Just something to ponder.

Theists (and Deists) use a number of rhetorical tricks to argue for a god.

Here's the challange: How can you show that there is only one, and not two or more?  RF (I'm afraid he's becoming the lightning rod for apologetics, and I use "RF" to also mean "Xian apologists") often claims that something design-y is evidence of a god, but we know that design can also occur by committee.)

There are all sorts of imaginary narratives that we can dream up, as did the writers of the Bible (satan, angels, nephilim, other gods and godesses...), and perhaps the Monotheistic story is more simple, but I see no reason to accept as true since there is no evidence.

After all, we have no idea what is happening in that alternate universe that RF calls the Supernatural Kingdom.


So, would anyone care to make a credible and cogent argument for Monotheism vs. Polytheism? Or how to argue against Polytheism, while still maintaining your Monotheistic stance?

Any takers?

The beginnings of monotheism trace to polytheism.

Gods were seen as territorial. When in a certain land, you worshiped the god there. Your home god was seen as having no power on the other guys turf. That was the difference with the god of the Israelites. The belief was that he had universal power, hence there was no need to ever stray from worship of him.

If Baal did not exist, there would have been no need for the 1st Kings showdown in which the Israelite God proved his superiority over Baal.


I'm curious how most modern theists see this. It seems to me that it isn't so much a question of belief in other gods as it is worshiping them that is forbidden. The most common way I've heard it phrased is that they are considered lesser beings, hence the term false gods. Belief in the existence of Lucipher comes with the Christian faith. Christians (at least the way I heard it) are admonished not to worship or associate with him, listen to what he has to say, or hold him in high regard.

I've also heard from quite a few people that belief in itself is not enough. Some would hold that one can 'believe' and still not be 'saved' for lack of acceptance of God.

In a way, monotheism hasn't changed. It is still based in the belief of the superiority (and allegiance) of only one, not the belief in only one.


I'm also interested to know what people think of other brands of monotheism. Do most Christians see Allah as another name for God, or is he seen as a false god. I know many people who see Judaism and Christianity as worshiping the same God, but in different ways, do many think this may be the case with Christianity and Islam. This is a very subjective topic, but I'm interested to know people's opinions.

I think its wholly valid to ask why some people believe in one god and not more, other than religious dogma. If the evidence exists for a god , how does one know, say, that "design" and "morals" aren't handled by two different gods? Surely, your insistance that your Designer is not god (when you wear your "science-y" hat) could just as likely point to an alien, or a creator god, whereas your insistance that god produced morals or logic could have come from a god interested in those things.

Sometimes, RF, in philosophy, people ask the hard questions - the ones that put you in a corner, so you can try to get yourself out of it. To see if you can. It's called challenging your mind.  I understand that Xianity doesn't have this tradition.

I know my question challenges you to the point of breaking, so, fine, address illy's very thoughtful post.
(I think you see how impossible it is to distinguish god spoor from something else, or from one god from another. That you are unable to pin-point any aspect of god in specific terms, but only in broad vagueries.  Perhaps your answer would be "its faith" anyhow?

Until this is address, I will assume your response will always be "Magic Men Done It", until you can make a credible defense to the contrary (not proof, since you can't prove a negative).

In addition Islam assigns an incoherent and contradictory set of attributes and characteristics to the God of Abraham and in doing so has turned their God into something wholly different than the God of the Bible.  In addition many Jewish groups have abandoned the intended meaning of the words of the prophets and have in the process created a doctrine with only high level resemblance to the original words.  Many no longer agree that scripture is a directive of God.

If you can't understand that Muslims and Jews have the same hang-ups with your religion that you have with theirs, then you are all in the same indiscernible boat of unclarity.

Do you believe that no modern Jews or Arabs have spent as much time as you studying religion (and THEIR holy books) only to come up with a different conclusion? I'm sure quite a few of them have spent more time and have had much more education than you in regards to religion. You are in the same boat as them, worshiping the same God. To disprove their religion is to reject your own.

Where did i indicate that I don't understand Muslims and Jews have disagreements with Christianity?  My words were to indicate that the differences are substantially more significant than what you call "prophets".  The reality is that by your words, you don't understand and you are in a sea of unclarity.


Why do you wish to make me out to be a fool?  Where did indicate such a belief?


Perhaps you should look more closely at your own education and knowledge of these religions and the differences between them before making such sweeping generalizations.


I find this statement as uninformed as your others. The truth of Christianity does not rest on Islam in any way, however, if Christianity is truth, then Islam is clearly not. Likewise the modern version of Judaism I described earlier has little resemblance to the version upon which Christianity has its foundation.

What beliefs do I hold on Faith, RF?