I endorse arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice. — T Clark

That's setting the bar too high in my opinion and your "website" will get fewer, even though high quality, hits if you catch my drift. Also you'll miss out on what a fresh pair of eyes can provide in terms of novel insights into a problem, old and new. Just a thought, that's all.

answers — T Clark

Der candidat antwortet are...

Perhaps we can find a plausible answer to our question by looking at a similar situation in other fields/disciplines. Nothing comes to mind. Do you have one we could use?

There's a very good reason for having multiple deities: different properties/qualities/natures, especially if antipodal, meant that one "object" couldn't possess them. Since good and evil are opposites, Zoroaster posited two divine beings viz. Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Likewise, in other polytheisms too, different gods were personifications of certain qualities e.g. Athena (beauty), Mars (war), etc.

What signalled the end to this rather simple but intuitively sensible logic of polytheism? We still need Satan to make sense of reality or else whence all this evil?

Since you're into metaphysics, the above is an issue in that branch of philosophy, oui? A ball (can't be both) black and white and red all over? We instinctively split the ball into as many parts as there are colors (in this case a 3D peace sign).

The OP is onto something. Despite my misgivings as to Wittgenstein's theory of language vis-à-vis philosophy at all levels, from the man on the Clapham omnibus to tenured professors, I nevertheless agree that mystical experiences seem baked into his notion of, roughly speaking, private language.

It appears that comprehension and communication both are either wholly or significantly, if only in bits and pieces, a function of language. Mystical/religious experiences are such that one can't find words to describe them in a dictionary. Words, as sometimes happens, fail us. Thus, I can only show you the door. What's beyond that is post-language, but mind you, not necessarily pre-language (the wordless infant in Daoism).

Angelo Cannata provided clear, plausible, documented evidence that your interpretation of the change from polytheism to monotheism is not correct. Your response? "That's just opinion." Then you went on with your half-baked theory that, coincidentally, just happens to work well with your knee-jerk atheism. — T Clark

:chin: No, no, he has a point.

Atheism isn't something one simply picks up off a shelf in some cheap store. Most intellectuals worth their salt are atheists. I simply see little point in wasting time on ground already covered, waypoints humanity has already passed through. Don't you realize theism is nearly 8k years old and it began with human sacrifices (re bog bodies in Denmark, Ireland and Incan mummies in the Andes). Do you still wish to endorse religion? I hope theism is true, and you have the opportunity to meet all the people who've played the role of the sacrificial lamb. Do send us a note on how that worked out for you.

@Angelo Cannata, no offense sir/madam. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers and it seems you have a minion viz. T Clark to come to your aid. I wish I had one or two, but I don't. :sad:

T Clark, since you seem to have gone through Angelo Cannata's link, mind sharing your insights on the matter. Would love to further the discussion. If you're on the right track, you likely are, I see great potential with regard to discovering truth.

Witty's critique of 'linguistic betwitchment' consist, after all, of internal criticism (re: ordinary language) since there isn't an external or nonlinguistic means to do so. — 180 Proof

Hermes commits seppuku: Trust the guy who warns you that he can't be trusted!

God exists, that's for certain. Unfortunately or not, he's infinitely old and as we speak is self-treating (omniscient) Himself for senile dementia (caudacity). Is the medication helping? Look around you, what do you think?

human beings have evolved from primitive fish. — Sapien1

Anaximander! I recognize you! Don't eat fish, they're our ancestors.

Wittgenstein, though he thoughtfully warned us of bewitchment of our intelligence by language, was himself a victim of linguistic witchcraft.

it has nothing to do with numbers — Shwah

You haven't made the case while I've repeatedly pointed out to you the mathematically relevant words "poly", "mono" and "a", all prefixes to "theism"

Too, I did say that the relationship between us and the divine needn't be based on the mathematics of it although now that I think of it, that's false due to the next number in this pattern viz. sifr!

Our will is potentially free — Possibility

Can you not imagine doing the exact opposite to what you actually do? In the little experiment I performed on myself, tobacco, I don't touch that stuff; in reality, I chain smoker!

The distinction as herein relevant: virtual choice vs. actual choice.

As for the potential-actual dual concepts, they do apply but note that a virtual choice is made even if only in one's mind. If that feels like potential and not actual, no problemo, fine by me.

Yes. I mean, where is the empirical evidence for one god, with the name God, only? — EugeneW

It's hard to say but Hume did point out that creation could've been a team effort, and if memory serves, he didn't even call the members gods. There's no evidence of omnibenevolence (the problem of evil), there's no evidence of knowledge (error-ridden code so to speak), and zero indication of omnipotence (people need help, where is it?).
w
Good day EugueneW

If you say so EugeneW.

