If somebody ever proves one, they prove them all.

if the question is the existence of a god, not any particular god, why should there be just one.

the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and other cultures had it right?

I am talking about whether any god exists or not.
If the answer is yes, why only one?

that can act outside the basic laws of physics and has an effect on our physical Universe.

...and they vary as to type, ability and rank in the cosmic order.

He said (and I'm paraphrasing a quote he made) that eons ago, there were multiple gods. Now, each major religion has only one.
"They are slowly getting closer to the actual number all the time".

...

Now everyone will be claiming to be "the" deity.

a deity?

God made man. God is man. We are all deities. And none of us are.

God, big G, is by definition the only game in town. Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. Kinda can only have one.

god(s), little g, is/are a much less powerful thing. A suitably advanced alien can be a god to a suitably less advanced civilization (suitably advanced science being indistinguishable from magic and all that).

As an agnostic, I think the latter are way more possible than the former. There may be aliens who have evolved so far that they literally have control over reality itself.

Who are the other gods he commanded to be shunned?

Doesn't God himself say there are other Gods here?

As for aliens, they would not meet my definition of a god, since their advanced science is not supernatural.

and I butchered...sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from the supernatural (magic).

What does it mean to be supernatural? Is it merely the ability to bend or break what we believe is a rigid rule of nature?
What if the rules are breakable or bendable if you have enough information?

about advanced science and magic no longer applies. Manly because of he and his fellow Sci Fi writers.
Through science fiction we have seen incredibly advanced civilization able to do the incredible, and all through science.
Now an advanced civilization could do things well beyond our current understanding and knowledge, but we would still see it as science and not some supernatural phenomena.

Nothing that would oppose a naturalistic view of the Universe.

Imagine an alien creature that could bend reality to its will. Could cause half the planet to instantly disappear. Shrink the Moon down to the size of a marble. Things that simply cannot happen due to our current understanding of science.

At some point, it becomes supernatural to us. Even if we try to explain it using science.

Your point is, well, I will never ever ever believe in gods or the supernatural so there's literally nothing an entity could do to convince me they were a god, even if they did everything a god might be able to do.

Which is fine enough for you, but if it goes so far beyond our current understanding and knowledge that it becomes "magic", well, that's a tougher position to rigidly stick to.

I personally suspect you cannot really break fundamental laws of physics. You can go around them maybe. Maybe you can figure out a wormhole or Alcubierre Drive to go faster than the speed of light. But if you have mass, you ain't going past C, don't care how smart you are.

But I don't know. That's the whole point of being agnostic. Certainty in the face of so many unknowns and unknowable isn't logical.

where those things are done through advanced science, not magic.
As I said, they could do things far beyond our current understanding, but that doesn't mean we still would not know or see it as science, not supernatural magic

But we both concede that it is through advanced science, that the aliens have vastly more knowledge than we do. The Clarke quote is about our perception of it. And i am saying that we would now perceive it a science, not magic, due in part to writers like Clarke.

It is a different argument than the existence of deities.
.

if it were sufficiently advanced. It's not like Clarke said that before we had fanciful science fiction. He said it during the golden age of fanciful science fiction, at least in writing.

And again, it depends on one's definition of deity.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I say it is, unless you think magic is real. I don't think Clarke did.

it's not really about deities, but how we would perceive it. I don't understand the quantum mechanics behind the chip running this computer, but I know it is not magic.

Name something that an alien civilization could do that we have not seen done similarly in Sci Fi through science.

I agree with this:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/technology-isnt-magic-why-clarkes-third-law-always-bug-479194151

was that at some point, science is so advanced NO MATTER if you have a scientific background or not, that it's so far beyond your ken, that if that entity said I'm God, that they would have the abilities to back it up credibly. That at some point, you are simply incapable of understanding it scientifically.

I think the writer of that piece misunderstands what Clarke is trying to say.

I am saying Science Fiction itself made his "Third Law" moot.

The writer understands and like me days Clarke was wrong.

People keep wanting to discuss the unknowable "logically". There is no logic to it. It's about faith. People claim to be inspired or to have had visions or other some such form of guidance or communication. And of course you have all the crying/bleeding statues and the "face no the toast" crowd.

Not all "believers" say their is only one deity. Often they have a preferred one. But many faiths have had allusions to multiple deities. The Catholics got all confused with their "holy trinity" and the "God made man" schtick. There are also the believers in a devil or evil personified. Then you have all the "angle Gabriel" crowd. Even the jews history has some confusion because they have the 10 commandments that instruct that one not have any other gods "before me". One is struck to as how one could have "other gods" if they don't exist. Alternately, is it kosher to have gods "after" him?

thanks

is about the idea that Judaism is the one, true religion with the one, true God. I'm the real Slim Shady as it were.

