Ontological evidence for one God

How do you justify the claim that there is only one higher being?

Other urls found in this thread:

google.be/search?hl=en&dcr=0&source=hp&ei=px3_WZmyHYrvUJPigOAJ&q=ontological evidence of god&oq=&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39k1l6.1969.5447.0.7220.5.3.1.0.0.0.94.94.1.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.2.136.6...129.HVyb0IB6Lxc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The evidence is virtually all aspects of science and physics.

You are too lazy to look.

>The evidence is virtually all aspects of science and physics.

Prove it, then. What makes it true?

>The evidence is virtually all aspects of science and physics.

>You are too lazy to look.

Wow. I'm blown away. So much evidence right there.

Kind of funny how this one poster says all sciences prove there is only on diety and not several but fails to cite an example.

Literally a non-argument.

What makes anything true?

If there were multiple higher beings, then one of them must have the highest level of power (unless they all have precisely the same level of power). The being with the highest level of power would thus be the "Highest Being", which would be a higher being compared to everything else that exists.

x^2=4
x1=2
x2=-2
There COULD be multiple truths after all.

I'm asking for evidence for the claim that there is only one higher being and suddenly a random poster who says this is true by claiming science and physics prove it...can't even show me his line of thought.

Weak attempt.

More than one wouldn't be God

So what makes your God ontologically true as the only one? How do you know there is only one?

What does "ontological" mean to you? If you're looking for evidence, you usually already have a theory about what kinds of things are real. If you're really committed to one that will consider the real existence of infinite return, many-worlds theories etc., there's probably no point in making cosmological arguments, for instance.

>If there were multiple higher beings, then one of them must have the highest level of power (unless they all have precisely the same level of power)

But then you still acknowledge that there are several and not only one, correct?

What the fug

you don't, that's what faith is

So in your case it's faith and no hard evidence. Good to know.

Just look into any power pyramid. The higher the power level the most concentrated the power is. Even if there are multiple supernatural creatures above us (angels or whatever) on the highest level there will always be one supreme being to rule them all.

I'm talking Gods, not angels. Angels aren't Gods.

is that a bad thing? there are stats that suggest, strongly, that a Christian society was the most successful so far. is that not a sign?

I'm curious how you, in the case of being a Christian, then, can be sure there is only one higher being.

You God got killed. Doesn't that prove that it can't be a higher beimg?

>The one and only God decides to become human
>Walks around
>Gets killed

Doesn't sound like a transcendental being.

>How do you justify the claim that there is only one higher being
This is basic theology. The commonly accepted definition of God is "total and simple perfection", or as you say, "the highest being".
Now, is it possible to have more than one perfection? Of course it is, all the virtues come to mind: Justice in its highest expression, Life in its highest expression, Knowledge in its highest expression etc.
From this coneptual environment, which could be interpreted as polytheism, we take another step forward, and ask the following question: is any of these God? Is perfect Justice, perfect Life etc. the totality of all perfections?
Impossibile, for the simple reason that perfect Justice, being hat it is, is not perfect Life; and perfect Life, being what it is, is not perfect Knowledge. You can repeat this little game for every perfection you can think of, but the result is always the same: a maximum expression of something, by virtue of being a certain something, cannot be ny other thing.
This way, we just have a pile of attributes, floating in the space of our intellect, and we have yet to find THE perfection. How do we do it?
By removing all that makes perfect Justice only Justice, and perfect Life only Life. You end up with a concept that embraces all the others without being any one of those in particular, you obtain the One. This is what we call simplicity, being everything at the same time: it's as if we took all the "molecules" of the various perfections and obtained a different molecule, not necessarily bigger, that cointains all of the others in principle.
From this single principle, all the others are brought into being. The army of all that is good thus has a commander.
Armed with this, we can finally answer your question, "How do you justify the claim that there is only one higher being?"
(cont.)

Because it is impossibile to be more than one perfect and simple union of all perfections. In such a case, the conclusions can only be two:
1. The second being is identical to the first one, and thus they are the same "entity". No problem here, since we simply made a conceptual error.
2. If these being are indeed different, then each lack something from the other, and non of those can then be called "total and simple sum of all perfections". We end up with no God, and we must search still for the higher one.

Or you could just read some Parmenides, he put forward the basis for all this a long time ago.

What is a higher being?

Why do you attribute human concepts to higher beings?

>total and simple perfection
>You end up with a concept that embraces all the others without being any one of those in particular, you obtain the One.

So...by saying vague statements like "the pieces of the whole are not the whole but the whole are the pieces" then you suddenly get one higher beimg?

You don't look for evidence. There's a reason it's called faith. I was never religious until recently, but I didn't need proof to find God.

Plato's theory of forms. The allegory of the cave, and the sun as symbolism for God (logos), where all life derives from a singular entity. Without the sun all other forms do not exist.

