Originally posted by Quark_666
But asking whether we "need" more gods to explain the universe admits that we're creating them to fill a gap in our understanding.
No it doesn't. It simply answers a question about whether a being is one or multiple. There is no evidence from that view that we are creating anything.
Originally posted by TacDavey
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 TacDavey
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.
OK. So let's compare Judaic god to christian trinity. They share a whole testament so we are getting as much common ground as possible. What is it you feel makes the three-in-one seem more likely to you of these options, when it already has the whole occams razor strike against it?
Originally posted by TacDaveyIt uses our need for an explanation as the only criteria to judge its existence. It virtually surrenders to atheistic theories about the origins of theism.
No it doesn't. It simply answers a question about whether a being is one or multiple. There is no evidence from that view that we are creating anything.
Originally posted by King KandySee now, that is what I call a logically sound form of theism. It scraps Occam's razor, but that seems like step 1 if you're theistic anyway.
I think if there is a god, it would obviously have to be far above what humans could understand, and could only be manifested in parts. This is a foundation of hindu polytheism and it seems to me like even christians follow this line of thinking as the trinity is substantially similar!
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why not? You say "if every action was moral, then morality would have no meaning". OK. So? Why did god have to care about dividing up actions in that manner? No need for a dichotomy when there could only be one (hey, isn't that basically occam's razor thinking, again)?
As I said before. It needs to be a logically working world. God can do anything within the realm of logic. A world where an action is "good" needs to logically have the opposite of that be "bad". And the world needs to have "good" and "bad" to , again, logically function. If you kill someone, at the very least you have something "bad" happening to that person. You cannot make a logically functional world without "good" and "bad" in some form or another.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But you are basically trying to discuss these systems by their 1-sentence descriptions. I think before you apply such simplistic divisions you should actually read about some polytheistic religions.
The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, so which one am I suppose to be responding to?
Like I said, if there was a specific polytheistic religion that was being defended here, it would have it's own reasons and evidence behind it. There wasn't. It was simply: "One god or multiple?"
Originally posted by King Kandy
OK. So let's compare Judaic god to christian trinity. They share a whole testament so we are getting as much common ground as possible. What is it you feel makes the three-in-one seem more likely to you of these options, when it already has the whole occams razor strike against it?
There is no Occam's Razor strike against it because it isn't on completely equal footing with the Judaic god. There is a completely new Testament, historical evidence, and a whole debate that can take place between the two religions. Occam's Razor does not apply to this example. It also would not apply to any specific polytheistic religion vs a specific monotheistic religion, granted they both have some kind of support behind them.
Originally posted by Quark_666
It uses our need for an explanation as the only criteria to judge its existence. It virtually surrenders to atheistic theories about the origins of theism.
No it doesn't. We have never, at any point, been judging the possible existence of God. We have been, for the sake of argument, assuming that a god or gods exists and then asking the question of whether that being is one or many.
Originally posted by TacDaveyThat's like assuming the existence of Russel's Teapot and then asking the question of whether it's green or blue....
No it doesn't. We have never, at any point, been judging the possible existence of God. We have been, for the sake of argument, assuming that a god or gods exists and then asking the question of whether that being is one or many.
Can we at least agree that you're defining criteria for spiritual belief?
Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said before. It needs to be a logically working world. God can do anything within the realm of logic. A world where an action is "good" needs to logically have the opposite of that be "bad". And the world needs to have "good" and "bad" to , again, logically function. If you kill someone, at the very least you have something "bad" happening to that person. You cannot make a logically functional world without "good" and "bad" in some form or another.
This is like saying God had to create a "down" because there needed to be an "up". It sounds good but its hardly the only option. God could have created a two-dimensional world in which there was neither a down nor an up, but simply one uniform level of depth. Similarly, God could create a universe where all actions have exactly equal moral value, with neither good nor bad. In fact that would be much simpler than setting up a system of moral dichotomy.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, so which one am I suppose to be responding to?Like I said, if there was a specific polytheistic religion that was being defended here, it would have it's own reasons and evidence behind it. There wasn't. It was simply: "One god or multiple?"
Originally posted by TacDavey
There is no Occam's Razor strike against it because it isn't on completely equal footing with the Judaic god. There is a completely new Testament, historical evidence, and a whole debate that can take place between the two religions. Occam's Razor does not apply to this example. It also would not apply to any specific polytheistic religion vs a specific monotheistic religion, granted they both have some kind of support behind them.
Originally posted by Quark_666
That's like assuming the existence of Russel's Teapot and then asking the question of whether it's green or blue....Can we at least agree that you're defining criteria for spiritual belief?
Yes, I suppose it is. Either way, that's what's happening. The existence of God is another debate, one that this thread is not targeting.
I suppose, in a sense. Though I don't consider it criteria for spiritual belief as much as I consider it criteria for logical thinking. The same line of reasoning can be applied to much more than spiritual beliefs.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's showing some intense lack of creativity on your part. Yes, if you have good, you need to have bad. OK. Why did we need to have either one?This is like saying God had to create a "down" because there needed to be an "up". It sounds good but its hardly the only option. God could have created a two-dimensional world in which there was neither a down nor an up, but simply one uniform level of depth. Similarly, God could create a universe where all actions have exactly equal moral value, with neither good nor bad. In fact that would be much simpler than setting up a system of moral dichotomy.
I'm saying a world in which there are no good or bad is not a logically possible world. It makes no sense. If you were to kill a person who wanted to keep living, it would be "bad" for that person. No getting around it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So you admit that what you said has absolutely zero relevance to any real-world religion. What is the point of even talking about it?So basically your occams razor was completely worthless and does not relate to religion as it functions in the real world. I might as well say invisible cauliflower is tastier than the polka-doted kind. Neither one exists or has any value to anything, much like your 'generic' religions.
It does have significance. The question was aimed at monotheism and polytheism in general. And for that, it works fine. There was never any specific polytheistic religion that was suppose to be defended. The question was simply, "Is God one god or multiple?" And I answered that question. It was not, "which religion is correct between polytheistic religion A and monotheistic religion B."
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm saying a world in which there are no good or bad is not a logically possible world. It makes no sense. If you were to kill a person who wanted to keep living, it would be "bad" for that person. No getting around it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why it makes no sense. Why would God create a world where anyone would desire that? Look at the bible. It's gaining knowledge of good and evil that is the original sin. So even the bible admits that is a very dangerous concept. I don't see why either one is necessary.
I already explained to you why they are necessary. A world where everything is good makes no logical sense. Because you would have to say that the opposite of good is good.
Furthermore, you cannot just make something not bad. Again, if you kill someone who wanted to keep living then, at the very least, it would be "bad" from that person's point of view.
It isn't logically possible to make the world you are suggesting.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I already explained to you why they are necessary. A world where everything is good makes no logical sense. Because you would have to say that the opposite of good is good.Furthermore, you cannot just make something not bad. Again, if you kill someone who wanted to keep living then, at the very least, it would be "bad" from that person's point of view.
It isn't logically possible to make the world you are suggesting.
But why would god create a world where people would desire to do that?
Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said everything would be good. I said everything would be neutral. That is a big difference because "neutral" doesn't have an opposite, and so nothing is needed to counteract it.But why would god create a world where people would desire to do that?
Again, there can't be "neutral". Killing someone who doesn't want to be killed isn't neutral at least to the person.
God doesn't make people desire to do that. We choose to do that because we aren't perfect beings.