Why didn't we evolve into wheel-rolling creatures? — EugeneW

:lol: Sabrá Mandrake!

If those two people are developing a conception of theism and both are catholics who agree in every other issue except purgatorism, then the fact that they're both monotheists implies the number one isn't at all a factor for them deciding whether they should be infernalists or not. — Shwah

Agreed, but that's a subtopic.

A person who is attracted to 21 year olds has no perversion for the number 21 and instead appreciates their perceived qualia of a 21 year old — Shwah

What does all this have to do with what I said?

Failing all that, yes poly- means many, mono- means one and a- means negation (a placeholder for 0 but not actually 0). Those never go into anyone's decision making about accepting a religion or not so your metric you offered doesn't have enough explanatory power — Shwah

:ok: However, I'm not saying that numbers (poly, mono, a, theism) matter when it comes to a relationship with religion. All I wanna know is why did some people, whoever they were, find it logical to pare down the pantheon of gods to just one?

Surely, it's not moronic to ask this question. What's your theory?




Enjoy!

Ah yes! Him too. And Nero's 'wife' Sporus. — lll

:smile:

most of my encryptions can be sounded out. — lll

Private languageish! Wittgenstein would approve/disapprove, can't tell for sure.

@T Clark Well?

Quantity isn't the metric anyone should be using especially as it necessarily entails a qualia for deciding to use numbers in the first place. — Shwah

Go on...

Polytheism vs. Monotheism vs. Atheism?

Explain why, if quantity is not an issue, religions are classified numerically.

This is just about the most pitiful, lame argument I've seen since being on the forum, and that's saying a lot. You should be ashamed. You're lucky they don't ban people for dumbass arguments. — T Clark

:lol: Why is my argument "pitiful", "lame", and "dumbass"? Justify your statement, if you can that is :smile:

I'm curious, what's your argument for/against monotheism?

so numbers aren't involved — Shwah

Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism?

Good points.

The seeds of monotheism exists in all polytheistic traditions - even if there are many gods, there usually is one that fits the description of The Dear Leader (re Christopher Hitchens) for example Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, and so on.

I don't quite catch your drift when you critique my mathematical analysis of theism by bringing up the quality-quantity distinction. Polytheism, Monotheism?

Schulkin, if he's saying that there are constraints to what one can think, is not exactly correct. If I were to be charitable, I'd agree with him but with the proviso that our minds possess more freedom than our bodies (we can imagine unreal stuff like superman, spider-man, and the incredible hulk, comics). To that extent then, if the ability to invent worlds and characters that don't exist in reality counts for something, we possess (mental) free will.

Coming to the gist of my OP, what I want to impress upon the reader is the capacity to make virtual choices (ones we make in the safety and security of our minds; simulations, if you will, of a choice/decision node where we can choose any one of the options, even the ones we may find most undesirable). Yesterday, I did this little experiment on myself. I'm a chain smoker, a nicotine junkie, can't go 10 minutes without lighting a cigarette up. So, as I lit one death stick, I had to, I saw myself (in my imagination), throwing away all my coffin nails, my smoking paraphernalia (my lighter, my matches, etc.). In effect I had quit smoking albeit only in my imagination. Isn't that amazing? My virtual choice, the one I imagined I'd made, was totally unaffected by my physical dependence on nicotine.

Quantity has never meant a change in quality. Monotheism wasn't about getting rid of many gods, it was about having a single foundation. Plato and Aristotle required a single foundation. — Shwah

My guesstimate is that monotheism was an attempt to unify all theists like so: If there's only one god, your god has to be identical to my god. If we allow multiple gods, this isn't possible; your god could be different from mine or someone else's.

I haven't come across an argument for monotheism yet, in fact this forum which is about a decade old doesn't have even one thread that attempts to justify one-god theism. Odd that!

Read $\uparrow$

Xenophanes' argument that polytheism is untenable is...

?

Come on AS, Angelo has presented convincing documentation for his position. You are being willfully argumentative and providing no evidence. As Stephen Hawking once said "Fax iz fax." — T Clark

@Angelo Cannata

Please read my reply to Shwah (vide supra).

To some, religion gives answers to some of life's most important questions. Some of these questions, atheism has no answer for. — creativesoul

I know what you mean. It (theism) is after all an explanation for many phenomena we don't quite understand (god of the gaps), also provides the meaning to our lives we yearn for, etc.

