The Absolute Unity of God

Shibolet

Well-Known Member
Messages
691
Reaction score
1
Points
16
The Absolute Unity of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labor.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.
 
The Absolute Unity of God
I often wonder why so may people are obsessed with 'one-ness'.

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"
Someone trying to describe something beyond his own understanding.


Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labor.

Why could there not be a committee of gods working in harmony?


More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.
Seems like circular reasoning to me. Maybe there are several primal elements.
More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.
Surely gods would be mores sensible than humans.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Well, maybe we are all witnesses to the team effort.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Ever seen a beautiful garden with many types of wonderful flowers?
 
The original poster's arguments are perfectly valid from a philosophical point of view. I'm not going to set out the arguments from design and causation: they are available on the internet and in numerous books. But the argument from causation obviously implies a single cause, as Aristotle observed: if you have two, you then have to explain the duality. Similarly the argument from design suggests a single designer to correspond to the physicists' principle of spatial uniformity. Design by committee? Have you every seen anything designed by a committee? :)

But the existence of a supreme being — first cause and designer — does not preclude the existence of other beings who are entitled to be called divine and who are worthy of worship. Their rejection by self-appointed prophets from Hosea onwards has produced nothing but bigotry and intolerance.
 
And who is this Isaiah? Where did he study, what are his credentials...how do we know he knows anything?

I put the quote about this Isaiah down but, because I am new around and until I reach at least 10 posts, I am not allowed to quote. This Isaiah is one of the main prophets of Israel. I don't know how much of Theological study he had to speak with such a certainty but what he said makes a lot of sense. God is a Spirit and, spirits cannot be compared with any thing else because they are not corporeal or composed of matter. Since Isaiah's testimony proceeds from spiritual revelation, I usually think twice to speak about God from other people's inspiration. I prefer Logic from the scientific view of Physics.
 
I often wonder why so may people are obsessed with 'one-ness'.

Because oneness is akin to absolute Monotheism which at the time was in the culture of the Jew. Polytheism is akin to retrograde cultures without intellectual development.

Someone trying to describe something beyond his own understanding.

I would rather see it as someone trying to understand the Indescribable.

Why could there not be a committee of gods working in harmony?

This question is answered in the thread. More than one god would be akin to no god.

Surely gods would be mores sensible than humans.

They would not be gods as this hypothetic assumption is explained in the thread.

Ever seen a beautiful garden with many types of wonderful flowers?

Now, you are contradicting the thread by comparing God to things of the vegetable world.
 
Shibolet said "Polytheism is akin to retrograde cultures without intellectual development."

Say Huh? Cultures with polytheistic pantheons are equivalent to cultures without intellectual development? Just a tad narrow minded ya think?
 
The original poster's arguments are perfectly valid from a philosophical point of view. I'm not going to set out the arguments from design and causation: they are available on the internet and in numerous books. But the argument from causation obviously implies a single cause, as Aristotle observed: if you have two, you then have to explain the duality. Similarly the argument from design suggests a single designer to correspond to the physicists' principle of spatial uniformity. Design by committee? Have you every seen anything designed by a committee? :)

But the existence of a supreme being — first cause and designer — does not preclude the existence of other beings who are entitled to be called divine and who are worthy of worship. Their rejection by self-appointed prophets from Hosea onwards has produced nothing but bigotry and intolerance.


"Have you every seen anything designed by a committee? :)"
LOL.....NO! Not amongst humans.
However a committee of Gods acting as One is just as possible as a single God.

In Genesis, the God-word used in creation is elohim(plural) which is plural and the accompanying verb is 3rd person singular, implying a singular.
As I understand it, Oneists say that the elohim refer the attributes of the One and the pluralists say they are separate Gods acting as one.
I can see how it is interpreted differently.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
 
Last edited:
Shibolet said "Polytheism is akin to retrograde cultures without intellectual development."

Say Huh? Cultures with polytheistic pantheons are equivalent to cultures without intellectual development? Just a tad narrow minded ya think?

As Jewish spirituality is concerned, I meant. I am aware that the Greeks constituted a high civilization in spite of the Olympian Pantheon of gods with all their Greek Mythology.
 
Craz said "I don't see what all the fuss is about."

