer sufficient to be defined as all-powerful. So in terms of a religion being worthwhile, I would think that monotheism has the advantage. The rewards of limited gods would be limited. The rewards of montheistic gods would be somewhat more infinite in their potential.

Now, in terms of theoretical gods, mono or poly, there's no advantage because either is potentially infinite. But in terms of the ones created by man, there's a reason poly is largely gone.

Poly systems could potentially answer the problem of evil, like you mentioned, but non-infinite gods also call into question the necessity of worship.

i guess that does make sense, assuming that people are only motivated to worship gods based on an awe of their power or an expected reward. i always sort of thought people were also dedicated to god/gods through the same sort of filial loyalty we have towards our parents. men of god often demonstrate their appreciation not only for the creator but also for his creation.

i've often wondered if maybe it is the natural love for life(i.e. god's creation) which ultimately drives peoples dedication to him more so than the prospect of an ultimate reward or a general respect for the power he wields(a power which we cannot properly conceive of anyway; there really is no conceptual difference between all-powerful and just very powerful as far as the human imagination is concerned). then again i might just be projecting my own thought process onto others since for me that prospect of eternal bliss and those limitless powers are non-existent, while the love of life remains very relevant for both the believer and the non-believer.

either way.. whether or not the poly gods would theoretically require our worship is, for me, a non-issue. if we're talking about god or gods in reference to the theoretical being(s) that engineered our existence, i do not think the need for worship really plays any vital role in that equation. i could see how it would cause problems for anyone trying to create a religion based on those gods, though.

I would guess that in most cases polytheism came from various cultures having their own guns and then meeting each other (all the Greek city states had their own patrons). Monotheism is certainly the next logical step if you consider either the hegemonizing effect of empires or the fear of marginalized groups.

I don't see evil as contradictory or damaging to a monotheistic view. I take it the supposed clash comes from wondering why an all good God would create evil. Evil is simply a necessary by product of free will. You can't have free will without the potential for evil. God wants us to have free will, and thus evil is an unfortunate necessity.

As for monotheism vs polytheism, I'd say there is no need for multiple gods. In sticking with Occam's Razor, why assign multiple gods to something that can be done by only one? Not to say that it's impossible for there to be multiple gods, but there is no reason for us to assume this is the case.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see evil as contradictory or damaging to a monotheistic view. I take it the supposed clash comes from wondering why an all good God would create evil. Evil is simply a necessary by product of free will. You can't have free will without the potential for evil. God wants us to have free will, and thus evil is an unfortunate necessity.

The "problem of evil" however, usually includes general bad things that cannot be caused by free will.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "problem of evil" however, usually includes general bad things that cannot be caused by free will.

Like natural disasters? Those aren't evil.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see evil as contradictory or damaging to a monotheistic view. I take it the supposed clash comes from wondering why an all good God would create evil. Evil is simply a necessary by product of free will. You can't have free will without the potential for evil. God wants us to have free will, and thus evil is an unfortunate necessity.

As for monotheism vs polytheism, I'd say there is no need for multiple gods. In sticking with Occam's Razor, why assign multiple gods to something that can be done by only one? Not to say that it's impossible for there to be multiple gods, but there is no reason for us to assume this is the case.

Do you see the christian trinity as violating that principle?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why can you not have free will without the potential for evil?

Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you see the christian trinity as violating that principle?

No. The Trinity isn't three separate gods. It's still just one. Christianity is monotheistic.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No. The Trinity isn't three separate gods. It's still just one. Christianity is monotheistic.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see evil as contradictory or damaging to a monotheistic view. I take it the supposed clash comes from wondering why an all good God would create evil. Evil is simply a necessary by product of free will. You can't have free will without the potential for evil. God wants us to have free will, and thus evil is an unfortunate necessity.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

so yes, that does create problems if you assert that he is both all-good and all-powerful. that would imply that his creation would perfectly reflect his benevolent will.

that's not even considering the natural limitations that the concept of human free will imposes on god's omnipotence.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like natural disasters? Those aren't evil.

No. The Trinity isn't three separate gods. It's still just one. Christianity is monotheistic.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like natural disasters? Those aren't evil.

By certain definitions, sure. Either way they pose an equally serious problem from exactly the same angle and thus are often included in discussions of the problem of evil.

ADSJ decided god kills people by the millions so the rest of us can get some laughs. I hope you can do better than that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

But we're already denied a lot of choices, even harmless ones. I cannot, for example, choose to turn my arms into wings and go flying into the sunset. I can attempt it but I'll always fail. Seems like applying this same system to evil would be effective.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But god creates the moral standards of the world, right? So he decided to make those things "evil" in the first place.

