Is there only one true God ?

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It depends on one's predilection toward anthropomorphization. To me, making God a Being is tantamount to idolatry unless one is aware that this is a subjective construct of his own making, and not a true representation of whatever it is that God is OF ITSELF. But when people speak of God, usually they mean some anthropomorphized construct of their own making, so the term is useless for the most part as an exchangeable marker.

lol What else can be asked of us but to make subjective constructs of God? Do we have scientific instruments that can reach into the depths of the reality inside and outside of the universe to catch God in a fishing net and put Him in an inert chamber where He can be measured and defined with precision and exactitude?

Anyone who claims objectivity with regards to God is deluding himself. Human languages have always been subjective and ambiguous. It's just that the intuition of philosophers and politicians allows them to instinctively identify the likely meaning of a sequence of words and sentences. But some "wise guy" who likes to poke fun at things can come along and say no they really means this. Then someone will respond by saying that this wise guy is being a bit too technical and is twisting words out of context.

All of our concepts of God are stated in human languages so they are only as good as descriptions, depictions and portrayals. If we say we have a sentence, paragraph or book that can define God, someone else can come along and say, no here is my definition of God, and it is either equal or better than your's.

The objective view is that only one of the two pieces of literature are perfect or universal definitions of God. So how are we to decide how to measure the perfection or universality of the two pieces of literature? Do we have a scientific procedure to define the most discerning process for measuring the perfection, elegance and universality of one's definition of God?

But then we'd have to have a scientific procedure to measure the quality of that procedure that discerns and measures the perfection, elegance and universality of one's definition of God. That procedure, in turn, would need another procedure to evaluate it. It goes on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Eventually, this whole system of procedures to evaluate procedures that evaluate one's definition of God would grow to infinite size. If a definition of God contained so much meaning so as to require an infinite number of procedures to evaluate it, it is only possible for the bunch of words it contains to be infinite. Words carry finite meaning, so a bunch of words containing infinite meaning must be infinite in number.

So obviously it's impossible to ever have an objective concept of God because objective claims imply a precise and exact grip on reality. Anyone who claims objectivity can be subject to an objectivity test to evaluate his claim of objectivity. Their claims will probably be found wanting.

So whatever our concept of God, it's always going to be subjective. We can't do any better than descriptions, depictions and portraits. Yeah I do anthropomorphize God, and I do, from time to time, label Him as a being. But I don't see that as essential. It's just an approach to a concept of God. It's a way of seeing God with a particular purpose and agenda in mind. It's usually so that I can interpret Scripture and explain Scripture to myself. If I was an adherent of some other tradition I probably wouldn't need to use such terminology or metaphors. The anthropomorphization is just a tool of understanding.

Yeah I can see how it could be a kind of idolatry, especially if one "foolishly" thinks that such a concept is objective. Strict, unwavering and stubborn devotion to a concept and the insistence and belief that others must adhere to it if they want to have an objective, perfect and universal concept like their own is like building an idol out of wood and stone. You don't really worship God, but the definition you see as objective. It's like a worship of one's own intellect.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The objective view is that only one of the two pieces of literature are perfect or universal definitions of God.

You are leaving out the possibility that neither is.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by bob x

You are leaving out the possibility that neither is.

That was always a possibility. But if one believes that one of the two pieces of literature was perfect and universal, one is going to ignore that possibility. The idea is that proving that one is perfect and universal automatically disproves the other as perfect and universal. It's like the question of who gets to the top of the mountain first so they can stick a flag up there. There is the possibility that no-one will ever reach the top, but if someone reaches the top, that possibility is nullified by the fact that someone did in fact reach the top. Someone else may get there later but it's the first one who gets a flag up there who gets all the credit.

I don't hold the objective view, so I don't have to worry about defending it. Not everyone wants to climb mountains so they can stick flags on the summit.

It's the first country that lands on the moon that matters. Well, ....it used to matter. It doesn't matter anymore, and the PRC could get well ahead of the U.S. in its development of the space industry in decades to come, due to the Iraqi war, the imminent recession of the U.S. economy and lack of investment/spending on NASA. The U.S. is in decline. World War 2 was only a 50-year blessing. The world has moved on......Americans have to stop dreaming and stop believing in the invincibility of their economy, global dominance and military. Look how many resources they consume. The strength of their economy depends on it.

In a post-modern mindset, belief in philosophical absolutes doesn't matter anymore. There are no absolutes. People have stopped believing in magic formulas of faith. There may be people out there that promote them, but they don't dictate to us what to believe. The world has moved on......there is no longer such a thing as an unassailable argument. It's always your word against their's. Who wins? Look how much effort adherents of some traditions go to try and prove they have a monopoly on divine truth. The validity of their tradition depends on it.

[MichealAngelo]

0ne god just simplyfyes everything! just remember were god is

[Dah-veeth]

Originally Posted by MichealAngelo

0ne god just simplyfyes everything! just remember were god is

Everywhere!

[Goner]

Believe there to be one god or entity, but trying to understand, interpret or define is another matter.

[MichealAngelo]

there are infinite possibilytys when it comes to god e.g: just how we live in this world is just a speckl of dust compared to the universe.