>Why do you attribute human concepts to higher beings?
1. How am I supposed to convince you without using human concepts?
2. We're assuming that all things have an origin, and that this origin is this higher and supreme being. If they come from this supreme being, their mere existence says something about their creator. Now, platonists and christians take this notion to different ends, but they do agree on the basic premise.
>So...by saying vague statements like "the pieces of the whole are not the whole but the whole are the pieces" then you suddenly get one higher beimg?
The whole is not the pieces. You have to think of it as the wellspring from which all the pieces come forth.

>How am I supposed to convince you without using human concepts?

It's not that. It's kind of typical for a Christian theologian to say that since Christians believe thst a human was a God (and therefore have human attributes).

>The whole is not the pieces.

And of course, the pieces are not the whole, right?

God didn't get killed, he sent his son to die, which he knew was going to happen and so did jesus, so that original sin would be absolved. you sound like you want to believe, don't you know He's trying to reach you?

I gave you a more serious answer to the first question, come on.
>And of course, the pieces are not the whole, right?
A "simple" thing is not composite. In such a notion, both "pieces" and "whole" make no sense.

God is on the inside. It's the thing that unites all.

>God didn't get killed, he sent his son to die

He did get killed. He sent himself to die.

You don't. There is no evidence for it. However there is no definitive evidence against it either, since you can't prove a negative. People will be pissing on about the existence/nonexistence of Gods/whatever the fuck for the rest of time.

>Shilling Mystery Babylon religion

addendum, I'm assuming you accepted my point since you didn't challenge me on it. to put it simply, there is one because He says there is one. I don't see multiple gods when I think of a creator. I see one. a lot of philosophers smarter than me would agree that this was and still is sufficient evidence, if evidence is what you seek

holy trinity, God was still in Heaven, Jesus prayed to Him

>philosophers smarter than me would agree that this was and still is sufficient evidence

Appeal to authority! Nice! Haven't heard that one before.

Perfection is an illusion, because perfection implies a lack of change, and change is the basic nature of all things. That God is defined as being unchanging is defining God as nonexistent. It is into the black hole of unchanging nihilistic stasis into which the theist throws all purpose and meaning, desiring the ultimate consumption of themselves by it in the state of heaven.

no, not appeal to authority, I just can't phrase it as well as they can. I'm telling you I am not smart, I'm not telling you that you are not smart. you seem to be very well read, but maybe you should approach the subject with less vinegar?

so, what exactly differentiates faith from gullibility?

>A "simple" thing is not composite

You mean like " being everything at the same time"?

Change in what you'd call a God implies a lack of something. A God that lacks something is not a God.

>virtue doesn't exist
>tomorrow cold-blooded murder is morally right
>muh subjectivism

attitude, and the intentions of the source. what intentions do we see from Christianity except providing a bulwark against what's even worse?

Almost. The wellspring analogy I suggested is what comes closest, in my opinion. "Being everything" is too similar to the "whole" that we cited before, while we are looking for something different.
And no, it is not a pathway into pantheism, although you could distort it like that if you really wanted to.

I fail to see how attitude or intentions play any part in defining what is true. Faith, in this context, means accepting truth claims about the nature of the universe without any good evidence. Gullibility can be defined in exactly the same way.

...

Only muslims claim there's just one. The Bible (Jews & Christians) says there are many. When Moses sees the burning bush, he even has to ask what god is that.

The entire Western concept of will is broken. Awareness is synonymous with question and query; you are not an "I" but an "?" One's decisions are fully determined by their queries and the particular constraints of reality, the process is question->decision->action. Self-awareness is query that has bent on itself, to ask queries of the querent. Free will does not exist but free inquiry (Wu wei) does, and is not an absolute but is one's skill in questioning. It is not a matter of "virtue" which is a human construct, but a matter of harmonious being with the nature of change.

I don't
But I do say that non-agnostics are retarded, and you need only a passing understanding of philosophy to understand why

Personal experience.

cynicism, anyone can call faith gullibility. that's what I mean. you proved what i meant with your statement.

If the ontological argument for god is valid then it is valid for every single bit of energy. Therefore there are over 10^4500000000000000000000000000th power number of Gods.

Checkmate, monotheists.

i never stated attitude determines truth, or if you read it that way I'm sorry. I meant what you meant

I fail to see how this makes sense to you.

>You end up with a concept that embraces all the others without being any one of those in particular, you obtain the One. This is what we call simplicity

Simplicity doesn't seem so simple to you.

I don't mean "ease of understanding", I mean "not composed".

So to you the one God (the only one according to Christian doctrine) is proven by the mere fact that he is simple as opposed to a complex number of several Gods.

Sounds Occam's razor tier to me.

Why complicate things? Occam's razor is a decent start.

>Why complicate things?

Would science even progress if everyone thought that way?

I'll break it down for you again before bailing, because clearly this isn't benefiting no one.