Not everyone believes God simply dictates what is good and what is evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But wouldn't occam's razor favor one "divine person" of a god rather than three?

Yes, if both sides were equal in every other regard. But the Trinity is a specific part of a specific religion. So all the reasons that are involved with believing in that religion are also reasons for accepting the Trinity. At this point you are no longer talking about simply one god or multiple. Instead you are talking about religions.

Originally posted by red g jacks
even considering that human evil as we understand it is only possible through free will, that's only because evil deeds are even an option. humans are not granted an unlimited amount of choices. god is in fact the one who decided what was and was not possible for humans in the first place. what we consider human 'good' was in fact made possible by god and thus is credited to his glory, therefore it only makes sense that evil is no less important a part of his creation.

I don't know if I agree with that. Humans are allowed to make any choice they want. This should NOT, however, be confused with humans being able to perform every ACTION. These are two very different things.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so yes, that does create problems if you assert that he is both all-good and all-powerful. that would imply that his creation would perfectly reflect his benevolent will.

Like I said. His creation would be less grand if it did not have Free will, and free will demands the possibility for evil.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's not even considering the natural limitations that the concept of human free will imposes on god's omnipotence. why not? does it seem likely to you that it is the will of an all-powerful all-good creator for innocent humans to die and suffer needlessly?

No. The needlessly part is where you have a problem, however. God wouldn't want humans to suffer for no other reason than for them to suffer. I see no examples of this happening, however, that are not caused by humans.

The problem faced with this argument is that, in the case of natural disasters, you would have to claim that God is allowing the suffering and death of innocent people for no reason whatsoever. But that isn't a claim you can logically make. At best, you can say that God is allowing the suffering and pain of innocent people for no reason that you can see. And it isn't hard to see the flaw in that line of reasoning.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the godhead of christianity is certainly much more complicated than the traditional monotheistic god of judaism, while there is nothing the christian godhead achieves that any omnipotent entity could not.

What's your point?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By certain definitions, sure. Either way they pose an equally serious problem from exactly the same angle and thus are often included in discussions of the problem of evil.

ADSJ decided god kills people by the millions so the rest of us can get some laughs. I hope you can do better than that.

I certainly don't think God kills people by the millions for laughs. I don't think God kills people by the millions at all. Again, if you want to make the claim that natural disasters are unnecessary "evil" or that God is evil for not stepping in, see my above points. The argument doesn't hold up logically.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But we're already denied a lot of choices, even harmless ones. I cannot, for example, choose to turn my arms into wings and go flying into the sunset. I can attempt it but I'll always fail. Seems like applying this same system to evil would be effective.

As I said. There is a difference between choices and actions. We are free to choose whatever path we want, but that does NOT mean we are able to perform any ACTION.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not everyone believes God simply dictates what is good and what is evil.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, if both sides were equal in every other regard. But the Trinity is a specific part of a specific religion. So all the reasons that are involved with believing in that religion are also reasons for accepting the Trinity. At this point you are no longer talking about simply one god or multiple. Instead you are talking about religions.

Wouldn't occams razor favor 0 gods over 1 god, as well by that logic?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wouldn't occams razor favor 0 gods over 1 god, as well by that logic?

Originally posted by TacDavey
As for monotheism vs polytheism, I'd say there is no need for multiple gods. In sticking with Occam's Razor, why assign multiple gods to something that can be done by only one? Not to say that it's impossible for there to be multiple gods, but there is no reason for us to assume this is the case.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Then what does?

God does, but it isn't as simple as saying "this is good" and "this is bad". There needs to be logic in place. If every action was moral, then morality would have no meaning. At the same time, if something is good, then the opposite of it needs to be bad by logical definition. A world in which every action is considered good isn't a logically viable world.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But polytheism is also tied to specific religions. You can't apply occams razor there and then say it just doesn't count when it comes to christianity. Occams razor favors judaism over christianity as the jewish conception of god is way more simple. I also see hindu polytheism as very similar in substance to the christian trinity, so where do these silly simplifications you use relate to real religions, at all?

Wouldn't occams razor favor 0 gods over 1 god, as well by that logic?

The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, though. It is simply asking one god or multiple. In that regard, they are on equal footing with the exception of one option being more complex.

If the thread starter had provided a polytheistic religion that he wanted to defend, that would be a different story. In that case, you would have a specific religion with specific evidence/reasons for believing it to be true, as you do with Christianity and the Trinity. So in that case, you no longer have two options that are on equal footing, and Occam's Razor no longer applies in that sense.

The same is true of asking if Occam's Razor denies the Trinity or even Christianity as a whole. You no longer have two options that are equal with the exception of one being more complex. Now you have specific religions that have specific reasons supporting them.