Re: God vs gods question

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:52:41 -0500 (EST)

At 09:00 AM 1/19/98 -0800, Christopher Morbey wrote:
>How does one show logically that there is only One God rather than many?
>One doesn't, is the simple answer.
>
>Whatever constitutes proof one must believe in it, if the proof is to be
>effectual. If I am going to prove that the velocity of light is some
>value, whether the attraction of gravity is such and such, that the
>recession velocity of some distant galaxy is what so and so says it is,
>then somewhere along the way I must freely decide whether or not I
>believe something about the problem at hand. Even if I am to prove
>Fermat's Theorem, somewhere in the process I must assume or believe
>other proofs or premises to be true. It appears to be the very nature of
>the Universe in which we find ourselves. Everything, including logic and
>language comes down to a matter of belief or faith.
>
>And that's the way it is with belief in One God or many gods. The free
>choice is ours. People are free to believe whether or not the Sun
>revolves around the Earth. People are also free to choose whether or not
>they believe the Earth to be relatively young -- or flat. In each
>decision many aspects of perspective, study, associations with people
>and places, training, upbringing, convictions etc. etc. come into play.
>Decisions might seem to be simple but they really aren't. Christians, in
>one way or another have freely chosen to accept the notion that there is
>One God. Taken a step further they believe that the consilience of all
>things is bound up in very "mind" of God. Taken even a step further they
>believe that the very first thing that God did was to produce something
>"out" of himself, something very different and distinct from himself,
>yet something created and sustained by him. Possibly, before the dawn of
>time there was some risk taken, something like love as we know it.
>
>St. Anselm's ontological proof of God or Kalam's cosmological proof are
>rather convincing if we put sufficient faith in our methodology of
>logic. But it is necessary to have that faith first of all. A choice
>must be made.
>
>So it would be for a proof of many gods. Everything would come down to
>initial premises and faith. We have records and historical data on the
>religions of polytheism. We know how they operated and what the results
>were. Even now when the pagan notions of old are renewing themselves we
>see the results. But the choice is ours.
>
>As for the One God, we have tens of thousands of historical documents,
>eye witness accounts, we have the promise of eternal life, life in
>abundance, and lovingkindness no matter what the circumstances. We know
>it. We hear it. We see it. We feel it. But in the end it's faith alone,
>through grace. Some would look to intelligent design, thinking all along
>they know what intelligence is, not to mention design. Some would look
>for a correspondence to deconstructed metaphors of scripture. Others
>would look for anything that precludes faith.
>
>The One God says "I AM". "Who do you say that I am?" is what he asks us.
>The many gods are defined by us, we say who they are and they ask us to
>believe in ourselves. Either way, our choice; so too, the consequences.
>
>Christopher Morbey

Dear Christopher,

I believe that the logic of the human mind would lead to a unique supreme
being. Witness the attempts of physicists to seek a unifying theory making
all forces manifestations of a unique one. The latter is consistent with the
notion of a unique, supreme being. Note that Moslems and Jews cannot
understand the Trinity we Christian believe for that very same reason.

Take care,

Moorad