1. God is defined as the supreme being, which means that it lacks nothing.
2. If there was another supreme being,
- a. they are the same entity, so there aren't more than one supreme being.
- b. none of them is the supreme being, since they are different and each lack something. A plurality of supreme beings is then a logical impossibility.

Couldn't there be multiple entities that lack nothing?

Yes.

>1. God is defined as the supreme being, which means that it lacks nothing.
Several Gods are also supreme beings and therefore can't lack anything
>2. If there was another supreme being,
>- a. they are the same entity, so there aren't more than one supreme being.
If that's true then you can't claim that Lucifer exists. Lucifer is the polar opposite of God and wields just as much power as he does except that he is inherently evil.
>- b. none of them is the supreme being, since they are different and each lack something. A plurality of supreme beings is then a logical impossibility.
If none of the are supreme they still don't have to lack something. A supreme being doesn't have human flaws.

How does Bob Marley justify one love?

>How does Bob Marley justify one love?

Marijuana, probably.

Monotheism is inherently unhealthy psychologically. Polytheism is the natural product of a complex and healthy mind-- even if there are no gods.

There isn't only one higher being. But there can't be more than one God. How can you have two distinguishable entities that both have perfect traits? They would have to be identical.

If you had 2 Gods, there would have to be underlying principles that unite them. If they exist together, they cannot exist independently. Therefore there would have to be a higher force that unites them both. Nearly every polytheistic religion has some sort of "One" or creator god from which everything else stems. Dualism is an illusion.

>there can't be more than one God

....because?

Well, according to Jewish, Christian and Islamic teachings, the One god creates evil. Then evil becomes so powerful and threatening that it can rival the One god.

This implicitky means that evil becomes another God that tries to defy its creator.

*Creates a being which chooses to do evil. That doesn't classify any being that defies God as a God itself.

You're honestly just grasping at straws now which means you're just being dishonest with yourself.

A supreme God, all-knowing and all-powerful, that knows everything before it happens, creates evil.

Spoiler: the One god knew exactly what would happen. He willfully wanted evil to grow stronger.

No. You're the one engaging in mental gymnastics.

He created beings with the option to walk away. Without that, there is no free will. We would be forced to love him. It's like Socrates' view that harming others harms your own soul, not theirs. It's impossible to actually hurt anyone other than yourself.

At least one that understands the definition of God.
For the fedoras out there, if you don't have the necessary IQ to understand the metaphysical arguments that undoubtedly point to God necessity, give up, stay in your ignorance and trust who is more intellectually capable.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

Evidence for God is everywhere. You only need to look at the complexity of something like the human eye.

The point still stands. A supreme God, according to Jewish, Christian and Islamic teachings know and always knew what would happen.

I don't ask for the evidence for God. I ask for the evidence of the religious rationale behind there being only one God.

Jesus Christ is the son of God. If he's the son then his preachment are true and there is only one God the father.

So...Jesus father (himself) is the only God because...?

Gay

He told us there is only one God the father. If Jesus said it, I believe it and I'd much rather throw in with his lot than yours.

>He told us

Wow. Jesus knew about Occam's razor even before Occam. How neat.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Psalm 14:1

Why do you start quoting psalms when you still haven't explained why there is only one God and not several?

I've given you knock out evidence in just about every quote. If you're so self centered you can't see it that's not on me. I'm leaving the thread, I've had enough of destroying you for one night. I'll be praying for you.

If all your evidence for one God consists of "he told us" then Jesus is on the same level as Muhammad and Moses.

In other words not credible.

God isn't a being it's a state.

Even Plato recognized this, that it is only that Which is irrational that makes us unique.

God therefore is an archetype.

I want this cap.

Suddenly a Jungian enters the thread.

lmao you can't "quote" something into existence you dumb cunt.

The bible is a book of claims, prove the bullshit you're quoting

>the One god creates evil
Creates beings which can choose to follow God's law or not. To be evil is to not follow God's law

>Then evil becomes so powerful and threatening that it can rival the One god
not in islamic teachings, which has God above all

the devil is just a powerless being shamed into earth trying to cause mischief to man

Read the bible you stupid fucking mong. You can't even follow this thread enough to know the quotes are MY POSTS not quotes of the bible you rock spider.

It's a great cap. It comes with a beard and moustache. It also makes you impervious to monotheism.

...

this rounds off the "god says other races are subhumans" argument

There can't be *Nothing*. There has to be *Something*. Where there is *Something*, there is *Everything* including the *Source*. Everything is a manifestation of the *Source* but only the manifestation can be seen.

God *Is* Reality, everything else is simply evidence of this.

google.be/search?hl=en&dcr=0&source=hp&ei=px3_WZmyHYrvUJPigOAJ&q=ontological evidence of god&oq=&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39k1l6.1969.5447.0.7220.5.3.1.0.0.0.94.94.1.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.2.136.6...129.HVyb0IB6Lxc

>30+ posts

Having fun stroking your ego, I see.