commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:20 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:00 pm
I would start by eliminating Polytheism because it is possible for it to be contradictory within itself. For example, if there were a god of rainfall, it could be claimed that it is raining (heavily). Simultaneously a god of lakes could produce the claim that the lake’s water level is declining.
I think that doesn't exactly defy logic. Maybe they don't always know what the gods are doing, and misinterpret it. In fact, that's why they have recourse to things like medicine men and gurus; they assume that most people, most of the time, don't know what the gods are up to, but the medicine man can find out. So maybe that's just a mistake, empirically speaking: they thought the rain god was doing something, but the lake god is the right explanation, or something like that.
Yes, but it’s possible for the contradiction to exist, even if the supplicants are blind to the behavior of these gods.
Right. But I think we maybe can eliminate Polytheism by another route: that, definitionally, the term "god" means something quite different from what is meant by Monotheists, and probably from what most Atheists are speaking about, too.
In Polytheism, what is meant by "god" is a contingent being, not the Supreme Being. Most of these "gods" are not the creator of all things, but rather the temporary custodian of some subdivision of creation (like the rain or the lake). Moreover, in many traditions, such as the Greek or the Norse, they not only have origin stories, but death-of-the-gods legends, as well. In other words, they're really no more than a kind of alien/superhero, with limited power and knowledge, and with a beginning and and end.
There are other differences, too. Polytheism makes their gods out to be manipulable; find the right formula, and you can get the thunder god or the crop god to give you what you want. That's why one must consult the shaman, the witch doctor, or the priest; he's in the know where ordinary mortals are not, and can tell them how to get on the good side of the relevant god. In the Monotheist conception of God, nobody manipulates God; God Himself is in control of all situations, cannot be lied to or bribed, and He tells human beings what they must do, rather than taking any cue from them or from their gurus.
If that's fair, then the Polytheist isn't really speaking of the same thing as the other two are, at all. His is quite a different hypothesis from theirs. The Monotheist and the Atheist alike, I think, are primarily concerned with the Creator God, the Supreme Being, or the idea of an Original Uncaused Cause of all things; and the Polytheist is preoccupied with nothing like that. He's got a raft of little godlets to appease, usually for the mundane purpose of getting himself ahead.
So we could say that the Polytheist is not even in the same "game" as the Atheist and the Monotheist. Even to mention him in the same breath is to make an error of amphiboly, because analytically, his "god" concept isn't anything like what the other two are talking about.
What about that route?
So maybe Gary will be back to continue, and maybe not: we'll have to see.