You obviously have little appreciation for fuss. It's not like there needs to be a reason for fuss. Fuss is just for the sake of fuss! :)
 
Shib, I am still a bit bemused. The Greeks managed a high civilization despite being shackled with a polytheistic pantheon. I do not understand why you believe that a monotheistic pantheon is the only route to a high civilization. If that is indeed what you are saying, cause I'm not even sure if that IS what you are saying!
 
But the argument from causation obviously implies a single cause, ..
Oh yes, Lord Brahma was entrusted with this task. Vishnu, Shiva, or Durga did not do it. Vishvakarma was involved in design. He bungled with appendix, but that is not really important. If millions of things are to be made, everything cannot be perfect. He thought of the 80 billion galaxies. Is not that beautiful?

6a00d8341bf7f753ef016764910010970b-pi


Or did the One Jewish/Christian/Muslim God create perfect humans?
 
Shib, I am still a bit bemused. The Greeks managed a high civilization despite being shackled with a polytheistic pantheon. I do not understand why you believe that a monotheistic pantheon is the only route to a high civilization. If that is indeed what you are saying, cause I'm not even sure if that IS what you are saying!

All right Gordian Knot, where is the high Greek civilization today? Gone from the face of the earth, including the Roman one which was philosophically built on the Greek one. Usually, Polytheism won't last too long. Now, where is the Jewish Monotheism built on the discovery of Abraham that God is absolutely one? Here today, live and kicking. Could that be what inspired Mark Twain to write his Essay about the immortality of the Jew? In fact, take a look at what he wrote about the Jews.


THE ESSAY OF MARK TWAIN ABOUT THE JEWS

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.

Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.

He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed suit, and made a vast noise, and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it has burned out, and they sit either in twilight now, or have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Mark Twain
 
Is your only argument that Monotheism is better then Polytheism that those two civilizations are are gone, and that that one civilization is still around?
 
Is your only argument that Monotheism is better then Polytheism that those two civilizations are are gone, and that that one civilization is still around?

No, but also that Polytheism in spite of the culture it produced once, has lost its place in History as a developed culture. It is gone and the dead must be let go. The place now is for the reality of Monotheism championed by an "immortal" People represented by the Jew. Ask Mark Twain. BTW, have you read his Essay about the Jews?
 
Shib,
Come on now, you are being a little silly here. All civilizations are born, rise, fall and die. It is the way of civilizations. All civilizations. It is only a matter of time.

The statement that polytheism has lost its place in history is not valid either. There are still plenty of theologies built on polytheism in existence right now. One of the greatest, and also the oldest, still extant today is the Hindu religion. To name but one example.
 
The statement that polytheism has lost its place in history is not valid either.

Lots of Hindus are out and out polytheists. Then there are henothists (like me). there are very very few exclusive monotheists. There are lots of monists, but that's not the same as monotheism.
 
Shib,
Come on now, you are being a little silly here. All civilizations are born, rise, fall and die. It is the way of civilizations. All civilizations. It is only a matter of time.

The statement that polytheism has lost its place in history is not valid either. There are still plenty of theologies built on polytheism in existence right now. One of the greatest, and also the oldest, still extant today is the Hindu religion. To name but one example.

GK, you have mentioned above that ALL... all civilizations are born, rise, fall and die. Have you ever read the essay about the Jews written by Mark Twain? He was wondering about the source for the immortality of the Jews. As you can see, not ALL civilizations are born, rise, fall and die. Better yet, I am printing here his essay for your eyes only:

THE ESSAY OF MARK TWAIN ABOUT THE JEWS

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.

Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.

He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed suit, and made a vast noise, and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it has burned out, and they sit either in twilight now, or have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Mark Twain
 
Why are you posting it twice in the same thread!?
By your logic, then all civilizations that exists today are immortal, since they haven't fallen...yet.
 
Why are you posting it twice in the same thread!?
By your logic, then all civilizations that exists today are immortal, since they haven't fallen...yet.

The last time it was for the eyes of all; this time, for your eyes only. Just kidding! I am gonna delete the last one as it was my mistake. I apologize.

Pardon me but, blame Mark Twain. I took from him. But I think that for the Jewish civilization to fall is going to take a universal catastrophe of the size of the Flood. Jeremiah said that as long as the natural laws function properly, Israel is to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) Of course you don't believe that but... hey it's written.
 
Back
Top