Why Assume Only One Solution.?

[modeller]

Why do Abrahamic theists assume there is only a single creator.?

We all know for every effect there is a cause but why do these theists and some scientists assume a single cause ?

Put it this way the universe was caused by X which they say equals God.

But what if X = a+b+c+d+e+f+g .........................and in any combination. This would allow a combination of Gods which would be just as valid an assumption as the assumption of a single deity.

[Spoonboy]

And even X = a+b+c+d etc, etc, has too many variables to consider before one can even arrive at a single creation point.

[coccinelle]

A family is made of a certain number of members but it's still a family, a school is made up of students and teachers but it's still a school. I don't think they see God as being a unity as the bible stipulates angels etc and these angels came down to earth.....

[naomi24]

You mean a kind of committee? If you read Genesis, God, when being quoted, refers to ‘us’, as in //God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness”.// … and // Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.// Elohim (one of God’s several names) is the plural form of El – a God of the Canaanites, and others, and he eventually became the God of Abraham. His wife, the Goddess Asherah, was subsequently disposed of, but he was not alone – and it should be remembered that a committee that sets out to design a thoroughbred racehorse usually ends up with a camel. ;o)

[sandyRoe]

'Us' might be The Trinity.

[jim360]

That would explain camels in the desert, though. I'm convinced!

[jomifl]

The trinity is a post biblical invention isn't it sandy ?

[naomi24]

SandyRoe, with ideas like that, you could almost be a Jehovah's Witness.... almost, but not quite. ;o)

[modeller]

coccinelle //I don't think they see God as being a unity as the bible stipulates angels etc and these angels came down to earth..... //

But that is susequent to the creation . According to Genesis 1:1to 24 and 2:2 to 23 everything was God's work , no other deity was involved. -

spoonboy That is right there may be many variables but does that preclude the chance that there may be more. By only acknowledging one possibility is a dead end. X could be one but it could be many. The Hindus think so and the R

[modeller]

CONT: and the Romans and Greeks certainly thought so as did the Egyptians. It's mainly us who have such a narrow view of the creation.

[mikey4444]

There wasn't and still isn't any God whatsoever !...Next question please !

[jake-the-peg]

//We all know for every effect there is a cause//

This is a mistake

It looks that way when you look at large scale effects like snooker balls hitting each other but it's essentially a nineteenth century view of the world.

In reality large scale effects can be caused by tiny tiny events - this is the famous 'butterfly effect' of chaos theory - and in turn tiny subatomic events are truely random - they do not have a cause.


In a sense rather than everything coming from one primordial causeless event the Universe is driven by countless microscopic causeless events that cause larger events which cause yet larger events.

If we squint at this there is some similarity to your suggestion - if we don't think about God in the traditional sense but just think of God as a 'prime mover' a causeless instigator of change then we have a near infinity of Gods

[goodlife]

Perhaps the more you learn about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that conclusion: The origin of life requires an intelligent source.

[jomifl]

goodlife, first of all you need to understand the meaning of the word 'logic' before you use it in such a cavalier fashion.

[naomi24]

Goodlife, //The origin of life requires an intelligent source.//

If that does turn out to be true, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the source would have to be something rather more intelligent than Jehovah.

[mibn2cweus]

jomifl
goodlife, first of all you need to understand the meaning of the word 'logic' before you use it in such a cavalier fashion.
09:01 Mon 20th May 2013

It would appear that the capacity for intelligent, logical, systematic thought is not necessarily implied by the presence of life from which that capacity evolved.

[jim360]

I'm not sure I agree with you exactly jtp about the "no cause" idea. Events still proceed other events and only those events can influence the future, and Causality as a principle lies at the heart of some of the main theories of Physics. The difference is that sometimes we can't track those causes, rather than they don't exist. Even the random process is a sort of "cause". What changes is that

[jim360]

duh duh DUHN! Cliffhanger...

I still don't understand how my mousepad works. you can bash it and no effect, but your palm hovers a centimetre above it and it will click any random thing.

Anyway, what changes for me is the nature of "causes". They become unpredictable, but I still think they are there. It's an interpretation, though, and I won't claim it to be the truth of the matter.

[sandyRoe]

There IS much to be admired about JWs. Their deep humanity, spirituality, and strength of faith, is admirable.
So, to be likened to a JW is something of a backhanded compliment

[naomi24]

SandyRoe, Confirmation that the religious tell themselves what they want to believe.

[modeller]

// In reality large scale effects can be caused by tiny tiny events //
That is in a way what I'm getting at. X may have been the final straw that caused the big bang but there could have been many straws leading up to it. What those straws were is another matter.