That out of the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the simple fact that people thought that reducing the number of gods from thousands to just one was the most rational acts in theology since gods were first hypothesized. Why? I offer an explanation in my reply to Shwah (vide supra) but it falls short of refuting polytheism or atheism, being a matter of convenience (unite all theists) rather than a solid argument that polytheism and atheism are false.

To All

Monotheism also appears to be some sorta compromise between the extremes of polytheism and atheism. Someone must've decided that it was necessary to find the middle ground in order to....what?

Another interesting point is this: if I can disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus, a necessary element of monotheism, why can't I do the same for Yahweh/Allah? Monotheism then shoots itself in the foot (self-refuting) - it's atheistic as regards Thor, Zeus, Krishna, and the whole pantheon of other polytheistic traditions and, in the same breath, if espouses theism (monotheism). Something doesn't add up, oui?

there must be a first mover which is not itself moved — Metaphysician Undercover

Ouroboros? I eat and I eat and I eat and I eat...myself.

objectively — Wayfarer

Is objectivity just another word for Lasègue–Falret syndrome and/or mass hallucinations?

Math to the rescue? How? Impossible!

That's not the case with mathematics. The axioms are not produced with the intent of representing 'what is the case' — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: What ought to be the case! Math is an invention! Felicific calculus! Kind courtesy of Jeremy Bentham (presently mummified in University College London). All that's needed now is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Note: Read backwards/forwards, I fail to recall. Ask an expert (on Quora).

I appreciate the survey. — 180 Proof

:smile:

Say please, sorry, and thank you.

Magic words in the Anglophone world! Must work on Russians too (fingers crossed).

1. Can't see (Fear)
2. Can see (No Fear, but No Tranquility)
3. Don't see (Tranquility)

T Clark Finally Puts an End to All This Philosophy Bullshit — T Clark

Is it going to pit language against philosophy, à la Wittgenstein?

Gloomy Guses & Negative Nancies are one up on the Dr. Panglosses and Polyannas of the world?! Well, I'll be damned!

MJ!

Plato's afterlife world is math-heaven. Only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death. Math approximates. We can't imagine though. Xenophanes reduced the poly to mono. Plato continued. From 1 to zero. — EugeneW

Not cryptic enough! You're not yourself!

Anyway, I didn't know Plato was the Christopher Hitchens of the Hellenistic world! Do you have any supporting documents, señorita?

How do you know math is "only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death"? :chin:

Math approximates. How, example?

Xenophanes was a monotheist, I have a vague recollection of having read that. Do you know why he became one?

Akhenaten was the first monotheist according to some sources. I seem to have forgotten to ask why he preferred one god to many? Politics? @Angelo Cannata (power games?) :sad:

:smile:

Good day EugeneW. What a fasincating day I've had! Amazing! Thanks a million!

Lady Mathematica! :lol:

What's your Lady/Sir...???

The real philosophical problem is eating, feeding. — baker

:lol: Bingo! Here, have a :broken: a custard apple.

It takes some time to grok differential equations — lll

How much time did it take you?

Don't take it personal, Agent! — EugeneW

I won't but thanks anyway, mademoiselle.

Don't take it personal, Agent! I just picked two arbitrary examples from the story sent to me last week. Stroll along well! — EugeneW

That's what I thought! When I read your posts, it feels like an Ottendorf cipher! Great! Keep posting your cryptic messages and we AI will try and decode them. No, don't tell us me which book it is that you're usin', please don't. It/someone'll just steal your thunder! Kaboom!

lll employs the same device, more or less that is.

Religion and psychopathia are mixed frequently, by theists as well as atheists. Atheists, while meaning it well, use it as an excuse to stick to their unshakable belief. A diversion is easily get rid of by calling it an pathia, i.e, pathetic. Theists, not meaning anything at all, use it in their defense of their one OOOO-god. I have good proof for this assertion. — EugeneW

That's more like it. Buddha had to descend! Don't ask me from where, I haven't the foggiest.

What does all that have to do with the mathematical pattern: many to one...to...zero?

I'm going out for a stroll.

Hmmm...

woodlouse god — EugeneW

What's that?

panther god — EugeneW

Black panther?

Back, coupla centuries ago, people were under the impression that the eyes emanated light and that's how we could see (reality/the truth as it were). It's just this misconception that's carried over to the present. Truth is you don't see (anything), you..er...

Rest assure AgentSmith. Like panther god told woodlouse god: sit back buddy, lay back and enjoy the play. — EugeneW

I hope I can (lay back). I don't think I can. I'll give it my best shot! Enjoy the show!