I don't think that's an admission that there are other gods. I think it's just a "hey why you hanging around those pretenders when I'm the only real thing going." Also, we have free cookies. Come join us.

"There are no other Gods" not "Don't worship those other gods"?

Every culture had its own god or gods. We are talking about almost prehistoric times, and in some cases actual prehistoric times.

Plenty of gods around - one for every population group, really.

why reinforce a fiction?

All references to God is a reference to a culture or civilization.

but my question is to believers.
If we start with the premise that a God exists, we can ask these other things.

I interpret that as exactly what it's saying. That's why they also talk about false idols and graven images.

But I also think it's a sell job and Christianity did a lot of co-opting of other religions/beliefs to sell itself. Christmas being a perfect example.

when these laws and commandments were really written (as oppose to the myth of Moses) is important to understanding what they were meant to do.

God is the Father and we are His children. That is why Christians understand the personal relationship we can have with
Him. He is the Creator of all things.

No need for any more posts on this.

By the way, the correct answer is that there are 8.

This is your first and only post on DU, how did you find this thread?

Thanks.

I have no idea. I just found your post compelling and joined.
Hope thats ok.

The reason I ask is sometimes new people just come in from outside to blast something they don't like and leave.
(I think they find it from a Goggle search)

But happy you are here, welcome to DU!

Thank you again!

State tolerance for more than one god inevitably led to serious complications. As such the necessity to have no more than one was realized and those who believed otherwise were BBQed in the town square. Problem solved.

It didn’t.

so was it one or three? And what about the quasi gods known as angels, or even devils (aka fallen angels)?
Then there are those who got an upgrade after they left earth and became Blessed, some moving all the way uptown to Saint. What were those supposed to be?

I mean to say, there was certainly a lot of supernatural beings for any youngster to keep track of.

Then there is this question: How do you know God is the good one and Satan isn't? God says he is the good one but so does Satan. Which one to believe or not believe?

Should I play it safe and believe them all? Maybe I should believe none.

Speaking of nuns, questions like this would get me a trip to detention, good old room 12. I had my own desk there.

can just as equally be encircled by greater beings. Fractal patterns is one way to imagine this sort of thing. It's completely useless to limit a god to any definition until one wants to create a reality. Then laws of nature are created, boundaries are made and possibilities come into existence. Eventually we humans become a thing in this reality and for whatever the reason many of us wonder if the whole thing was dreamed up by some omniscient dictator or by committee. Or did a metaphorical rock start tumbling down a metaphorical hill and in an endless series of accidents and chemical reactions, it all came into being with nobody at the metaphorical wheel.

Evidence I take that there be a god or gods is that there is intelligence in the universe that does not seem so random to me and the model fits well with how I think. Your mileage may vary.

Are you open to the idea god is zero beings with zero iotae of power?

to love your neighbor as you love yourself

The only real question is: Which side do you choose?

transcendental obligation in this context?

Anyone, for example, believing in a deity, who created the universe and who will judge us all at the end of time, should regard the obligation to love one's neighbor as seriously as belief in that deity

But, of course, not everyone believes in such a deity. Those, who do not, still have (in my opinion) an option to choose to love one's neighbor, as an extraordinarily serious obligation. In this case, my view resembles the very striking language Regis Debray used to describe Che Guevara: "a mystic without a transcendent belief, a saint without a God." I do not mean that one must admire Guevara or approve of his aims or methods: I simply mean that we might make the decision, to really love our neighbors, with a fervor that resembles religious mysticism or a desire to serve some ultimate God, although absolutely no religious infra-structure remains to support the decision. I suspect that your objection to such a stance might remain unaltered --- namely, there is no logical foundation to the decision --- and I recognize that objection as "valid," so far as it goes, except that I do not think it actually goes very far

I do not think the objection goes far, because I agree with Kierkegaard's opening passage in Works of Love:

sounds similar to Sartre and existentialism.

and one item from column B.

No Substitutions.

if God has any effect on the physical Universe, there should be evidence of it.
If the Universe can be explained without a God, Occam's Razor would lead to there not being one.

Mitt Romney believes he will become a God after his physical death.

He will have his own planet to lord it over.

will be takers.

Or perhaps it is one iota more goofy.